From the Australian Herald Sun:
NOTHING beat SBS in the TV ratings on Wednesday night.
But in glum news for the public broadcaster, the nothing was a blank screen on Channel 7.
After a mystery technical snarl sent Seven off the air, viewers remained staunch. And its 48 minutes of beige, blank, soundless screen was preferred over SBS and, at times, the ABC.
At 9.09pm, viewers of the Blue Heelers episode Killing Time found themselves doing just that.
And at 9.30, when Air Crash Investigation was scheduled, the only thing down was Seven, still.
For Melbourne viewers, though, Seven's impromptu version of Blankety Blanks wasn't the worst thing on.
SBS's Dateline program -- tracking a volunteer doctor through the Congo -- had 105,000 fewer Melbourne viewers than Seven's non-event. And the ABC's acclaimed new comedy Nighty Night could have gone to bed early. It drew 35,000 fewer viewers than Seven's ad, sound and vision-free offering.
Even at its lowest point, the blank screen had 88,000 fans -- more than anything SBS ran all day.
I say make the "technical snarl" permanent, change the color at odd times, and call it the ScreenSaver Channel. It'll be a hit. (Also via Tim Blair)
Update: In contrast to another link in Mr. Blair's post, regarding a "moderate" Sheikh's recent endorsement of raping unveiled women, and to counter some of the vulgarities in his comments section, I recommend a fascinating article on Laylat Al-Isra wa Al-Miraj (The Night Journey and Ascension) of Muhammad:
The commentaries of Shaykh al-Maliki on the Night Journey are significant to the future of Islam as a faith and to the Saudi kingdom. This is because the irrational and absurd strictures imposed by the Wahhabis on Muslims and Saudi subjects include a rigorous ban on celebration of the Night Journey, normally observed on the 27th day of the Muslim month of Rajab.
Such is but one of many prohibitions enacted by Wahhabis against the traditions of classical Islam, which make moderate Muslims hate Wahhabism. Wahhabis also forbid celebration of the Prophet's birthday; commemoration of holy men and women (Muslim saints); the maintenance of graveyards; recitation of Fatiha, the first sura or chapter of Qur'an, for the dead; intercessory prayer through Muhammad, his companions, or the Muslim saints, and, of course, the entire practice of Sufism. Possession of the great Sufi books is a crime in the Saudi kingdom. Although Shaykh al-Maliki was the head of the Maliki school of Sunni Muslim law in the kingdom, he suffered from many acts of discrimination and marginalization. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was barred from preaching in the Grand Mosque at Mecca. Nevertheless, his funeral was the largest public event in recent years in the holy city.
Shaykh al-Maliki's writing on the Night Journey stands in direct and eloquent opposition to Wahhabi doctrine. A prominent Wahhabi bigot, Muhammad al-Munajjid, also known for declaring the South Asian tsunami a divine punishment against the celebration of Christmas and the Christian New Year, has declared that commemorating the Night Journey by holding special events is a bida, or forbidden innovation in Islam. By contrast, Shaykh al-Maliki not only encouraged marking this important Islamic spiritual landmark by festivals, but also offered some comments on the Prophet's rapture that would doubtless prove surprising to many non-Muslims.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Friday, April 15, 2005
Burger & Fries--Super Sized, Please
I lost eight pounds recently, bringing me to the ranks of those of normal weight. Hooray! Success did not come by significantly altering what I consume (apart from largely giving up on soft drinks), but by moderating my diet. I continue to act like I'm allergic to exercise--that which makes allowances for the occasional pig-out and would do wonders for my lingering paunch--but one hurdle at a time, okay?
That said, I beg Cookie Monster not to follow this example.
Update: I did not know it when I wrote the above, but today is McDonald's 50th anniversary. Happy Birthday, Mickey D's. (via Tim Blair)
That said, I beg Cookie Monster not to follow this example.
Update: I did not know it when I wrote the above, but today is McDonald's 50th anniversary. Happy Birthday, Mickey D's. (via Tim Blair)
Monday, April 11, 2005
Traffic Safety In Tennessee
How does the Tennessee Department of Safety announce a new project to relieve highway dangers?
By holding simultaneous press conferences in the middle of the interstate.
By holding simultaneous press conferences in the middle of the interstate.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
The "Star Wars" They Do Not Want You To See
We already know that George Lucas loves to tinker, but this trailer (warning: contains spoilers) for the original edit of Revenge of the Sith, then subtitled The Lost Hope, shows just how willing he can be to compromise the integrity of his craft.
The Duck Begins Here
When it comes to questionable government expenses, this is probably the cutest...
The duck, a brown mallard with white markings, has had several names suggested by Treasury Department people, including "Quacks Reform," "T-Bill," and "Duck Cheney." It has built a nest in a mulch pile right at the main entrance to the Treasury Department on Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Secret Service's uniformed division, which provides protection for the White House and Treasury building, has set up metal guard rails to protect the nest, which has attracted the notice of tourists on their way to see the White House.
Seems appropriate, actually, considering the lessons of ol' Scrooge McDuck.
The duck, a brown mallard with white markings, has had several names suggested by Treasury Department people, including "Quacks Reform," "T-Bill," and "Duck Cheney." It has built a nest in a mulch pile right at the main entrance to the Treasury Department on Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Secret Service's uniformed division, which provides protection for the White House and Treasury building, has set up metal guard rails to protect the nest, which has attracted the notice of tourists on their way to see the White House.
Seems appropriate, actually, considering the lessons of ol' Scrooge McDuck.
Humanitarianism And Iraq
I referenced Norman Geras a couple of times here, so that may explain why The Tone-Deaf Mushroom is now among the links on his blog, though I like to think my charming personality has something to do with it (stop laughing). Endorsements or criticism always make it easier for me to write, because I don't feel as though I am venting into a void. So thank you, Norm, though admittedly I never dreamt I would receive promotion from a Marxism scholar!
The issue that attracted me to Geras' blog in the first place was his thoughtful approach to the Iraq War. From his latest post on the topic:
We were not choosing between a real-world war and an ideal-world peace (of glowing humanitarian projects), any more than critics will be willing to allow the opposite - that we were choosing between an ideal-world war (of glorious, costless liberation) and a tarnished real-world peace. We were choosing between a real regime-change war and a real avoidance of war that would have spared the regime in question - with all the complexities there are, of value and of cost and benefit, on either side of that choice structure. The pressure to simplify possibly reflects some troubledness of mind with a less simplified statement of the case. It's hard to know.
Of course my screed is what it is, long and repetitive, in no small part due to those complexities. I recently wrote an e-mail (reprinted in revised form below, for archival purposes) that offered a few summery notes precisely because we need more serious discussion on what the war meant and what it should mean for us today.
I mentioned that the international community should have put more pressure on Hussein than Bush if it were genuinely concerned about peace. The response was that there is "a huge difference between trying to increase pressure on a country like Iraq via international coalitions." That is true. Even something like a World War II-style coalition of the willing would suffice. Apparently, America went into Iraq unilaterally--nobody from England, or Australia, or Poland, not even strictly humanitarian support from countries like Japan. Still, I must say America is doing well considering that there is no international coalition in Iraq.
The United Nations received a mention. The U.N. exposes the biggest flaw in U.S. foreign policy: We are the wealthiest nation in the world, so why aren't we buying nations off? It worked for Saddam for years. The Enron on the East River illustrates time and time again that you can get at least helpful indifference for anything, up to and including genocide, provided you make the right noises. It may catch up with you later, perhaps, but unless some agitators like the United States or Australia raise a fuss, by then you achieved whatever it is was you wanted and can safely retire to a comfy villa in France. One of our fair-weather allies made a chunk of change aiding the slaughter in Rwanda, Sudan remains a killing field, six countries facing sanctions for ongoing human rights abuses made a full third of the commission to investigate human rights abuses, Iran has a say regarding cracking down on WMD proliferation, etc., so perhaps America should pay its dues to the international Murder, Inc., chalk up some brownie points by spreading the cash to kleptocracies (before President Bush ruins all the best ones), and after awhile we'll be able to indiscriminately carpet bomb Antarctica (there is something fishy about those birds in formalwear). Plus, I see that a large number of U.N. peacekeepers are experts at pillaging, and we could use the help: Our rampage in Iraq has been a disaster; insurgents keep messing things up before our troops get a turn.
There was also a suggestion that those people mutilating others will behave if we just don't talk so mean.
Yes, I love making snarky comments, but there is more at stake.
Here is a story. Frank Devine's research for The Australian pointed to one conclusion on the Iraq invasion:
The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement."
In short, illicit weapons programs and human rights abuses in Iraq provided a smokescreen for a containment policy against Saudi Arabia. Is it true? I have no idea. Is it a legitimate rationale for the war? Arguably. But it illustrates how the human tendency to lock into a specific possibility at the expense of all others can account for unnecessary conflicts. Devine may be correct, but that has nothing to do with why I support the presence in Iraq or whether my reasoning is correct. It is possible that both pro-intervention and anti-intervention forces are right to some extent (i.e., Bush did a good thing for bad reasons, or a bad thing for good reasons). It may actually explain some of the cognitive dissonance we see. My view of the Iraq War and subsequent occupation is not "Did [insert name here]justify this?" or some other question for which the answer can vary wildly depending on whatever narrow position you take, but the broad, challenging "Is this justifiable?" We need honesty and reason (and snarky comments).
Anyway, as promised...
From An E-Mail To My Friends
No human is so "good" as to be trusted with absolute control over others. That is one reason why having a representative government is so important as to be essential.
But if the world is so bad, how could any sane person see much good in himself? The average person surrounded by death does not conclude that he is immortal. Quite the opposite, in fact. So what is the man who sees himself in a positive light comparing himself to in order to make his conclusion? There is goodness in the world, and it requires defending. Vaclav Havel noted that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by force."
These are hardly ideas originating from "neo-conservatives". President Bill Clinton urged the overthrow of the Iraqi regime in 1998, Congress passed his bill making "Iraq liberation" official U.S. policy, and he signed it into law. Heck, just read what former Vice President Al Gore said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations not too long ago:
Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.
Also, Bush could only have invaded with the support of Congress (which holds the purse, and is the sole government power capable of legally authorizing military force) and the American people (he is a democratic politician, after all, and is thus very much poll-driven). Regardless of whether the decision was the right one, nobody can truthfully say it happened on a whim, was never debated, and bypassed the public and institutional checks-and-balances of our American republic.
There are many reasons why I stand by my support of the Iraq intervention. That it saved lives is one of them, no matter how bold the lies of those who wish it were otherwise. The lowest estimates indicate that Saddam Hussein's regime killed about 5,000 Iraqis every month by deliberately withholding food and medical supplies, and violently executed hundreds of Iraqis a month (including children). Unless we assume these practices would have ceased by now in Iraq without intervention (a rather difficult assumption, considering blowing up Iraqis or shoving them into plastic shredders were long established as regime entertainment), that equals at least 124,800 lives over 24 months. IraqBodyCount.net, which liberally includes "insurgents" as "civilians" and factors in unsubstantiated death claims, currently puts the Iraqi death toll at a maximum of 19,800. So the policy Clinton initiated saved around 105,000 Iraqis thus far. (Frankly, I am impressed that the Iraqi death rate is so low. I recall reading that the brief [and truly useless] war with Iraq in 1998 killed nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians a day.)
I am not one for speculation that a Democratic president would have done better, whether in planning or merely leaving the gate. Gore was a major contributor to the policy of regime change in Iraq, and there are few circumstances where leaving a mass-murdering sociopathic dictator in power may be necessary. Gore has since changed his tune, true, but then that happens a lot when trying to appease a political base while part of a minority party. Clinton and his senator wife are still among the Democratic supporters of the Iraq War, so a President Gore, only having to worry about a hostile Congress and buoyed by his predecessor, may very well have gone much the same route as the current POTUS. I think of Art Buchwald's famous "If Goldwater Had Won" column.
As for culpability for lives lost (including Americans), here comes my own speculation: Everybody is to blame. The U.S. wanted the Husseins to go into exile, and for the United Nations to handle administration of Iraq a la Afghanistan--a handover that I propose would not have caused anywhere near as much bloodshed. All the international community had to do was apply enough pressure to Saddam & Sons. After all, the worst that could happen was what happened anyway when the international community chose to shout streams of rhetoric instead. France, China, Russia, etc., are as culpable as the United States, England, Australia, etc.; surely lives could have been saved had they made as much effort in working out a peaceful solution as they did in having fits and protests over one "last resort" solution many of them had approved previously.
I believe in liberty, specifically that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" (Thomas Jefferson). Where "rightful liberty" exists, I have little stomach for intrusions--not from my government, or anyone else's. If the people do not have it, I say we give them the opportunity to grab it, through force if necessary. It is the only social construct that inherently allows for its own rejection, so they can always opt for imprisonment or servitude later.
For my part, I still have hours' worth of unused notes and URLs, and all that research has me utterly convinced that going into Iraq was the correct thing to do come hell or high water. Iraq may be a morass, but it was one before the war. On top of the mass murder, the entire country’s infrastructure largely existed only in places Saddam liked, with a great many people surviving without such niceties as the electricity and clean water they have at least some access to now. True, he kept the people "in line" so that there were considerably fewer crimes and no terrorist attacks, but then Iraq had little need for criminals--Saddam's security forces offered better pay for the same activities. And unlike during Saddam reign, the new morass has always had a shot at ending in the foreseeable future. There is hope. That counts for quite a lot.
The issue that attracted me to Geras' blog in the first place was his thoughtful approach to the Iraq War. From his latest post on the topic:
We were not choosing between a real-world war and an ideal-world peace (of glowing humanitarian projects), any more than critics will be willing to allow the opposite - that we were choosing between an ideal-world war (of glorious, costless liberation) and a tarnished real-world peace. We were choosing between a real regime-change war and a real avoidance of war that would have spared the regime in question - with all the complexities there are, of value and of cost and benefit, on either side of that choice structure. The pressure to simplify possibly reflects some troubledness of mind with a less simplified statement of the case. It's hard to know.
Of course my screed is what it is, long and repetitive, in no small part due to those complexities. I recently wrote an e-mail (reprinted in revised form below, for archival purposes) that offered a few summery notes precisely because we need more serious discussion on what the war meant and what it should mean for us today.
I mentioned that the international community should have put more pressure on Hussein than Bush if it were genuinely concerned about peace. The response was that there is "a huge difference between trying to increase pressure on a country like Iraq via international coalitions." That is true. Even something like a World War II-style coalition of the willing would suffice. Apparently, America went into Iraq unilaterally--nobody from England, or Australia, or Poland, not even strictly humanitarian support from countries like Japan. Still, I must say America is doing well considering that there is no international coalition in Iraq.
The United Nations received a mention. The U.N. exposes the biggest flaw in U.S. foreign policy: We are the wealthiest nation in the world, so why aren't we buying nations off? It worked for Saddam for years. The Enron on the East River illustrates time and time again that you can get at least helpful indifference for anything, up to and including genocide, provided you make the right noises. It may catch up with you later, perhaps, but unless some agitators like the United States or Australia raise a fuss, by then you achieved whatever it is was you wanted and can safely retire to a comfy villa in France. One of our fair-weather allies made a chunk of change aiding the slaughter in Rwanda, Sudan remains a killing field, six countries facing sanctions for ongoing human rights abuses made a full third of the commission to investigate human rights abuses, Iran has a say regarding cracking down on WMD proliferation, etc., so perhaps America should pay its dues to the international Murder, Inc., chalk up some brownie points by spreading the cash to kleptocracies (before President Bush ruins all the best ones), and after awhile we'll be able to indiscriminately carpet bomb Antarctica (there is something fishy about those birds in formalwear). Plus, I see that a large number of U.N. peacekeepers are experts at pillaging, and we could use the help: Our rampage in Iraq has been a disaster; insurgents keep messing things up before our troops get a turn.
There was also a suggestion that those people mutilating others will behave if we just don't talk so mean.
Yes, I love making snarky comments, but there is more at stake.
Here is a story. Frank Devine's research for The Australian pointed to one conclusion on the Iraq invasion:
The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement."
In short, illicit weapons programs and human rights abuses in Iraq provided a smokescreen for a containment policy against Saudi Arabia. Is it true? I have no idea. Is it a legitimate rationale for the war? Arguably. But it illustrates how the human tendency to lock into a specific possibility at the expense of all others can account for unnecessary conflicts. Devine may be correct, but that has nothing to do with why I support the presence in Iraq or whether my reasoning is correct. It is possible that both pro-intervention and anti-intervention forces are right to some extent (i.e., Bush did a good thing for bad reasons, or a bad thing for good reasons). It may actually explain some of the cognitive dissonance we see. My view of the Iraq War and subsequent occupation is not "Did [insert name here]
Anyway, as promised...
From An E-Mail To My Friends
No human is so "good" as to be trusted with absolute control over others. That is one reason why having a representative government is so important as to be essential.
But if the world is so bad, how could any sane person see much good in himself? The average person surrounded by death does not conclude that he is immortal. Quite the opposite, in fact. So what is the man who sees himself in a positive light comparing himself to in order to make his conclusion? There is goodness in the world, and it requires defending. Vaclav Havel noted that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by force."
These are hardly ideas originating from "neo-conservatives". President Bill Clinton urged the overthrow of the Iraqi regime in 1998, Congress passed his bill making "Iraq liberation" official U.S. policy, and he signed it into law. Heck, just read what former Vice President Al Gore said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations not too long ago:
Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.
Also, Bush could only have invaded with the support of Congress (which holds the purse, and is the sole government power capable of legally authorizing military force) and the American people (he is a democratic politician, after all, and is thus very much poll-driven). Regardless of whether the decision was the right one, nobody can truthfully say it happened on a whim, was never debated, and bypassed the public and institutional checks-and-balances of our American republic.
There are many reasons why I stand by my support of the Iraq intervention. That it saved lives is one of them, no matter how bold the lies of those who wish it were otherwise. The lowest estimates indicate that Saddam Hussein's regime killed about 5,000 Iraqis every month by deliberately withholding food and medical supplies, and violently executed hundreds of Iraqis a month (including children). Unless we assume these practices would have ceased by now in Iraq without intervention (a rather difficult assumption, considering blowing up Iraqis or shoving them into plastic shredders were long established as regime entertainment), that equals at least 124,800 lives over 24 months. IraqBodyCount.net, which liberally includes "insurgents" as "civilians" and factors in unsubstantiated death claims, currently puts the Iraqi death toll at a maximum of 19,800. So the policy Clinton initiated saved around 105,000 Iraqis thus far. (Frankly, I am impressed that the Iraqi death rate is so low. I recall reading that the brief [and truly useless] war with Iraq in 1998 killed nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians a day.)
I am not one for speculation that a Democratic president would have done better, whether in planning or merely leaving the gate. Gore was a major contributor to the policy of regime change in Iraq, and there are few circumstances where leaving a mass-murdering sociopathic dictator in power may be necessary. Gore has since changed his tune, true, but then that happens a lot when trying to appease a political base while part of a minority party. Clinton and his senator wife are still among the Democratic supporters of the Iraq War, so a President Gore, only having to worry about a hostile Congress and buoyed by his predecessor, may very well have gone much the same route as the current POTUS. I think of Art Buchwald's famous "If Goldwater Had Won" column.
As for culpability for lives lost (including Americans), here comes my own speculation: Everybody is to blame. The U.S. wanted the Husseins to go into exile, and for the United Nations to handle administration of Iraq a la Afghanistan--a handover that I propose would not have caused anywhere near as much bloodshed. All the international community had to do was apply enough pressure to Saddam & Sons. After all, the worst that could happen was what happened anyway when the international community chose to shout streams of rhetoric instead. France, China, Russia, etc., are as culpable as the United States, England, Australia, etc.; surely lives could have been saved had they made as much effort in working out a peaceful solution as they did in having fits and protests over one "last resort" solution many of them had approved previously.
I believe in liberty, specifically that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" (Thomas Jefferson). Where "rightful liberty" exists, I have little stomach for intrusions--not from my government, or anyone else's. If the people do not have it, I say we give them the opportunity to grab it, through force if necessary. It is the only social construct that inherently allows for its own rejection, so they can always opt for imprisonment or servitude later.
For my part, I still have hours' worth of unused notes and URLs, and all that research has me utterly convinced that going into Iraq was the correct thing to do come hell or high water. Iraq may be a morass, but it was one before the war. On top of the mass murder, the entire country’s infrastructure largely existed only in places Saddam liked, with a great many people surviving without such niceties as the electricity and clean water they have at least some access to now. True, he kept the people "in line" so that there were considerably fewer crimes and no terrorist attacks, but then Iraq had little need for criminals--Saddam's security forces offered better pay for the same activities. And unlike during Saddam reign, the new morass has always had a shot at ending in the foreseeable future. There is hope. That counts for quite a lot.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Bad Chimera
A National Geographic story from January: Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras--a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.
Curiously, this article on fractionally-human beasts makes no mention of members of Congress.
Curiously, this article on fractionally-human beasts makes no mention of members of Congress.
R.I.P. John Paul II
Much has changed in the 26 years since Karol Wojtyla's papal election. Food, literacy, wealth, charity, medical care, environmental stewardship, and essential freedoms are more widespread now than at any moment in Earth's past. Countries are now debating same-sex marriages, when just a short time ago they were imprisoning homosexuals, condemning interracial marriages and enforcing segregation. Western wars are looking less like wars and more like police actions, while the most heinous crimes result from indifference or unseriousness such as we see happening with Sudan. An unregulated Internet enables the rapid distribution of ideas, as well as rapid responses to ideas. We remain every bit as a fallen as our ancestors (albeit in different ways), and human progress is always of the one-step-back-for-every-two-steps-forward variety, but at the same time we are struggling to rise with greater nobility than before. There were leaps and bounds in a matter of a few decades, and I have every reason to look to more leaps and bounds. My motto: Prepare for the worst, but hope for and work toward the best.
With the [beautiful, if repetitious] funeral of Pope John Paul II now at an end, I recall the Holy Father's ministry with both sadness and satisfaction. In attempting to mold entire societies to Church dogma (see today's quote) he held ill-considered views on homosexuality and the like, while on a related theme his blanket opposition to matters like therapeutic cloning and stem cell research revealed frightening scientific blind spots. He was also the pope who wholeheartedly embraced the Church's oft-neglected view that "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go," brought the papacy into the 20th Century with outreach well beyond traditional Catholicism, was as much a force in working toward the collapse of the Soviet Union as Ronald Reagan (who was socially liberal compared to the pope, come to think of it), and brought powerful diplomatic force to bear on behalf of countless lives in need. He fought intelligently, ethically and devoutly for some of the progress we take for granted. I respect him for that.
With the [beautiful, if repetitious] funeral of Pope John Paul II now at an end, I recall the Holy Father's ministry with both sadness and satisfaction. In attempting to mold entire societies to Church dogma (see today's quote) he held ill-considered views on homosexuality and the like, while on a related theme his blanket opposition to matters like therapeutic cloning and stem cell research revealed frightening scientific blind spots. He was also the pope who wholeheartedly embraced the Church's oft-neglected view that "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go," brought the papacy into the 20th Century with outreach well beyond traditional Catholicism, was as much a force in working toward the collapse of the Soviet Union as Ronald Reagan (who was socially liberal compared to the pope, come to think of it), and brought powerful diplomatic force to bear on behalf of countless lives in need. He fought intelligently, ethically and devoutly for some of the progress we take for granted. I respect him for that.
Friday's Quote
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: ...I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question--how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.
That logic applies to many things in many places, not only British divorce laws.
That logic applies to many things in many places, not only British divorce laws.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Gun For Your Lives: A 2nd Amendment Round-Up
I've tackled how "the right to buy weapons is the right to be free" (Vincent van Gogh) in some detail, but David's Medienkritik observes a new low: Watch pockets are evil! You can store ammunition in them! Levi's jeans = fascist!
Murder is tragic and serious, so why do inanimate objects absurdly take the blame?
And the following is from a reader...
Think about this:
A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500.
C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner 0.0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock may cause people to seek medical attention.
Murder is tragic and serious, so why do inanimate objects absurdly take the blame?
And the following is from a reader...
Think about this:
A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500.
C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner 0.0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock may cause people to seek medical attention.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Finger Food
You might try avoiding Wendy's for awhile. Especially if you are related to this guy.
Update: Wendy's can't figure out what happened, and the woman in question has a litigious history.
What I want to know is: Where is the rest of the body?
Update II: The woman in question is now under arrest.
Update: Wendy's can't figure out what happened, and the woman in question has a litigious history.
What I want to know is: Where is the rest of the body?
Update II: The woman in question is now under arrest.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Orkney Terrine, With Sunrise
BBC reports that a famed British composer is in trouble with the law:
The Queen's composer has ruffled feathers after police found the body of a swan at his home.
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Master of the Queen's Music, was cautioned over the discovery of the remains of a protected species at his house in Orkney.
He said the bird died after hitting a power line. When police called at his home he offered them swan terrine.
It is yummy, Sir Max. When are you going to do Swan Bake?
The Queen's composer has ruffled feathers after police found the body of a swan at his home.
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Master of the Queen's Music, was cautioned over the discovery of the remains of a protected species at his house in Orkney.
He said the bird died after hitting a power line. When police called at his home he offered them swan terrine.
It is yummy, Sir Max. When are you going to do Swan Bake?
This Entry Is Not Titled "Crying Wolfowitz"
After Reuters' penetrating analysis on why insurgents in Iraq target Iraqis, you may wonder how the press could be less intelligent. But Paul Wolfowitz's nomination to head the World Bank offers new heights of lowness:
Norman Geras observes (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") that The Guardian continues its tradition of employing Britain's mentally impaired. "Some worry that his strong emphasis on human rights may complicate relations with China," says the editorial, without reference or logic (putting a human rights champion at the World Bank is bad?).
For out-and-out bias, though, James Taranto (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") leans into The New York Times over this:
The announcement, coming on the heels of the appointment of John R. Bolton as the new American ambassador to the United Nations, was greeted with quiet anguish in those foreign capitals where the Iraq conflict and its aftermath remain deeply unpopular, and where Mr. Wolfowitz's drive to spread democracy around the world has been viewed with some suspicion. . . .
Despite the displeasure of some diplomats who had hoped that the administration would appoint a person without the almost radioactive reputation of a committed ideologue, they said that they expected Mr. Wolfowitz to receive the approval of the World Bank's board of directors in time for Mr. Wolfensohn's departure in May.
Taranto also forwards a priceless quote from an unnamed French official: "We all know he has strong convictions, and that is a bit frightening." I'm guessing the official is from Vichy.
Update: On a related note, the gross inflation of Iraqi deaths continues in the press. This is worse than the unstoppable fake turkey fantasy.
Norman Geras observes (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") that The Guardian continues its tradition of employing Britain's mentally impaired. "Some worry that his strong emphasis on human rights may complicate relations with China," says the editorial, without reference or logic (putting a human rights champion at the World Bank is bad?).
For out-and-out bias, though, James Taranto (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") leans into The New York Times over this:
The announcement, coming on the heels of the appointment of John R. Bolton as the new American ambassador to the United Nations, was greeted with quiet anguish in those foreign capitals where the Iraq conflict and its aftermath remain deeply unpopular, and where Mr. Wolfowitz's drive to spread democracy around the world has been viewed with some suspicion. . . .
Despite the displeasure of some diplomats who had hoped that the administration would appoint a person without the almost radioactive reputation of a committed ideologue, they said that they expected Mr. Wolfowitz to receive the approval of the World Bank's board of directors in time for Mr. Wolfensohn's departure in May.
Taranto also forwards a priceless quote from an unnamed French official: "We all know he has strong convictions, and that is a bit frightening." I'm guessing the official is from Vichy.
Update: On a related note, the gross inflation of Iraqi deaths continues in the press. This is worse than the unstoppable fake turkey fantasy.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Social Security Tango
The QandO Blog notes that the Washington Post report on Bush's social security plans is not entirely honest...
The public overwhelmingly disapproves of 1) the way Bush is handling Social Security (56% - 35%), and 2) "Bush's proposals on Social Security" (55% - 37%).
But the public also overwhelmingly supports — by a margin of 56% - 41% — "a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Uh.....
That brings up a couple questions:
1. Where have I seen a plan like that before?
2. If the public supports personal accounts, then to which of Bush's "proposals on Social Security" do they object? Because the only thing he's actually proposed is the option to "invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Investment specialist Donald Luskin wrote an eviscerating response to critics of SS privatization back in December. 'Tis worth reading.
The public overwhelmingly disapproves of 1) the way Bush is handling Social Security (56% - 35%), and 2) "Bush's proposals on Social Security" (55% - 37%).
But the public also overwhelmingly supports — by a margin of 56% - 41% — "a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Uh.....
That brings up a couple questions:
1. Where have I seen a plan like that before?
2. If the public supports personal accounts, then to which of Bush's "proposals on Social Security" do they object? Because the only thing he's actually proposed is the option to "invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Investment specialist Donald Luskin wrote an eviscerating response to critics of SS privatization back in December. 'Tis worth reading.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Tomorrow Never Lies
A look around at Snopes reveals a sad truth about mankind: We love gossip. We especially love gossip presented as news, never mind the absurdity.
For example, much is still made about NASA's use of an anti-gravity pen that can write in weightlessness and the million-dollar cost of developing it, whereas the Soviet Union's cosmonauts simply used grease pencils. That NASA also started out with grease pencils, but found them too expensive (nearly $130 per unit in 1965) and insufficient for their needs, receives less discussion. NASA eventually purchased the "spacepen," developed and paid for solely by the Fisher Pen Co., for $6 per unit in 1967. Cosmonauts stopped using the pencils in favor of the American-made pens in 1969. The American and Russian space agencies continue to use the pens today.
While the "NASA wasted money on a space pen" story is untrue and can serve as an anti-American anecdote, it is frivolous. Nobody goes crazy over it. More harmful are conspiracy theories. "Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says a recent debunking of 9/11 myths in Popular Mechanics. We see some of the same lunacy about Iraq, whether it is those Americans who believe Saddam Hussein directly aided the 9/11 attacks, or in critics of the war who insist the only justification was the "misguided concern" (if they are polite) over weapons of mass destruction. Both views have some supporting facts, but then so do many illusions.
How do we deal with misinformation? One of the reasons I started this blog was to share what I know. I like to think that helps. Another reason was to learn, because I do not know everything. We all have our biases and our blind spots, and blogging enables an open accounting of them. There is no place where such an open accounting is inappropriate. We ought to encourage it. So while suspicions that there are government plans to bar free expression on web logs may be misplaced (update: or not), I still have to worry when Massachusetts senator John Kerry sounds a similar note:
If 77 percent of the people who voted for George Bush on Election Day believed weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq--as they did--and 77 percent of the people who voted for him believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11--as they did--then something has happened in the way in which we are talking to each other and who is arbitrating the truth in American politics... When fear is dominating the discussion and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem.
We will have a bigger problem when there is an arbitrator. Who decides what is true, and how? Who chooses this arbitrator? What standards and safeguards ensure that the arbitrator is fair, and how does the arbitrator differ from the legal standards and safeguards that already exist? The First Amendment has no requirements on facts, which actually works in your favor, Sen. Kerry. (I understand that you are still upset over the American people not rewarding you for offering such votes of confidence. Perhaps if you call Americans stupid outright, rather than dressing it up in "nuance," you might win more votes in '08. Bluntness worked for that other fella.)
We learned that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning.
You would say that. From an Associated Press report on a Project for Excellence in Journalism study: "A more limited look at campaign coverage found that 36 percent of stories on President Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Democrat John Kerry. Stories were positive 20 percent of the time for Bush, 30 percent for Kerry, said the project, which examined some 250 stories for tone."
But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information.
Darn you, bloggers! Darn you all to heck! You laugh at me! Do you know who I am?
And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country.
The mainstream media deserves it. Widening personal discussion, encouraging independent research, and embracing reason are healthy steps forward in the age of globalization. On these traits, the media is slipping out of the mainstream. Another argument is that the people drive the basic dynamics of the United States of America's media; those in the American media who do not follow the changes will never rise above them.
And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that.
This cannot possibly be a good thing, because...? I'll repeat the P.J. O'Rourke summery: "American free speech needs to be submitted to arbitration because Americans aren't smart enough to have a First Amendment, and you can tell this is so, because Americans weren't smart enough to vote for John Kerry."
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
We could start by teaching you about civil liberties, you pompous censor.
Nobody can doubt that, intentionally or not, misinformation spreads far and wide. What we should doubt is that limiting free expression is wiser and more liberal than countering dishonest speech with honesty. I prefer our arrangement where a fraud is comfortable telling a lie over one where I am afraid to tell the truth.
For example, much is still made about NASA's use of an anti-gravity pen that can write in weightlessness and the million-dollar cost of developing it, whereas the Soviet Union's cosmonauts simply used grease pencils. That NASA also started out with grease pencils, but found them too expensive (nearly $130 per unit in 1965) and insufficient for their needs, receives less discussion. NASA eventually purchased the "spacepen," developed and paid for solely by the Fisher Pen Co., for $6 per unit in 1967. Cosmonauts stopped using the pencils in favor of the American-made pens in 1969. The American and Russian space agencies continue to use the pens today.
While the "NASA wasted money on a space pen" story is untrue and can serve as an anti-American anecdote, it is frivolous. Nobody goes crazy over it. More harmful are conspiracy theories. "Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says a recent debunking of 9/11 myths in Popular Mechanics. We see some of the same lunacy about Iraq, whether it is those Americans who believe Saddam Hussein directly aided the 9/11 attacks, or in critics of the war who insist the only justification was the "misguided concern" (if they are polite) over weapons of mass destruction. Both views have some supporting facts, but then so do many illusions.
How do we deal with misinformation? One of the reasons I started this blog was to share what I know. I like to think that helps. Another reason was to learn, because I do not know everything. We all have our biases and our blind spots, and blogging enables an open accounting of them. There is no place where such an open accounting is inappropriate. We ought to encourage it. So while suspicions that there are government plans to bar free expression on web logs may be misplaced (update: or not), I still have to worry when Massachusetts senator John Kerry sounds a similar note:
If 77 percent of the people who voted for George Bush on Election Day believed weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq--as they did--and 77 percent of the people who voted for him believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11--as they did--then something has happened in the way in which we are talking to each other and who is arbitrating the truth in American politics... When fear is dominating the discussion and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem.
We will have a bigger problem when there is an arbitrator. Who decides what is true, and how? Who chooses this arbitrator? What standards and safeguards ensure that the arbitrator is fair, and how does the arbitrator differ from the legal standards and safeguards that already exist? The First Amendment has no requirements on facts, which actually works in your favor, Sen. Kerry. (I understand that you are still upset over the American people not rewarding you for offering such votes of confidence. Perhaps if you call Americans stupid outright, rather than dressing it up in "nuance," you might win more votes in '08. Bluntness worked for that other fella.)
We learned that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning.
You would say that. From an Associated Press report on a Project for Excellence in Journalism study: "A more limited look at campaign coverage found that 36 percent of stories on President Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Democrat John Kerry. Stories were positive 20 percent of the time for Bush, 30 percent for Kerry, said the project, which examined some 250 stories for tone."
But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information.
Darn you, bloggers! Darn you all to heck! You laugh at me! Do you know who I am?
And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country.
The mainstream media deserves it. Widening personal discussion, encouraging independent research, and embracing reason are healthy steps forward in the age of globalization. On these traits, the media is slipping out of the mainstream. Another argument is that the people drive the basic dynamics of the United States of America's media; those in the American media who do not follow the changes will never rise above them.
And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that.
This cannot possibly be a good thing, because...? I'll repeat the P.J. O'Rourke summery: "American free speech needs to be submitted to arbitration because Americans aren't smart enough to have a First Amendment, and you can tell this is so, because Americans weren't smart enough to vote for John Kerry."
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
We could start by teaching you about civil liberties, you pompous censor.
Nobody can doubt that, intentionally or not, misinformation spreads far and wide. What we should doubt is that limiting free expression is wiser and more liberal than countering dishonest speech with honesty. I prefer our arrangement where a fraud is comfortable telling a lie over one where I am afraid to tell the truth.
Friday, March 11, 2005
United Patients
Many are deeply skeptical of President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as America's United Nations ambassador. They have good reason to worry, which means that a U.N. official seemingly intent on shooting the organization in the foot (another U.N. official...) had to open his mouth and make Bolton look ideal. In this instance, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown, chose to say something silly:
Democracy has a lot longer roots and a lot more friends than just the current campaign of President Bush.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. England and Australia are also particularly active on championing representative governments, and are not afraid to work with the United States not only diplomatically but, when appropriate, militarily as well. That said, President Bush is the first American leader to make actually being a powerful friend--rather than simply talking like one--a key to both national security and foreign policy. He may deserve some praise for that. An excerpt from P.J. O'Rourke's upcoming "Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism" touches on Bush's reasoning...
Americans would like to ignore foreign policy. Our previous attempts at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan. Evil is an outreach program. A solitary bad person sitting alone, harboring genocidal thoughts, and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in the trailer park. In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does.
America has to act. But, when America acts, other nations accuse us of being “hegemonistic,” of engaging in “unilateralism,” of behaving as if we’re the only nation on earth that counts.
We are. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned "to spend more time with the family." China is supposed to be mighty, but the Chinese leadership quakes when a couple of hundred Falun Gong members do tai chi for Jesus. The European Union looks impressive on paper, with a greater population and a larger economy than America's. But the military spending of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy combined does not equal one third of the U.S. defense budget. The United States spends more on defense than the aforementioned countries—plus Russia plus China plus the next six top defense-spending nations. Any multilateral military or diplomatic effort that includes the United States is a crew team with Arnold Schwarzenegger as coxswain and Nadia Comaneci on the oars. When other countries demand a role in the exercise of global power, America can ask another fundamental American question: "You and what army?"
...Fascists do bad things just to be bad. "I'm the baddest dude in Baghdad," Saddam Hussein was saying, "the baddest cat in the Middle East. I'm way bad." This was way stupid. But fascists are stupid. Consider Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have any. How stupid does that make Saddam? All he had to do was say to UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, "Look where you want. Look beneath the couch cushions. Look under my bed. Look in the special spider hole I'm keeping for emergencies." And Saddam Hussein could have gone on dictatoring away until Donald Rumsfeld is elected head of the World Council of Churches.
Instead, we blew the place to bits. And a mess was left behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight aggressive wars; a mess without the facilities to develop dangerous weapons; a mess that cannot systematically kill, torture, and oppress millions of its citizens. It's a mess with a message--don't mess with us.
Regardless of whether one considers the policy wise, unwise, or mediocre, its foundation has nothing to do with Bush inventing democracy--again, who thinks he did?--and everything to do with supporting it. If you care so much about democracy, Bush challenges, then try to act a little more like you mean it.
The conference gets stranger. Not satisfied with watching Malloch Brown lash out against suggestions Bush never made, Chilean Vice-President Jose Miguel Insulza tossed in a cliché:
We must also remember that democracy develops from within the people.
We must also remember that some people needed a lot of help developing a viable democracy (read: a representative constitutional republic) over the years... frequently through having the first step imposed by outside forces... most successfully by the United States and Friends.
He also warns of "a hidden agenda" if a single country promotes democracy. Assuming, for the sake of his argument, that more nations do not add more hidden agendas, this still raises the question of why the multinational United Nations is not therefore working harder at promoting democracy. We see counsels and committees, but concrete actions are few and far between. Until world leaders get busy, it is difficult for many Americans to take international complaints about Bush's actions seriously. If you can do a better job, guys, then now is a fine time to start.
Democracy has a lot longer roots and a lot more friends than just the current campaign of President Bush.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. England and Australia are also particularly active on championing representative governments, and are not afraid to work with the United States not only diplomatically but, when appropriate, militarily as well. That said, President Bush is the first American leader to make actually being a powerful friend--rather than simply talking like one--a key to both national security and foreign policy. He may deserve some praise for that. An excerpt from P.J. O'Rourke's upcoming "Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism" touches on Bush's reasoning...
Americans would like to ignore foreign policy. Our previous attempts at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan. Evil is an outreach program. A solitary bad person sitting alone, harboring genocidal thoughts, and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in the trailer park. In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does.
America has to act. But, when America acts, other nations accuse us of being “hegemonistic,” of engaging in “unilateralism,” of behaving as if we’re the only nation on earth that counts.
We are. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned "to spend more time with the family." China is supposed to be mighty, but the Chinese leadership quakes when a couple of hundred Falun Gong members do tai chi for Jesus. The European Union looks impressive on paper, with a greater population and a larger economy than America's. But the military spending of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy combined does not equal one third of the U.S. defense budget. The United States spends more on defense than the aforementioned countries—plus Russia plus China plus the next six top defense-spending nations. Any multilateral military or diplomatic effort that includes the United States is a crew team with Arnold Schwarzenegger as coxswain and Nadia Comaneci on the oars. When other countries demand a role in the exercise of global power, America can ask another fundamental American question: "You and what army?"
...Fascists do bad things just to be bad. "I'm the baddest dude in Baghdad," Saddam Hussein was saying, "the baddest cat in the Middle East. I'm way bad." This was way stupid. But fascists are stupid. Consider Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have any. How stupid does that make Saddam? All he had to do was say to UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, "Look where you want. Look beneath the couch cushions. Look under my bed. Look in the special spider hole I'm keeping for emergencies." And Saddam Hussein could have gone on dictatoring away until Donald Rumsfeld is elected head of the World Council of Churches.
Instead, we blew the place to bits. And a mess was left behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight aggressive wars; a mess without the facilities to develop dangerous weapons; a mess that cannot systematically kill, torture, and oppress millions of its citizens. It's a mess with a message--don't mess with us.
Regardless of whether one considers the policy wise, unwise, or mediocre, its foundation has nothing to do with Bush inventing democracy--again, who thinks he did?--and everything to do with supporting it. If you care so much about democracy, Bush challenges, then try to act a little more like you mean it.
The conference gets stranger. Not satisfied with watching Malloch Brown lash out against suggestions Bush never made, Chilean Vice-President Jose Miguel Insulza tossed in a cliché:
We must also remember that democracy develops from within the people.
We must also remember that some people needed a lot of help developing a viable democracy (read: a representative constitutional republic) over the years... frequently through having the first step imposed by outside forces... most successfully by the United States and Friends.
He also warns of "a hidden agenda" if a single country promotes democracy. Assuming, for the sake of his argument, that more nations do not add more hidden agendas, this still raises the question of why the multinational United Nations is not therefore working harder at promoting democracy. We see counsels and committees, but concrete actions are few and far between. Until world leaders get busy, it is difficult for many Americans to take international complaints about Bush's actions seriously. If you can do a better job, guys, then now is a fine time to start.
Progressive Zoology
Since this blog metaphorically fell into a hole in February, I am linking to this story about a month late. It is still worth reading.
Ananova also posted an update, by the way. They make no mention of the two imported males from the earlier story, so I guess that at least the experiment didn't backfire.
Ananova also posted an update, by the way. They make no mention of the two imported males from the earlier story, so I guess that at least the experiment didn't backfire.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Confession: I Am A Capitalist Pig
Ayn Rand: If capitalists are as evil as you say they are, what magic faculty endows a politician with virtue? If men who deal with others by means of voluntary trade are selfish monsters, how does... the right to force others transform a man into a selfless public servant?
Some say making a profit, especially a hefty profit, is selfish or greedy. You know what? I don't want to be famous, I don't want to be fabulously wealthy, but if I were a biddy-biddy rich...!
Let us assume making money through sales is selfish. Shame, then, on people who buy in order to obtain the goods/services they desire, even those desiring things for others. Further, consumers usually want to profit more from this exchange, the same as businesses. Most people like good deals! Companies grow or fold on the basis of whether a sufficient number of buyers regard their benefits from goods/services as equal to, or greater than, their cost. This is an open trade system. The only exceptions are businesses that cheat the system (à la Enron, though the system caught up with them), and consumers that do the same (stop, thief!).
I do hear how capitalists are taking over the world... but maybe the Protestants are doing it... no, I mean the Jews... the Freemasons... Mormons... Muslims... oil barons... communists... Hollywood... Honestly, who is in charge here? A capitalist atheist?
The real disgrace concerning capitalism is how few anti-capitalist protesters realize that they wear products from globalized industries, or that those cameramen filming them work for mass-media corporations. I want to see consistency! I want to see them buck naked and breaking lenses! At least the athletic college students, please. And if Prince Charles can do enough to earn a couple of angry naked people, it stands to reason that those evil capitalists who work every day deserve lots of angrier, naked-er people.
Fair enough?
Some say making a profit, especially a hefty profit, is selfish or greedy. You know what? I don't want to be famous, I don't want to be fabulously wealthy, but if I were a biddy-biddy rich...!
Let us assume making money through sales is selfish. Shame, then, on people who buy in order to obtain the goods/services they desire, even those desiring things for others. Further, consumers usually want to profit more from this exchange, the same as businesses. Most people like good deals! Companies grow or fold on the basis of whether a sufficient number of buyers regard their benefits from goods/services as equal to, or greater than, their cost. This is an open trade system. The only exceptions are businesses that cheat the system (à la Enron, though the system caught up with them), and consumers that do the same (stop, thief!).
I do hear how capitalists are taking over the world... but maybe the Protestants are doing it... no, I mean the Jews... the Freemasons... Mormons... Muslims... oil barons... communists... Hollywood... Honestly, who is in charge here? A capitalist atheist?
The real disgrace concerning capitalism is how few anti-capitalist protesters realize that they wear products from globalized industries, or that those cameramen filming them work for mass-media corporations. I want to see consistency! I want to see them buck naked and breaking lenses! At least the athletic college students, please. And if Prince Charles can do enough to earn a couple of angry naked people, it stands to reason that those evil capitalists who work every day deserve lots of angrier, naked-er people.
Fair enough?
Moron... Err... More On Sgrena's Nonsense
Monday, March 07, 2005
Elton John Attacks!
Your suspicion that Sir Elton is in fact an intimidating warrior may prompt laughter at the office, but now there is proof. (Via Roger L. Simon)
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Flashing Jeffrey
On a lighter note, my favorite flash movie is probably "Ddautta". There is such a thing as 'Punk Romantic.'
I meant to link it on St. Valentine's Day, but this day will do.
I meant to link it on St. Valentine's Day, but this day will do.
Sgrena Is No Quattrocchi, Calipari
Apparently aware that the tragic death of Italian security agent Nicola Calipari undermines her triumphant homecoming, Giuliana Sgrena is shamelessly making the rounds in the news services. If nothing else, she sure can ride the coattails of a real Italian hero. Among the most fascinating displays is this BBC interview where Giuliana Sgrena raises some serious questions, albeit not the sort she probably had in mind...
And so they [became] aware that I was really working against the occupation and people were supporting me and so they told me: "We have seen that you are very appreciated in Italy". And that helped me to be freed.
Well, yeah. Supporting 'insurgents,' especially if you are willing to ally yourself with those who have no problems killing nobler Italians like Fabrizio Quattrocchi, probably does give your would-be killers pause. "Don't kill her yet! She's practically one of us! She could prove useful!"
And when I was freed it was the last of my problems which kind of negotiations were going on.
Perhaps if you had taken Mark Steyn's advice, you wouldn't have gotten yourself (or Nicola Calipari and the others) into this mess in the first place.
We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us...
Tanks? And you are still alive? When you just said there was a "hail of bullets" the reason you were still alive could have been that America is filling Iraq with useless marksmen (all that ammunition and, despite being "no accident," the troops failed to kill everyone?) so you got lucky, but now not just one tank, but tanks... Bizarre.
We were not a hidden car. We were just a car on the road with lights and we were not running without any signal.
Why didn't the Italian government see to it that you were transported in an armored vehicle or had a military escort, by the way?
...We don't know what happened.
That much is clear.
Our car was destroyed.
Given the number of car bombs we see on the news, this supports the claim that U.S. troops were indeed serious about stopping what they perceived as a clear threat. Totaling the car is the most prudent move under such circumstances.
And then the driver got out and was shouting "we're Italian, we're Italian"
Stopping and explaining that beforehand was never an option? The Americans materialized out of thin air, guns ablaze! Even assuming everyone in the car was ignorant about past accidents in Iraq, since when has blindly trusting bureaucracy with one's safety been an intelligent move? And under conditions like we see in Iraq?
I can't say it was deliberate because we can't say if there was a lack of information.
Yet you feel comfortable saying, "The United States doesn't approve of this (ransom) policy and so they try to stop it in any way possible"--suggesting, without empirical evidence or experience, that you were the target of a U.S. assassination attempt. We are supposed to consider you a credible witness?
But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information.
Whose responsibility? Did the Italians fail to call? Did the Americans fail to call? Were there other circumstance that mean no-one is really to blame? Are the soldiers who actually fired upon the car responsible? Perhaps someone should have made a better effort to locate a specific piece of information he was not aware that he was supposed to know? (Curse those Americans and their feeble psychic abilities!)
Nicola Calipari gave his service to Italy, and gave his life to save Giuliana Sgrena. One brave way for Sgrena to honor his sacrifice would be to recognize the high value of his service, including his work and that of his compatriots in Iraq that she so despised. Some principles are worth more than individual personalities. Calipari knew this. Learn from him, Sgrena. And fast.
And so they [became] aware that I was really working against the occupation and people were supporting me and so they told me: "We have seen that you are very appreciated in Italy". And that helped me to be freed.
Well, yeah. Supporting 'insurgents,' especially if you are willing to ally yourself with those who have no problems killing nobler Italians like Fabrizio Quattrocchi, probably does give your would-be killers pause. "Don't kill her yet! She's practically one of us! She could prove useful!"
And when I was freed it was the last of my problems which kind of negotiations were going on.
Perhaps if you had taken Mark Steyn's advice, you wouldn't have gotten yourself (or Nicola Calipari and the others) into this mess in the first place.
We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us...
Tanks? And you are still alive? When you just said there was a "hail of bullets" the reason you were still alive could have been that America is filling Iraq with useless marksmen (all that ammunition and, despite being "no accident," the troops failed to kill everyone?) so you got lucky, but now not just one tank, but tanks... Bizarre.
We were not a hidden car. We were just a car on the road with lights and we were not running without any signal.
Why didn't the Italian government see to it that you were transported in an armored vehicle or had a military escort, by the way?
...We don't know what happened.
That much is clear.
Our car was destroyed.
Given the number of car bombs we see on the news, this supports the claim that U.S. troops were indeed serious about stopping what they perceived as a clear threat. Totaling the car is the most prudent move under such circumstances.
And then the driver got out and was shouting "we're Italian, we're Italian"
Stopping and explaining that beforehand was never an option? The Americans materialized out of thin air, guns ablaze! Even assuming everyone in the car was ignorant about past accidents in Iraq, since when has blindly trusting bureaucracy with one's safety been an intelligent move? And under conditions like we see in Iraq?
I can't say it was deliberate because we can't say if there was a lack of information.
Yet you feel comfortable saying, "The United States doesn't approve of this (ransom) policy and so they try to stop it in any way possible"--suggesting, without empirical evidence or experience, that you were the target of a U.S. assassination attempt. We are supposed to consider you a credible witness?
But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information.
Whose responsibility? Did the Italians fail to call? Did the Americans fail to call? Were there other circumstance that mean no-one is really to blame? Are the soldiers who actually fired upon the car responsible? Perhaps someone should have made a better effort to locate a specific piece of information he was not aware that he was supposed to know? (Curse those Americans and their feeble psychic abilities!)
Nicola Calipari gave his service to Italy, and gave his life to save Giuliana Sgrena. One brave way for Sgrena to honor his sacrifice would be to recognize the high value of his service, including his work and that of his compatriots in Iraq that she so despised. Some principles are worth more than individual personalities. Calipari knew this. Learn from him, Sgrena. And fast.
Iranian Pups
Dictators can be so cute.
I guess it's time for Glenn Reynolds to warm up his special blender.
Update: Darn, I was beaten to the punch. So much for my 15 minutes of Instapundit fame.
I guess it's time for Glenn Reynolds to warm up his special blender.
Update: Darn, I was beaten to the punch. So much for my 15 minutes of Instapundit fame.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Flow From The Pen, Bow And Brush
There really are few things I love more than making a personal discovery. Being behind-the-times when it comes to popular music, I only just now stumbled across a gem from rock group Sixpence None the Richer, titled 'Melody of You,' with music and lyrics by guitarist Matt Slocum. While not as ubiquitous as 'Kiss Me' or their cover of 'There She Goes' (or 'Dancing Queen'), it was apparently no trade secret a couple of years ago. Why did no-one tell me about this? The chorus is straightforward...
This is my call, I belong to you
This is my call, to sing the melodies of you
This is my call, I can do nothing else
I can do nothing else
But look at this first stanza...
You're a painting with symbols deep
A symphony, soft as it shifts from dark beneath
A poem that flows, caressing my skin
In all of these things you reside and I
Want to flow from the pen, bow and brush
Then paper and string and canvas touch
With ink and the air to dust your light
From morning 'til the black of night
And the second...
You're the scent of an unfound bloom
A simple tune I only write variations to
A drink that will knock me down on the floor
A key that will unlock the door where I
Hear a voice sing familiar themes
Then beckons me weave notes in between
A bow and a string, a tap and glass
You pour me 'til the day has passed
This isn't pop lyricism. It is poetry.
Plus, the music is charming.
And where does the band's name come from? My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, in a passage from "Mere Christianity":
Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given to you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like. It is like a small child going to his father and saying, 'Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present.' Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child's present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.
Sixpence None the Richer has another listener in Memphis.
This is my call, I belong to you
This is my call, to sing the melodies of you
This is my call, I can do nothing else
I can do nothing else
But look at this first stanza...
You're a painting with symbols deep
A symphony, soft as it shifts from dark beneath
A poem that flows, caressing my skin
In all of these things you reside and I
Want to flow from the pen, bow and brush
Then paper and string and canvas touch
With ink and the air to dust your light
From morning 'til the black of night
And the second...
You're the scent of an unfound bloom
A simple tune I only write variations to
A drink that will knock me down on the floor
A key that will unlock the door where I
Hear a voice sing familiar themes
Then beckons me weave notes in between
A bow and a string, a tap and glass
You pour me 'til the day has passed
This isn't pop lyricism. It is poetry.
Plus, the music is charming.
And where does the band's name come from? My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, in a passage from "Mere Christianity":
Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given to you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like. It is like a small child going to his father and saying, 'Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present.' Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child's present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.
Sixpence None the Richer has another listener in Memphis.
"Hello." Such A Simple Way To Start A Love Affair
Hello, I'm back! I feel like writing again, which means I will be writing here again. Much like I am now. (Amazing coincidence, yes?)
And what prompted this sudden urge to write? Why, a blogger made the sort of discovery that could shred the fabric of society...
There are penises on U.S. coins. (Via Wonkette)
Bush must still be courting the South Park Republicans!
This is almost as surreal as the list of cusswords from Congress. But not quite.
And what prompted this sudden urge to write? Why, a blogger made the sort of discovery that could shred the fabric of society...
There are penises on U.S. coins. (Via Wonkette)
Bush must still be courting the South Park Republicans!
This is almost as surreal as the list of cusswords from Congress. But not quite.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Fw: To My Dearest Friends
Are you tired of all those sissy "friendship" poems that always sound good, but never actually come close to reality? Well, here is a series of promises that really speaks to true friendship:
1. When you are sad, I will help get you drunk and plot revenge against the pathetic twit who made you sad.
2. When you are blue, I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.
3. When you smile, I will know you had sex.
4. When you are scared, I will rag on you about it every chance I get.
5. When you are worried, I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be and to quit whining.
6. When you are confused, I will use little words.
7. When you are sick, I will stay the heck away from you until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have. Sheesh.
8. When you fall, I will point and laugh at your clumsy ass.
Remember: A good friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body. Let me know if I ever need to bring a shovel!
P.S. Maybe these Saudis aren't my friends?
1. When you are sad, I will help get you drunk and plot revenge against the pathetic twit who made you sad.
2. When you are blue, I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.
3. When you smile, I will know you had sex.
4. When you are scared, I will rag on you about it every chance I get.
5. When you are worried, I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be and to quit whining.
6. When you are confused, I will use little words.
7. When you are sick, I will stay the heck away from you until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have. Sheesh.
8. When you fall, I will point and laugh at your clumsy ass.
Remember: A good friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body. Let me know if I ever need to bring a shovel!
P.S. Maybe these Saudis aren't my friends?
Friday, January 21, 2005
Mainstream Media Madness
While James Lileks' famous "Olive Garden" screed is a righteous attack on overseas journalism, Tim Blair recently reminded folks that even American personalities can be ignorant about Americans (although that particular case of lousy reporting is not as bad as certain others').
Let Them Eat Cake
Government using bad science and excessive public interference to make it look like it has good policies? How could that happen?
Maybe we'd be better off if we trusted our own common sense and stopped looking to the government to tell us what to do.
Sorry, that makes too much sense.
Maybe we'd be better off if we trusted our own common sense and stopped looking to the government to tell us what to do.
Sorry, that makes too much sense.
More Door Bores
Here is a deep thought: In order to get out of car, open door, get out, lock doors, and then close door.
The driver must work at BBC.
The driver must work at BBC.
Saddam's German Fireworks
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Friday, January 07, 2005
Canada Dry
With President Bush's second inauguration coming up, those of you still thinking about moving from the U.S. to Canada may wish to reconsider.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Show Them The Door
The folks over at Tim Blair suspect there is more wrong with the Beeb than meets the eye. From AFP:
Staff at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) have been given instructions on how to walk through a door, a tabloid newspaper reported.
The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily newspaper, reported that workers at the global broadcaster's offices in Birmingham, central England, had been issued with a memo advising them on how to get through a revolving door...
Employees at BBC Radio Sheffield in the north of England had previously been instructed on how to get through the often confusing and peril-laden task of boiling a kettle.
Here is an artistic rendering of a BBC employee going to work.
Staff at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) have been given instructions on how to walk through a door, a tabloid newspaper reported.
The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily newspaper, reported that workers at the global broadcaster's offices in Birmingham, central England, had been issued with a memo advising them on how to get through a revolving door...
Employees at BBC Radio Sheffield in the north of England had previously been instructed on how to get through the often confusing and peril-laden task of boiling a kettle.
Here is an artistic rendering of a BBC employee going to work.
Friday, December 24, 2004
The Post-Melodramatic Stress Disorder of the Opera
So it begins...
"We're seeing a barrage of psychological consequences in those who have been exposed to the violently overblown acting and protracted, heightened emotions in The Phantom Of The Opera," said Bill Lambert, a psychology professor at the University of Chicago. "After such intense abuse of their artistic sensibilities, melodrama victims are finding themselves plagued by extreme sentimentality, flashbacks to especially torturous scenes, and canned-emotional detachment."
According to Lambert, a good portion of PMSD sufferers are experiencing distress so great that it is interfering with their jobs as overweight receptionists, struggling fashion designers, and community-theater actors.
"We're seeing a barrage of psychological consequences in those who have been exposed to the violently overblown acting and protracted, heightened emotions in The Phantom Of The Opera," said Bill Lambert, a psychology professor at the University of Chicago. "After such intense abuse of their artistic sensibilities, melodrama victims are finding themselves plagued by extreme sentimentality, flashbacks to especially torturous scenes, and canned-emotional detachment."
According to Lambert, a good portion of PMSD sufferers are experiencing distress so great that it is interfering with their jobs as overweight receptionists, struggling fashion designers, and community-theater actors.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
The Right To Be Offended
Winston Churchill: Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.
It's been said that one of the prices of freedom of speech is that anyone can make a statement worth less than the neuron that powered the thought. Now, BBC News Magazine tackles the debate over "the right to be downright offensive." Perhaps I am being a contrarian, but as John Cleese says, nobody has the right not to be offended. Frankly, many people act as though they could find their own shadows objectionable, and these are usually the same individuals lecturing on inclusiveness. (They are inclusive, of course, depending on how much you think like them or the extent to which they can arrange/exploit your victimhood.)
South Park and Chappelle's Show are my two favorite programs on Comedy Central. They also aim to offend, and frequently hit their marks. I enjoy the challenge. Who can forget Dave Chappelle's portrayal of a blind Ku Klux Klan member unaware that he is black? The satire is sharp. There are 'appropriate' contexts for 'inappropriate' subjects. Excepting speech that is literally dangerous or detrimental to another's freedoms (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater being oft cited, or calling for people to maim and murder), there is room for views I regard as wholly inappropriate and loathsome. I counter those views by sharing my views. Surely anyone genuinely concerned about each individual's right to expression knows, at least in principle, that "The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech."
Update: Changed my typographical error of "mime and murder" to "maim and murder," though you could argue that it works well either way.
It's been said that one of the prices of freedom of speech is that anyone can make a statement worth less than the neuron that powered the thought. Now, BBC News Magazine tackles the debate over "the right to be downright offensive." Perhaps I am being a contrarian, but as John Cleese says, nobody has the right not to be offended. Frankly, many people act as though they could find their own shadows objectionable, and these are usually the same individuals lecturing on inclusiveness. (They are inclusive, of course, depending on how much you think like them or the extent to which they can arrange/exploit your victimhood.)
South Park and Chappelle's Show are my two favorite programs on Comedy Central. They also aim to offend, and frequently hit their marks. I enjoy the challenge. Who can forget Dave Chappelle's portrayal of a blind Ku Klux Klan member unaware that he is black? The satire is sharp. There are 'appropriate' contexts for 'inappropriate' subjects. Excepting speech that is literally dangerous or detrimental to another's freedoms (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater being oft cited, or calling for people to maim and murder), there is room for views I regard as wholly inappropriate and loathsome. I counter those views by sharing my views. Surely anyone genuinely concerned about each individual's right to expression knows, at least in principle, that "The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech."
Update: Changed my typographical error of "mime and murder" to "maim and murder," though you could argue that it works well either way.
16 July 2005
You almost certainly know this already, but I repeat with no small amount of glee that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the sixth book in the popular series, will arrive on bookshelves in the summer. While my favorite entry remains Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, J.K. Rowling's tales appear increasingly imaginative and dramatic (her annoying obsession with adverbs notwithstanding). Now is the part where we wait.
With this on top of the last Star Wars prequel, a new Steven Spielberg film, and Narnia coming to life, 2005 looks like a blockbuster year for storytelling. We shall see!
With this on top of the last Star Wars prequel, a new Steven Spielberg film, and Narnia coming to life, 2005 looks like a blockbuster year for storytelling. We shall see!
Sunday, December 12, 2004
The Moore The Merrier
I never thought I would see Michael Moore as a smart man, but Tim Blair has a round-up of some folks that make him look that way.
Moore's guess at how Bush won the election: He got more votes.
Hopefully being forthright and honest will do the filmmaker some good.
Wearing a jacket and tie still does not suit him, however.
Moore's guess at how Bush won the election: He got more votes.
Hopefully being forthright and honest will do the filmmaker some good.
Wearing a jacket and tie still does not suit him, however.
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Personal Responsibility
I had this observation from Free Will bookmarked a couple of weeks ago, thinking I would add loquacious commentary here. Aaron's view on responsibility stands well enough on its own, though.
This pointer may be past due, but as the sales pitch for The Commercial Appeal used to go, "If you haven't read it, it's still news."
This pointer may be past due, but as the sales pitch for The Commercial Appeal used to go, "If you haven't read it, it's still news."
25
Today is my birthday! A quarter of century lies behind me, so a big public Thank You to all the people who helped me make it this far.
Offensive
More lessons from the "don't fight the rapist; enjoy it" academy...
In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn't possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do, and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder's awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means.
Accepting that it is true that handing over your existence to a burglar is self-empowering, consider how this works in actuality. When your valuables are in danger, you strive to protect them. You have a right to your personal property. More importantly, what if you value your body, or the life of another? You can and should fight a fire, for example, so many people own fire extinguishers, the weapons against that threat. Certainly avoidance is wise if your life is in imminent danger (you are worth more than your television set), but you have the right to fight back when situations are unavoidable, and the right to prevent intruders from creating intolerable situations for you in the first place. To that end, the best defense is a good offense.
Update: On a note related to this entry and the previous post, I wish my Jewish friends a happy Armed Jews Week.
Update II: Efforts to ban guns are so 20th century. Let's ban pencil sharpeners.
In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn't possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do, and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder's awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means.
Accepting that it is true that handing over your existence to a burglar is self-empowering, consider how this works in actuality. When your valuables are in danger, you strive to protect them. You have a right to your personal property. More importantly, what if you value your body, or the life of another? You can and should fight a fire, for example, so many people own fire extinguishers, the weapons against that threat. Certainly avoidance is wise if your life is in imminent danger (you are worth more than your television set), but you have the right to fight back when situations are unavoidable, and the right to prevent intruders from creating intolerable situations for you in the first place. To that end, the best defense is a good offense.
Update: On a note related to this entry and the previous post, I wish my Jewish friends a happy Armed Jews Week.
Update II: Efforts to ban guns are so 20th century. Let's ban pencil sharpeners.
Australia's Nazi Hanukkah
Herald Sun: Gardeners hired by Melbourne City Council intended to arrange the purple and white pot plants into neat geometric shapes.
But they left six 3m garden beds along Swanston St displaying large Nazi symbols.
The article indicates that the gardeners did not know swastikas might be inappropriate.
Excuse me, but how #&(^ing ignorant are these gardeners?
But they left six 3m garden beds along Swanston St displaying large Nazi symbols.
The article indicates that the gardeners did not know swastikas might be inappropriate.
Excuse me, but how #&(^ing ignorant are these gardeners?
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
It's A Gas!
Behold, the fruits (prunes, most likely) of science...
The present invention relates generally to intestinal discharge control products and, more specifically, to flatulence deodorizers. There are various devices in this field for dealing with the problems of intestinal discharges with some degree of success. However, all of them are somewhat cumbersome and/or bulky to use. The present invention, the Flatulence Deodorizer, is the first product for this application to use activated charcoal cloth as a deodorizer because it is so much more effective in removing odor than other known agents and because of its highly efficient filtering action, the thickness of the cloth can be significantly reduced without loosing effectiveness. The filter is worn taped to the inside of briefs or panties and because of its slim profile, the wearer is comfortable and virtually unaware of its presence. The activated charcoal cloth filter is also washable and reusable. This makes the present invention the most effective, cost efficient, comfortable and least intrusive means of deodorizing gassy discharges.
Of course, I should not be making light of preventing odor from flatulence. This is obviously quite serious. FIG 1, with the man emitting gases from flatulence, illustrates the harsh and humiliating effects of flatulence. See the gentleman forced to hold his nose? FIG 5 demonstrates the positioning of the deodorizer. It also shows that although a woman may have shapely buttocks, beauty is no cure for flatulence. FIG 6 shows her flatulence attempting to escape, but being stopped dead in its tracks by U.S. Patent 6,313,371.
That'll teach that flatulence who's boss.
The present invention relates generally to intestinal discharge control products and, more specifically, to flatulence deodorizers. There are various devices in this field for dealing with the problems of intestinal discharges with some degree of success. However, all of them are somewhat cumbersome and/or bulky to use. The present invention, the Flatulence Deodorizer, is the first product for this application to use activated charcoal cloth as a deodorizer because it is so much more effective in removing odor than other known agents and because of its highly efficient filtering action, the thickness of the cloth can be significantly reduced without loosing effectiveness. The filter is worn taped to the inside of briefs or panties and because of its slim profile, the wearer is comfortable and virtually unaware of its presence. The activated charcoal cloth filter is also washable and reusable. This makes the present invention the most effective, cost efficient, comfortable and least intrusive means of deodorizing gassy discharges.
Of course, I should not be making light of preventing odor from flatulence. This is obviously quite serious. FIG 1, with the man emitting gases from flatulence, illustrates the harsh and humiliating effects of flatulence. See the gentleman forced to hold his nose? FIG 5 demonstrates the positioning of the deodorizer. It also shows that although a woman may have shapely buttocks, beauty is no cure for flatulence. FIG 6 shows her flatulence attempting to escape, but being stopped dead in its tracks by U.S. Patent 6,313,371.
That'll teach that flatulence who's boss.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Colby Nolan
Education belongs to every species...
Investigators paid $299 for a bachelor's degree for Colby Nolan — a deputy attorney general's 6-year-old black cat — claiming he had experience including baby-sitting and retail management.
On the bright side, the feline wasn't Toonces.
Investigators paid $299 for a bachelor's degree for Colby Nolan — a deputy attorney general's 6-year-old black cat — claiming he had experience including baby-sitting and retail management.
On the bright side, the feline wasn't Toonces.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Hope And Prey
I recently finished reading Michael Crichton's Prey. I enjoyed it, but his favorite Powerful Morons plot device grows stale, and the science is surprisingly off considering Crichton's [mostly deserved] reputation as skeptical technology watcher. It offers little beyond terrific intrigue and thrills.
BBC: Slower Than A Bucket Of Snails?
Hot on the tail of America's media breakdown, featuring the spectacular Rathergate implosion, British Broadcasting Corporation came up with their own example of 'hard' investigative reporting...
BBC World said on Friday that an interview it ran with a man it identified as a spokesman for Dow Chemical Co, in which he said the U.S. company accepted responsibility for India's Bhopal disaster, was wrong and part of an "elaborate deception."
So hard is their reporting that it appears that making a phone call to verify the credibility of their source is beneath them. And it is not like this is the only recent failure at BBC...
Update: Jude Finisterra?!
BBC World said on Friday that an interview it ran with a man it identified as a spokesman for Dow Chemical Co, in which he said the U.S. company accepted responsibility for India's Bhopal disaster, was wrong and part of an "elaborate deception."
So hard is their reporting that it appears that making a phone call to verify the credibility of their source is beneath them. And it is not like this is the only recent failure at BBC...
Update: Jude Finisterra?!
Friday, December 03, 2004
Spider-Man 2
I am currently amazing myself with my amazing Spider-Man 2 DVD. The film is easily superior to the first; is not only better technically (including top-notch special effects this time 'round), but artistically and morally. "And Lord knows, kids like Henry need a hero. Courageous, self-sacrificing people. Setting examples for all of us... I believe there's a hero in all of us, that keeps us honest, gives us strength, makes us noble, and finally allows us to die with pride, even though sometimes we have to be steady, and give up the thing we want the most. Even our dreams." Amen. Alfred Molina's performance is one of the best, if not The Best, I've seen out of this genre--frightening, but also sensitive, seductive and heartbreaking. A good Danny Elfman score and fine, sometimes laugh-out-loud sense of humor also help keep things moving. This may be the most genuinely entertaining film I've seen this year.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Still Feeling Stuffed?
You are not the only one.
I had a great Thanksgiving, by the way. The food was wonderful, and I am fortunate enough to have friends and family that never try to kill me. (Here comes an Assault Knife Ban...)
I had a great Thanksgiving, by the way. The food was wonderful, and I am fortunate enough to have friends and family that never try to kill me. (Here comes an Assault Knife Ban...)
The Right TV
Catherine Seipp recently weighed in on one of the best television shows ever, The Simpsons:
The cartoon family became the longest-running primetime series in TV history with its 300th episode last year, surpassing even Bonanza and Ozzie & Harriet. It continues to add to the pop-culture lexicon, especially on the right, although I'm sure that was not the intention of its lefty creator, Matt Groening. The show's description of the appeasing French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" was quickly picked up by war-hawk bloggers. And Ben Stein once told me, when I asked him about conservatives in Hollywood, that The Simpsons was a breakthrough statement against leftist pieties — because it "was the first show that said if you're a loser, it's your own fault."
But it is her opening remarks that ring most truly, because as much control as Republicans have in Washington, the Democrats hold a massive share of power elsewhere...
One of the election lessons for Democrats is that while the Left doesn't understand the Right, the Right can't help but understand the Left, because the Left is in charge of pop culture. Urban blue staters can go their entire lives happily innocent of the world of church socials and duck hunting and Boy Scout meetings, but small-town red staters are exposed to big-city blue-state values every time they turn on the TV.
The cartoon family became the longest-running primetime series in TV history with its 300th episode last year, surpassing even Bonanza and Ozzie & Harriet. It continues to add to the pop-culture lexicon, especially on the right, although I'm sure that was not the intention of its lefty creator, Matt Groening. The show's description of the appeasing French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" was quickly picked up by war-hawk bloggers. And Ben Stein once told me, when I asked him about conservatives in Hollywood, that The Simpsons was a breakthrough statement against leftist pieties — because it "was the first show that said if you're a loser, it's your own fault."
But it is her opening remarks that ring most truly, because as much control as Republicans have in Washington, the Democrats hold a massive share of power elsewhere...
One of the election lessons for Democrats is that while the Left doesn't understand the Right, the Right can't help but understand the Left, because the Left is in charge of pop culture. Urban blue staters can go their entire lives happily innocent of the world of church socials and duck hunting and Boy Scout meetings, but small-town red staters are exposed to big-city blue-state values every time they turn on the TV.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Happy Thanksgiving, America!
I am going to enjoy dinner...
Beverages
Crystal Lite
Diet Coke
Dr. Pepper
Hot Tea
Appetizers
Spinach Dip & Crackers
Raw Veggie Plate
Salads
Fruited Jello Surprise
Main Course
Ham & Turkey
Dressing & Gravy
Jellied Cranberry Sauce
Sweet Potatoes
Rice Casserole
Cabbage
Peas
Bread & Butter
Dessert
Pumpkin Cake
Butter Pecan Ice Cream
Beverages
Crystal Lite
Diet Coke
Dr. Pepper
Hot Tea
Appetizers
Spinach Dip & Crackers
Raw Veggie Plate
Salads
Fruited Jello Surprise
Main Course
Ham & Turkey
Dressing & Gravy
Jellied Cranberry Sauce
Sweet Potatoes
Rice Casserole
Cabbage
Peas
Bread & Butter
Dessert
Pumpkin Cake
Butter Pecan Ice Cream
Neal Stephenson Vs. William Gibson
Neal Stephenson finally answers the question, "In a fight between you and William Gibson, who would win?"
You don't have to settle for mere idle speculation. Let me tell you how it came out on the three occasions when we did fight.
The first time was a year or two after SNOW CRASH came out. I was doing a reading/signing at White Dwarf Books in Vancouver. Gibson stopped by to say hello and extended his hand as if to shake. But I remembered something Bruce Sterling had told me. For, at the time, Sterling and I had formed a pact to fight Gibson. Gibson had been regrown in a vat from scraps of DNA after Sterling had crashed an LNG tanker into Gibson's Stealth pleasure barge in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. During the regeneration process, telescoping Carbonite stilettos had been incorporated into Gibson's arms. Remembering this in the nick of time, I grabbed the signing table and flipped it up between us. Of course the Carbonite stilettos pierced it as if it were cork board, but this spoiled his aim long enough for me to whip my wakizashi out from between my shoulder blades and swing at his head. He deflected the blow with a force blast that sprained my wrist. The falling table knocked over a space heater and set fire to the store. Everyone else fled. Gibson and I dueled among blazing stacks of books for a while. Slowly I gained the upper hand, for, on defense, his Praying Mantis style was no match for my Flying Cloud technique. But I lost him behind a cloud of smoke. Then I had to get out of the place. The streets were crowded with his black-suited minions and I had to turn into a swarm of locusts and fly back to Seattle.
The second time was a few years later when Gibson came through Seattle on his IDORU tour. Between doing some drive-by signings at local bookstores, he came and devastated my quarter of the city. I had been in a trance for seven days and seven nights and was unaware of these goings-on, but he came to me in a vision and taunted me, and left a message on my cellphone. That evening he was doing a reading at Kane Hall on the University of Washington campus. Swathed in black, I climbed to the top of the hall, mesmerized his snipers, sliced a hole in the roof using a plasma cutter, let myself into the catwalks above the stage, and then leapt down upon him from forty feet above. But I had forgotten that he had once studied in the same monastery as I, and knew all of my techniques. He rolled away at the last moment. I struck only the lectern, smashing it to kindling. Snatching up one jagged shard of oak I adopted the Mountain Tiger position just as you would expect. He pulled off his wireless mike and began to whirl it around his head. From there, the fight proceeded along predictable lines. As a stalemate developed we began to resort more and more to the use of pure energy, modulated by Red Lotus incantations of the third Sung group, which eventually to the collapse of the building's roof and the loss of eight hundred lives. But as they were only peasants, we did not care.
Our third fight occurred at the Peace Arch on the U.S./Canadian border between Seattle and Vancouver. Gibson wished to retire from that sort of lifestyle that required ceaseless training in the martial arts and sleeping outdoors under the rain. He only wished to sit in his garden brushing out novels on rice paper. But honor dictated that he must fight me for a third time first. Of course the Peace Arch did not remain standing for long. Before long my sword arm hung useless at my side. One of my psi blasts kicked up a large divot of earth and rubble, uncovering a silver metallic object, hitherto buried, that seemed to have been crafted by an industrial designer. It was a nitro-veridian device that had been buried there by Sterling. We were able to fly clear before it detonated. The blast caused a seismic rupture that split off a sizable part of Canada and created what we now know as Vancouver Island. This was the last fight between me and Gibson. For both of us, by studying certain ancient prophecies, had independently arrived at the same conclusion, namely that Sterling's professed interest in industrial design was a mere cover for work in superweapons. Gibson and I formed a pact to fight Sterling. So far we have made little headway in seeking out his lair of brushed steel and white LEDs, because I had a dentist appointment and Gibson had to attend a writers' conference, but keep an eye on Slashdot for any further developments.
You don't have to settle for mere idle speculation. Let me tell you how it came out on the three occasions when we did fight.
The first time was a year or two after SNOW CRASH came out. I was doing a reading/signing at White Dwarf Books in Vancouver. Gibson stopped by to say hello and extended his hand as if to shake. But I remembered something Bruce Sterling had told me. For, at the time, Sterling and I had formed a pact to fight Gibson. Gibson had been regrown in a vat from scraps of DNA after Sterling had crashed an LNG tanker into Gibson's Stealth pleasure barge in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. During the regeneration process, telescoping Carbonite stilettos had been incorporated into Gibson's arms. Remembering this in the nick of time, I grabbed the signing table and flipped it up between us. Of course the Carbonite stilettos pierced it as if it were cork board, but this spoiled his aim long enough for me to whip my wakizashi out from between my shoulder blades and swing at his head. He deflected the blow with a force blast that sprained my wrist. The falling table knocked over a space heater and set fire to the store. Everyone else fled. Gibson and I dueled among blazing stacks of books for a while. Slowly I gained the upper hand, for, on defense, his Praying Mantis style was no match for my Flying Cloud technique. But I lost him behind a cloud of smoke. Then I had to get out of the place. The streets were crowded with his black-suited minions and I had to turn into a swarm of locusts and fly back to Seattle.
The second time was a few years later when Gibson came through Seattle on his IDORU tour. Between doing some drive-by signings at local bookstores, he came and devastated my quarter of the city. I had been in a trance for seven days and seven nights and was unaware of these goings-on, but he came to me in a vision and taunted me, and left a message on my cellphone. That evening he was doing a reading at Kane Hall on the University of Washington campus. Swathed in black, I climbed to the top of the hall, mesmerized his snipers, sliced a hole in the roof using a plasma cutter, let myself into the catwalks above the stage, and then leapt down upon him from forty feet above. But I had forgotten that he had once studied in the same monastery as I, and knew all of my techniques. He rolled away at the last moment. I struck only the lectern, smashing it to kindling. Snatching up one jagged shard of oak I adopted the Mountain Tiger position just as you would expect. He pulled off his wireless mike and began to whirl it around his head. From there, the fight proceeded along predictable lines. As a stalemate developed we began to resort more and more to the use of pure energy, modulated by Red Lotus incantations of the third Sung group, which eventually to the collapse of the building's roof and the loss of eight hundred lives. But as they were only peasants, we did not care.
Our third fight occurred at the Peace Arch on the U.S./Canadian border between Seattle and Vancouver. Gibson wished to retire from that sort of lifestyle that required ceaseless training in the martial arts and sleeping outdoors under the rain. He only wished to sit in his garden brushing out novels on rice paper. But honor dictated that he must fight me for a third time first. Of course the Peace Arch did not remain standing for long. Before long my sword arm hung useless at my side. One of my psi blasts kicked up a large divot of earth and rubble, uncovering a silver metallic object, hitherto buried, that seemed to have been crafted by an industrial designer. It was a nitro-veridian device that had been buried there by Sterling. We were able to fly clear before it detonated. The blast caused a seismic rupture that split off a sizable part of Canada and created what we now know as Vancouver Island. This was the last fight between me and Gibson. For both of us, by studying certain ancient prophecies, had independently arrived at the same conclusion, namely that Sterling's professed interest in industrial design was a mere cover for work in superweapons. Gibson and I formed a pact to fight Sterling. So far we have made little headway in seeking out his lair of brushed steel and white LEDs, because I had a dentist appointment and Gibson had to attend a writers' conference, but keep an eye on Slashdot for any further developments.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
British Hooligans
The Agence France-Presse reports something I did not know about the typical Briton...
The typical Briton is polite, witty and phlegmatic, but lacks a certain style and has a dental hygiene issue while having an occasional drinking problem
Tim Blair hosts some fun comments in response.
The typical Briton is polite, witty and phlegmatic, but lacks a certain style and has a dental hygiene issue while having an occasional drinking problem
Tim Blair hosts some fun comments in response.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
France Loves America
Want to know what makes me feel all warm inside? French nationals probably should concentrate on their own business, but they just cannot stop writing about (and profiting from) the ever-fascinating Americans. Jean-Francois Revel does it from the opposite angle.
My own thought is that neither form of attention is necessary. One popular complaint about Americans is that we are too inward-looking; making exceptions for omphalopsychites and black holes, a gaze far enough inward often casts your gaze outward, like how cutting a tomato in half slides the knife's blade toward the center and then away from it. America became the sole "superpower" not by aiming to be the greatest nation in the world, but by aiming to be the greatest nation it can be in its own right. The former superpowers lost their statures largely because they did rely on being the world's greatest nations. There are benefits to seeing out by looking in. So, yes, French nationals probably should concentrate on their own business.
Update: Hi. Are you nuts?
Update II: Is that a maybe?
Update III: Hey, No Blood for Cocoa!
Update IV: More on the French Patriot Act.
My own thought is that neither form of attention is necessary. One popular complaint about Americans is that we are too inward-looking; making exceptions for omphalopsychites and black holes, a gaze far enough inward often casts your gaze outward, like how cutting a tomato in half slides the knife's blade toward the center and then away from it. America became the sole "superpower" not by aiming to be the greatest nation in the world, but by aiming to be the greatest nation it can be in its own right. The former superpowers lost their statures largely because they did rely on being the world's greatest nations. There are benefits to seeing out by looking in. So, yes, French nationals probably should concentrate on their own business.
Update: Hi. Are you nuts?
Update II: Is that a maybe?
Update III: Hey, No Blood for Cocoa!
Update IV: More on the French Patriot Act.
Thursday's Quote
Neal Stephenson: Weirdly, the ones who adopted the sternest and most terrible Old Testament moral tone were the Modern Language Association types who believed that everything was relative and that, for example, polygamy was as valid as monogamy. The friendliest and most sincere welcome he'd gotten was from Scott, a chemistry professor, and Laura, a pediatrician, who, after knowing Randy and Charlene for many years, had one day divulged to Randy, in strict confidence, that, unbeknownst to the academic community at large they had been spiriting their three children off to church every Sunday morning, and had even had them baptized...
Randy hadn't the faintest idea what these people thought of him and what he had done, but he could sense right away that, essentially, that was not the issue, because even if they thought he had done something evil, they at least had a framework, a sort of procedure manual, for dealing with transgressions. To translate it into UNIX system administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just about everything), the post-modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz. society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm. Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability. (Via Instapundit)
Randy hadn't the faintest idea what these people thought of him and what he had done, but he could sense right away that, essentially, that was not the issue, because even if they thought he had done something evil, they at least had a framework, a sort of procedure manual, for dealing with transgressions. To translate it into UNIX system administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just about everything), the post-modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz. society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm. Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability. (Via Instapundit)
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Around The World In 80 Days
For those interested, my review of the Trevor Jones soundtrack is now online at Film Music on the Web.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Friday, November 12, 2004
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Goodbye (And Good Riddance)
Everything seems settled now, but when I heard the early response to Arafat's tardy but nevertheless appreciated demise, well, it sounded vaguely familiar...
(An Israeli enters Gaza, and addresses a Palestinian.)
Mr. Sharon: 'Ello, I wish to register a compliment.
(The Palestinian does not respond.)
Mr. Sharon: 'Ello, Miss?
Palestinian: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Sharon: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to offer a compliment!
Palestinian: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Sharon: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to compliment on this Arafat what I quarantined not half a decade ago during this very occupation!
Palestinian: Oh, yes, the, uh, the Palestinian Authority's leader... What's, uh, what's right with him?
Mr. Sharon: I'll tell you what's right with him, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's right with him!
Palestinian: No, no, 'e's uh... he's resting.
Mr. Sharon: Look, matey, I know a dead Arafat when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Palestinian: No, no, he's not dead. He's restin'! Remarkable dictator, my leader, idn'it, ay? Beautiful eyelashes!
Mr. Sharon: The eyelashes don't enter into it. He's stone dead.
Palestinian: No, no, no, no, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Sharon: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at casket) 'Ello, Mister Jackasser Arafathead! I've got a lovely fresh Jewish boy for you if you show...
(Palestinian hits the casket.)
Palestinian: There, he moved!
Mr. Sharon: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the casket!
Palestinian: I never!
Mr. Sharon: Yes, you did!
Palestinian: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Sharon (shouting and repeatedly hitting the casket): 'ELLO YASSER!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Sharon takes Arafat out of the casket and thumps his head on a bombmaker's counter, throws him up in the air, and watches him fall to the ground.)
Mr. Sharon: Now that's what I call a dead Arafat.
Palestinian: No, no... No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Sharon: STUNNED?!
Palestinian: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Glorious leaders stun easily, major.
Mr. Sharon: Um... now look... now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That Arafat is definitely deceased, and when I pinned 'im not 'alf a decade ago, you assured me that his total lack of movement was due to 'im bein' tired and shagged out expecting another raid.
Palestinian: Well, 'e's... 'e's, ah... probably pining for the Jihadis.
Mr. Sharon: PININ' for the JIHADIS?! What kind of talk is that?! Look, why did 'e fall flat on his back the moment I let 'im to Paris?
Palestinian: The Palestinian Authority prefers keepin' on its back! Remarkable leader id'nit, squire? Lovely eyelashes!
Mr. Sharon: Look, I took the liberty of examining that Arafat when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that 'e had been sitting in his office in the first place was that 'e had been PROPPED UP.
(Pause.)
Palestinian: Well, o'course he was propped up! If we hadn't had sham elections, he wouldn't let people nuzzle up to those bombs, strap 'em on with bony little arms, and BOOM! Yeahahahah!
Mr. Sharon: "BOOM"?! Mate, this tyrant wouldn't "boom" if you put four million volts through him! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Palestinian: No, no! 'E's pining!
Mr. Sharon: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This Arafat is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't propped him in power 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-ARAFAT!
(Adapted from this sketch)
Update: A 93-year-old provides the quote of the day: I wonder who'll get his tea-towel.
(An Israeli enters Gaza, and addresses a Palestinian.)
Mr. Sharon: 'Ello, I wish to register a compliment.
(The Palestinian does not respond.)
Mr. Sharon: 'Ello, Miss?
Palestinian: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Sharon: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to offer a compliment!
Palestinian: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Sharon: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to compliment on this Arafat what I quarantined not half a decade ago during this very occupation!
Palestinian: Oh, yes, the, uh, the Palestinian Authority's leader... What's, uh, what's right with him?
Mr. Sharon: I'll tell you what's right with him, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's right with him!
Palestinian: No, no, 'e's uh... he's resting.
Mr. Sharon: Look, matey, I know a dead Arafat when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Palestinian: No, no, he's not dead. He's restin'! Remarkable dictator, my leader, idn'it, ay? Beautiful eyelashes!
Mr. Sharon: The eyelashes don't enter into it. He's stone dead.
Palestinian: No, no, no, no, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Sharon: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at casket) 'Ello, Mister Jackasser Arafathead! I've got a lovely fresh Jewish boy for you if you show...
(Palestinian hits the casket.)
Palestinian: There, he moved!
Mr. Sharon: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the casket!
Palestinian: I never!
Mr. Sharon: Yes, you did!
Palestinian: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Sharon (shouting and repeatedly hitting the casket): 'ELLO YASSER!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Sharon takes Arafat out of the casket and thumps his head on a bombmaker's counter, throws him up in the air, and watches him fall to the ground.)
Mr. Sharon: Now that's what I call a dead Arafat.
Palestinian: No, no... No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Sharon: STUNNED?!
Palestinian: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Glorious leaders stun easily, major.
Mr. Sharon: Um... now look... now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That Arafat is definitely deceased, and when I pinned 'im not 'alf a decade ago, you assured me that his total lack of movement was due to 'im bein' tired and shagged out expecting another raid.
Palestinian: Well, 'e's... 'e's, ah... probably pining for the Jihadis.
Mr. Sharon: PININ' for the JIHADIS?! What kind of talk is that?! Look, why did 'e fall flat on his back the moment I let 'im to Paris?
Palestinian: The Palestinian Authority prefers keepin' on its back! Remarkable leader id'nit, squire? Lovely eyelashes!
Mr. Sharon: Look, I took the liberty of examining that Arafat when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that 'e had been sitting in his office in the first place was that 'e had been PROPPED UP.
(Pause.)
Palestinian: Well, o'course he was propped up! If we hadn't had sham elections, he wouldn't let people nuzzle up to those bombs, strap 'em on with bony little arms, and BOOM! Yeahahahah!
Mr. Sharon: "BOOM"?! Mate, this tyrant wouldn't "boom" if you put four million volts through him! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Palestinian: No, no! 'E's pining!
Mr. Sharon: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This Arafat is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't propped him in power 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-ARAFAT!
(Adapted from this sketch)
Update: A 93-year-old provides the quote of the day: I wonder who'll get his tea-towel.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Had Too Much Kofi?
"Bush Swats Kofi Annan with Rolled Newspaper," reads a headline at the brilliantly unreliable ScrappleFace.
Unfortunately, there are other reasons why Bush might do such a thing...
Unfortunately, there are other reasons why Bush might do such a thing...
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Preemptive France
The USA PATRIOT Act has foreign competition:
Armed with some of the strictest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe, the French government has aggressively targeted Islamic radicals and other people deemed a potential terrorist threat. While other Western countries debate the proper balance between security and individual rights, France has experienced scant public dissent over tactics that would be controversial, if not illegal, in the United States and some other countries.
Didn't Jean-Francois Revel once ask, "Why is it that the dark night of fascism is always descending on America, but keeps landing on Europe?"
Armed with some of the strictest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe, the French government has aggressively targeted Islamic radicals and other people deemed a potential terrorist threat. While other Western countries debate the proper balance between security and individual rights, France has experienced scant public dissent over tactics that would be controversial, if not illegal, in the United States and some other countries.
Didn't Jean-Francois Revel once ask, "Why is it that the dark night of fascism is always descending on America, but keeps landing on Europe?"
Updates Coming
Sorry for not keeping in touch the past few days--got sucked into the post-election excitement, plus I received some additions to my DVD collection. I shall be back in a few hours to try to catch up on lost time.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The Earth Still Turns
Don't worry, I refuse to gloat. This map says it all, anyway. I will say that John Kerry could have won if he delivered his campaign as gracefully as he delivered his concession speech, a gentlemanly message and a rebuttal to the obnoxious non-concession of John "Two Americas!" Edwards. As I wrote earlier, unity is of great importance in times of war. Few are confident in the protection of a crumbling home.
With that in mind, I note some lessons learned from the election:
1) We need more civil debates.
2) The people in 'flyover country' are no more or less intelligent than the coastal elite. Rather, people across America have different views, attitudes and needs, so they vote accordingly. Everyone could do well by respecting that.
3) Jane's Law is frightfully accurate: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.
4) It is as possible to speak poorly and mean much as it is to speak clearly and mean little.
5) Audiences around the globe ought to strive to avoid living in an echo chamber, because their establishment media is about as reliable as a town gossip.
Congratulations, President Bush. Now, about that spending habit of yours...
With that in mind, I note some lessons learned from the election:
1) We need more civil debates.
2) The people in 'flyover country' are no more or less intelligent than the coastal elite. Rather, people across America have different views, attitudes and needs, so they vote accordingly. Everyone could do well by respecting that.
3) Jane's Law is frightfully accurate: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.
4) It is as possible to speak poorly and mean much as it is to speak clearly and mean little.
5) Audiences around the globe ought to strive to avoid living in an echo chamber, because their establishment media is about as reliable as a town gossip.
Congratulations, President Bush. Now, about that spending habit of yours...
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Representative Government Lives On
After the nervousness of my first time voting in 2000... I was still nervous for 2004. But this time, after bumbling to the wrong table, correcting course, stumbling through the stuff I had to sign and praying I was not doing something that could send my vote to Venezuela, I am fairly confident that I managed to accurately punch the buttons I sought to punch. "But your machine was rigged!" my brother joked.
I voted for Bush, gave Democrats and liberals my state and municipal support, endorsed a referendum requiring city employees to live inside city limits, and aggressively pushed the switch to register disdain over a possible tax hike.
It is a gray world of clouds and rain in Memphis, which may be an omen for Memphians of today's worries being washed away, or a sign of many more gray days ahead. Only one person stood in front of my brother and me when we entered the polling place. No bombs went off. There were no signs of voter intimidation. People were in typically Southern high spirits, although a silent, dismal, multi-partisan gaggle of activists huddled on the sidewalk outside--drizzled upon and largely ignored.
This is terribly anticlimactic for such a closely watched election. Why not reward voters, by the way? A little fun would be a fair way to cut into voter apathy. How about door prizes? Balloons to take home to the kids? Clowns (not the ones seeking elected office)?
Of course, things are bound to heat up again as the polls start closing.
Update: Somebody likes me?! Thank you for the kind words, Citizen Jo! I shall listen to some Bernard Herrmann in celebration!
I voted for Bush, gave Democrats and liberals my state and municipal support, endorsed a referendum requiring city employees to live inside city limits, and aggressively pushed the switch to register disdain over a possible tax hike.
It is a gray world of clouds and rain in Memphis, which may be an omen for Memphians of today's worries being washed away, or a sign of many more gray days ahead. Only one person stood in front of my brother and me when we entered the polling place. No bombs went off. There were no signs of voter intimidation. People were in typically Southern high spirits, although a silent, dismal, multi-partisan gaggle of activists huddled on the sidewalk outside--drizzled upon and largely ignored.
This is terribly anticlimactic for such a closely watched election. Why not reward voters, by the way? A little fun would be a fair way to cut into voter apathy. How about door prizes? Balloons to take home to the kids? Clowns (not the ones seeking elected office)?
Of course, things are bound to heat up again as the polls start closing.
Update: Somebody likes me?! Thank you for the kind words, Citizen Jo! I shall listen to some Bernard Herrmann in celebration!
I Pledge
I'll be off to vote in a couple of hours.
Heavily inspired by BuzzMachine and thoughts of the future, I now promise to...
Support the President, even if I didn't vote for the jerk.
Criticize the President, even if I did vote for the jerk.
Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better (though standards may vary by subject).
Unite as a nation, putting country over party, though I actually wanted to unite myself as a continent. Gotta start small, I guess. Call me Wheelerstan.
Do the same thing as Michele, but without the drunken, naked cursing.
Review the advance copy of "The Incredibles" soundtrack that arrived yesterday.
Clip my toenails.
Take a shower.
Drink a glass of water.
Go to bed.
And that is a promise!
Heavily inspired by BuzzMachine and thoughts of the future, I now promise to...
Support the President, even if I didn't vote for the jerk.
Criticize the President, even if I did vote for the jerk.
Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better (though standards may vary by subject).
Unite as a nation, putting country over party, though I actually wanted to unite myself as a continent. Gotta start small, I guess. Call me Wheelerstan.
Do the same thing as Michele, but without the drunken, naked cursing.
Review the advance copy of "The Incredibles" soundtrack that arrived yesterday.
Clip my toenails.
Take a shower.
Drink a glass of water.
Go to bed.
And that is a promise!
Monday, November 01, 2004
A New Ghoul Rises
To this comment of mine I want to add Christopher Hitchens' observation that humanity has a bigger enemy nowadays. One argument went out the window with the old ghoul's reappearance for Halloween; still, the article builds on much more important observations, and remains worth reading.
Update: James Lileks: No one showed up as bin Laden; perhaps it’s not because he’s scary any more. I’ll admit, I thought he was dead, and I am on record in print and on the radio as having said so. Let the record show I was wrong, and by all means keep that in mind the next time I speak with confidence and assurance. That said, he might as well be dead for all it seemed to spook anyone. I hate to say more about it lest something happen in the next few days, but for Binny to jack-in-the-box now, rather than appearing after his next Brilliant Mastermind Strike, seems to suggest he has nothing in the tank and less in the trunk.
Update: James Lileks: No one showed up as bin Laden; perhaps it’s not because he’s scary any more. I’ll admit, I thought he was dead, and I am on record in print and on the radio as having said so. Let the record show I was wrong, and by all means keep that in mind the next time I speak with confidence and assurance. That said, he might as well be dead for all it seemed to spook anyone. I hate to say more about it lest something happen in the next few days, but for Binny to jack-in-the-box now, rather than appearing after his next Brilliant Mastermind Strike, seems to suggest he has nothing in the tank and less in the trunk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
