In the event of a hung Parliament, where no party has a clear majority following the next set of British elections, Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg has promised that he will not form a coalition government with Brown and his Labour Party. He has said this in an apparent attempt to counter charges by Cameron's Conservatives that a vote for the LibDems is tantamount to a vote for five more years of Brown and Labour. As has been pointed out however, this would likely cause disaffection amongst those left of center voters who are now supporting Clegg (due to his performance in the series of "Leaders Debates" in which he performed far above expectations and according to most analysts won the debates). They might hate Brown, but they certainly would not wish to see the Tories gain power.
However, it seems pretty obvious that, the way the British electoral system is set up, either Brown or Cameron will have to form a coalition government with the LibDems, which means that one of the two leaders of said parties would become Prime Minister.
Even if the Liberal Democrats perform at the highest possible levels, they will only pick up a relative handful of seats, just enough to keep the Conservatives, poised to end up with the most seats in any event, from gaining a clear majority. The clear losers, under the most likely at this point scenario, will be Labour, who might well, and in fact likely, nevertheless maintain the reins of government with Brown still at the helm-assuming Clegg relents and forms his coalition government with Labour. It does seem highly unlikely that either Labour or Conservatives will agree to Clegg being Prime Minister.
So what do you have? Very likely, chaos. At the very least, the British public are going to be outraged in large part at themselves if their votes for Clegg amounts to a return to power of Brown, or for that matter Cameron.
This problem could be easily solved were Britain to merely hold run-off elections between the two top contenders. Under that scenario, the election would more than likely be between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Conservatives would likely win that one running away, because frankly if you love Labour, you would have to be absolutely enthralled with the Liberal Democrats. Their policies would be tantamount to national suicide.
They are in favor of a multinational foreign policy and are full speed ahead in favor of full integration into the European Union, including but not limited to adopting the Euro and dropping the Pound. They are also for unilaterally dismantling the Trident nuclear deterrent. They favor what can only be described as an open borders immigration policy, and would like to see a system of home incarceration for convicted offenders of "minor" crimes.
Bear in mind that the Liberal Democrats, the heirs to Gladstone, have been out of power now for closely approaching one hundred years, when to all intents and purposes they slid into practical irrelevancy as the third party of British politics. They contributed to a hung Parliament once in the early to mid seventies, but that matter was quickly resolved. Then again, there was not so much at stake then.
This is not your great-great-great grandfather's Liberal Party, which used to favor a laissez-faire economic policy. They actually bonded with another minor party, the Social Democrats, in the eighties, and swung greatly to the left. At the time it was a matter of survival more than relevancy that they do so.
Now they are on the verge of establishing themselves as power brokers and netting a handful of Ministry posts in the bargain, in addition to asserting some of their policies into government as a matter of compromise politics. Clegg's latest promises to the contrary, the Labour Party seems to be the most obvious route to go. Labour is certainly unlikely-to say the very least-to form a coalition with the Conservatives, so how could Clegg?
Ironically, the overall result of this might well turn out to be the fiasco that, far from bringing the Liberal Democrats to power and establishing them as a permanent major player in British politics might well in the long run turn them into a footnote of British history and seal their permanent doom.
If there is one thing the British can't abide, it's chaos, which is seemingly what they are headed towards. The result could be a collapse of government if Clegg fails or refuses to form a coalition government with Labour, or the Conservatives. At that point, would Brown even have the authority to call another election? If he does not, does anybody aside from the Queen have that authority-or does she even have that authority? I rather suspect not. Nor would there be any sitting chamber that would have the authority to do pretty much anything in the way of forming a government or reforming this batty electoral system in which the runaway winner of the election might well end up, and probably will end up, with no more than 64 seats, about ten more than they now have, while the loser could and probably will end up with more than two hundred, and be positioned to yet run the government. It's stark madness, and if it instigates the fall of the British government, would that be any great mystery?
The whole problem has arisen due to the perception, probably an accurate one, that Cameron and the Conservatives are themselves to all intents and purposes a center-left party, and by American standards, on the average an out-and-out liberal party. It is no longer the party of Margaret Thatcher, or Winston Churchill. It has regressed back to where it is once again the party of Neville Chamberlain, minus the optimistic outlook.
There is no truly conservative party by any stretch of the imagination. Even the much and with good reason maligned British National Party is not so much a conservative party as a hyper-nationalist one with fascist overtones. No one is buying their snake oil. At least, not yet.
But like I said, the British cannot abide chaos, and it won't take long before demands are made for electoral reform. But in the meantime, what is going to be the result on Britain's relations with the EU and with America? Unfortunately, the US is a big part of their problem. Most Brits want their country to cut themselves loose from the alliance, which they feel has brought them nothing but turmoil. As it stands, the western city with the largest percentage of pro-Islamic radical sympathizers is not Paris, not Amsterdam-but London. The government has brought a lot of this headache on themselves, as much with their liberal social and immigration policies as by their connection to Iraq and Afghanistan, but by now America makes the most convenient scapegoat.
Then there's the EU. They had a conniption over the economic turmoil of relatively tiny Greece. What will happen if the British economy collapses due to political instability? It could easily happen. In America, not too very long ago, such a scenario would probably have been temporarily good for the economy, because not so much of it was bound up in government subsidies, and in fact, there would have been some who would have and could have easily and happily profited from the situation inherent in the inability to oversee the regulatory schemes that tend to put a brake on economic growth. No such potential exists in Britain. To utilize a current phrase, Britain is "too big to fail". So what happens if it does just that?
Monday, April 26, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Eyjaffjallajokul Sends Us A Message
Happy Earth Day, SUCKERS!
He (or she?) must have read the article that proposed limiting jet flights as a means to combat Global Climate Change, which contained the following-
Jet aircraft atmospheric damage is unique in that exhaust emissions from such aircraft are deposited not only in the lower atmosphere but also in the cloud-forming troposphere and higher, where resulting contrails are formed and other chemicals remain to interact for decades.
The now well recognized critical role (including by the United Nations) that air transportation plays in climate change is raised to the highest levels of concern by the Pentagon's report. "Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding."
And since no one else seems at all interested in limiting jet flights, instead preferring to limit or outright ban other aspects of energy consumption which are far more vital to the lives of most every day Americans and for that matter everyone else in the world, it looks like the old volcano deity has decided to take a firm stand on behalf of humankind everywhere. For a while, air traffic was virtually halted throughout Europe, both within the continent, and to and from it as well.
No word of relief from Global Climate Change alarmists or anyone else, no further recommendations to reduce air traffic from European or American leaders, not even so much as a pointing to the silver lining inherent within that gigantic cloud of volcanic ash that hung like a shroud over the European continent. Nothing but anxiety over the lack of air traffic, especially of course from the airlines, who will probably recoup their losses now by making passengers stand in the aisles when they fly while holding onto a secure hand strap they'll probably charge you an extra twenty dollars for. Hey, come to think of it, who needs seats, they can haul a lot more folks that way. Whoops, better scratch that idea, that would mean they could reduce their flights.
It would not be the first time that the old Icelandic volcanoes acted up and cooled things off as a result of their tantrums, as witness this account of Ben Franklin's observations toward the end of the eighteenth century of the rampant and unusual cooling throughout Europe and America, and maybe beyond, all the result of the activity of the Laki fissure volcano system.
Now we get a twofer-the volcanic ash itself should contribute to cooling or at least marginally offset the alleged man-made warming going on, and in the meantime the reduction albeit temporary of air traffic (about one percent at most of which is probably vital and necessary) should further reduce pollution, and more importantly, for that very brief period at least contribute to a lessening in consumption of the petroleum necessary to produce the jet fuel that certainly contributes greatly to our ever-dwindling supplies of non-renewable energy sources.
Have no fear though. Al Gore will soon hop on a jet and log a few thousand miles in order to enlighten us all on the need to cut down on, or be taxed out our asses for, our driving back and forth to our piddling little daily jobs and to the stores to do our shopping for, you know, unimportant luxuries such as food, clothing, and other supposed household "necessities", to say nothing of our decadent modern addiction to wanting to keep warm in the cold of winter and tolerably cool during the dog days of summer.
I hope the next time that volcano decides to party he brings all his buddies with him.
He (or she?) must have read the article that proposed limiting jet flights as a means to combat Global Climate Change, which contained the following-
Jet aircraft atmospheric damage is unique in that exhaust emissions from such aircraft are deposited not only in the lower atmosphere but also in the cloud-forming troposphere and higher, where resulting contrails are formed and other chemicals remain to interact for decades.
The now well recognized critical role (including by the United Nations) that air transportation plays in climate change is raised to the highest levels of concern by the Pentagon's report. "Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding."
And since no one else seems at all interested in limiting jet flights, instead preferring to limit or outright ban other aspects of energy consumption which are far more vital to the lives of most every day Americans and for that matter everyone else in the world, it looks like the old volcano deity has decided to take a firm stand on behalf of humankind everywhere. For a while, air traffic was virtually halted throughout Europe, both within the continent, and to and from it as well.
No word of relief from Global Climate Change alarmists or anyone else, no further recommendations to reduce air traffic from European or American leaders, not even so much as a pointing to the silver lining inherent within that gigantic cloud of volcanic ash that hung like a shroud over the European continent. Nothing but anxiety over the lack of air traffic, especially of course from the airlines, who will probably recoup their losses now by making passengers stand in the aisles when they fly while holding onto a secure hand strap they'll probably charge you an extra twenty dollars for. Hey, come to think of it, who needs seats, they can haul a lot more folks that way. Whoops, better scratch that idea, that would mean they could reduce their flights.
It would not be the first time that the old Icelandic volcanoes acted up and cooled things off as a result of their tantrums, as witness this account of Ben Franklin's observations toward the end of the eighteenth century of the rampant and unusual cooling throughout Europe and America, and maybe beyond, all the result of the activity of the Laki fissure volcano system.
Now we get a twofer-the volcanic ash itself should contribute to cooling or at least marginally offset the alleged man-made warming going on, and in the meantime the reduction albeit temporary of air traffic (about one percent at most of which is probably vital and necessary) should further reduce pollution, and more importantly, for that very brief period at least contribute to a lessening in consumption of the petroleum necessary to produce the jet fuel that certainly contributes greatly to our ever-dwindling supplies of non-renewable energy sources.
Have no fear though. Al Gore will soon hop on a jet and log a few thousand miles in order to enlighten us all on the need to cut down on, or be taxed out our asses for, our driving back and forth to our piddling little daily jobs and to the stores to do our shopping for, you know, unimportant luxuries such as food, clothing, and other supposed household "necessities", to say nothing of our decadent modern addiction to wanting to keep warm in the cold of winter and tolerably cool during the dog days of summer.
I hope the next time that volcano decides to party he brings all his buddies with him.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Three Jackson County Ky. Teens Attempt To Murder Gay Classmate
A horrifying story is unfolding from out of McKee, Jackson County Kentucky that illustrates the danger of the religious indoctrination of children and the possibly irreversible harm it can do to a child's psyche. Some people might even point to it as a case in point as to how children should not be allowed within ten miles of organized religion, which would of course be taking it way too far. What it does however definitely illustrate is the need for proper, mature, adult supervision. I'll go more into this later, but first, the story.
Two eighteen year old girls, along with an unnamed teenage juvenile, have been charged with kidnapping, assault, and attempted murder. The alleged victim was Cheyenne Williams, an openly gay classmate who is said to have been friends with her alleged assailants since they were in the sixth grade-in other words, for close to six years.
What they did to her is a case study in sadism. They took her to a remote forested area and assaulted her, at one point throwing rocks at her, and ultimately attempting to force her off the edge of a cliff. Strangely, Miss Williams somehow managed to film the entire assault, or at least a significant part of it, on her cell phone.
There is a large part of this story that is yet shrouded in mystery, but it has been stated that the conflict amongst the long-standing friends came to a head after the April 16th Day of Silence event, which has been promoted by gay activist groups as a means of protesting harassment of gay students at public schools. Of course, the event, which was originated at the University of Virginia back in the mid-nineties, is a controversial one, with some conservative and religious organizations demanding that their children be allowed to take the day off school, or otherwise protesting the event. It should be pointed out, however, that the Day of Silence is purely voluntary. It entails a commitment from students to refrain from speaking during that day, while yet otherwise participating in class room activities and class assignments in order to not disrupt the learning environment (such as it may be).
It is also unclear as to how long Miss Williams has been "out of the closet" insofar as her sexuality in concerned, and whether or not there was any previous controversy regarding this between her and her former friends.
Additionally, it is unknown as to what degree the perpetrators of the assault were influenced by their religious beliefs, but one of the students at the school, in commenting on the case in an interview for Lexington Ky television news WLEX, made the statement that the students in question were Holiness, or Pentecostal.
If this is in fact the case, I have to wonder whether they truly intended to kill Miss Williams, or whether instead they might have been attempting to "save her soul" in a form of bizarre exorcism ritual involving forcing her to turn to God and be saved by the power of the Holy Spirit.
It so happens that Pentecostal beliefs about homosexuality is pretty explicit. They think it is a sin, and that those who commit it or are homosexual have offended God-but they do nevertheless hold that a gay person can be "saved"-and do note this does not mean merely that God will forgive them of their sins and accept them into His heavenly kingdom. It means that God will literally change them by turning them into straight people.
This beings us back full circle to my statement about the need for adult supervision when it comes to religious indoctrination. It's one thing to believe that a gay person can "change". I personally think its possible, but unlikely, for the simple reason that a person who is attracted to the same sex-regardless of what the reason for that might be-is quite simply unlikely to want to change, even if it were possible. This brings us to the main point that children brought up in religious households need to have proper guidance. Unfortunately, the adults responsible for their religious training (not just parents, but pastors, priests, and rabbis as well) have been lacking in this regard in all too many cases, this being a preeminent example.
Put simply and succinctly, regardless of the worthiness or viability of your own personal belief systems, your beliefs are not, nor hopefully will they ever be, the law of the land. The laws of your nation might be abhorrent to your way of thinking or beliefs, but they are still the law. Moreover, regardless of what you might think about homosexuals, they have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. I might also point out that it doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is a sin, or whether or not a person can stop being gay if he turns to God. Even if that were all true, an individual person has the right to be gay if he or she so chooses to be gay-assuming just for the sake of argument that it is a matter of choice to begin with.
Nobody has to believe in your God regardless of what you think, or to practice your particular faith or believe anything you believe. You sure as hell don't have the right to throw them off a cliff if they do not. Stories like this are easily picked up by the Left and utilized as proof of the bigotry of the right, or at least of the religious right, but I want to point out that this kind of thing is not conservative, not under any legitimate definition of the term.
This is the exact same kind of mindset that would pass laws against gay marriage at the national level, or would outlaw abortion at the national level, in effect giving powers to the federal government that it was never intended to have over each individual state's sovereignty in such matters-not one iota better or worse than guaranteeing abortion rights or the right to gay marriage at the federal level over the rights of the states to decide such matters-matters which were never in any fashion elucidated in the constitution as belonging to the domain of the federal government. Because such is the road to a tyranny of the federal government over the people. That such might be accomplished in the name of supposed conservative values does not make it any less leftist or intrusive. It is even more dangerous to support such views in the name of some supposed deity.
There are times when people who suppose they are acting out of republican (small r) or conservative values of freedom and liberty act at cross-purposes due to a supposed threat to their values from the left, and they tend to overreact at the antics of leftist organizations such as GLSEN, and others who promote such things as the Day of Silence in public schools, and other things which might be not so worthwhile or positive.
I would point out to them that there are numerous gay conservatives, and for that matter, it is even possible to be a Gay Patriot.
More to the point, though, is that while you have a right to your own religious beliefs and the right to teach those beliefs to your children, you have the obligation and responsibility to monitor your child's activities and insure that they are adequately counseled as to what is appropriate, and what might be going over the line (or over a cliff in this case).
It doesn't matter whether the crime they committed, and attempted to commit, was a hate crime, or a desperate act of misguided love meant to save the soul of a friend from hellfire. Something like this should never happen, and if these three teens are punished to the fullest extent of the law, it would be right and appropriate. No one would have a legitimate right to cry about leftist discriminatory policies against Christian beliefs-well, unless those who might do so only want to look even more ridiculous than they already do.
Two eighteen year old girls, along with an unnamed teenage juvenile, have been charged with kidnapping, assault, and attempted murder. The alleged victim was Cheyenne Williams, an openly gay classmate who is said to have been friends with her alleged assailants since they were in the sixth grade-in other words, for close to six years.
What they did to her is a case study in sadism. They took her to a remote forested area and assaulted her, at one point throwing rocks at her, and ultimately attempting to force her off the edge of a cliff. Strangely, Miss Williams somehow managed to film the entire assault, or at least a significant part of it, on her cell phone.
There is a large part of this story that is yet shrouded in mystery, but it has been stated that the conflict amongst the long-standing friends came to a head after the April 16th Day of Silence event, which has been promoted by gay activist groups as a means of protesting harassment of gay students at public schools. Of course, the event, which was originated at the University of Virginia back in the mid-nineties, is a controversial one, with some conservative and religious organizations demanding that their children be allowed to take the day off school, or otherwise protesting the event. It should be pointed out, however, that the Day of Silence is purely voluntary. It entails a commitment from students to refrain from speaking during that day, while yet otherwise participating in class room activities and class assignments in order to not disrupt the learning environment (such as it may be).
It is also unclear as to how long Miss Williams has been "out of the closet" insofar as her sexuality in concerned, and whether or not there was any previous controversy regarding this between her and her former friends.
Additionally, it is unknown as to what degree the perpetrators of the assault were influenced by their religious beliefs, but one of the students at the school, in commenting on the case in an interview for Lexington Ky television news WLEX, made the statement that the students in question were Holiness, or Pentecostal.
If this is in fact the case, I have to wonder whether they truly intended to kill Miss Williams, or whether instead they might have been attempting to "save her soul" in a form of bizarre exorcism ritual involving forcing her to turn to God and be saved by the power of the Holy Spirit.
It so happens that Pentecostal beliefs about homosexuality is pretty explicit. They think it is a sin, and that those who commit it or are homosexual have offended God-but they do nevertheless hold that a gay person can be "saved"-and do note this does not mean merely that God will forgive them of their sins and accept them into His heavenly kingdom. It means that God will literally change them by turning them into straight people.
This beings us back full circle to my statement about the need for adult supervision when it comes to religious indoctrination. It's one thing to believe that a gay person can "change". I personally think its possible, but unlikely, for the simple reason that a person who is attracted to the same sex-regardless of what the reason for that might be-is quite simply unlikely to want to change, even if it were possible. This brings us to the main point that children brought up in religious households need to have proper guidance. Unfortunately, the adults responsible for their religious training (not just parents, but pastors, priests, and rabbis as well) have been lacking in this regard in all too many cases, this being a preeminent example.
Put simply and succinctly, regardless of the worthiness or viability of your own personal belief systems, your beliefs are not, nor hopefully will they ever be, the law of the land. The laws of your nation might be abhorrent to your way of thinking or beliefs, but they are still the law. Moreover, regardless of what you might think about homosexuals, they have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. I might also point out that it doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is a sin, or whether or not a person can stop being gay if he turns to God. Even if that were all true, an individual person has the right to be gay if he or she so chooses to be gay-assuming just for the sake of argument that it is a matter of choice to begin with.
Nobody has to believe in your God regardless of what you think, or to practice your particular faith or believe anything you believe. You sure as hell don't have the right to throw them off a cliff if they do not. Stories like this are easily picked up by the Left and utilized as proof of the bigotry of the right, or at least of the religious right, but I want to point out that this kind of thing is not conservative, not under any legitimate definition of the term.
This is the exact same kind of mindset that would pass laws against gay marriage at the national level, or would outlaw abortion at the national level, in effect giving powers to the federal government that it was never intended to have over each individual state's sovereignty in such matters-not one iota better or worse than guaranteeing abortion rights or the right to gay marriage at the federal level over the rights of the states to decide such matters-matters which were never in any fashion elucidated in the constitution as belonging to the domain of the federal government. Because such is the road to a tyranny of the federal government over the people. That such might be accomplished in the name of supposed conservative values does not make it any less leftist or intrusive. It is even more dangerous to support such views in the name of some supposed deity.
There are times when people who suppose they are acting out of republican (small r) or conservative values of freedom and liberty act at cross-purposes due to a supposed threat to their values from the left, and they tend to overreact at the antics of leftist organizations such as GLSEN, and others who promote such things as the Day of Silence in public schools, and other things which might be not so worthwhile or positive.
I would point out to them that there are numerous gay conservatives, and for that matter, it is even possible to be a Gay Patriot.
More to the point, though, is that while you have a right to your own religious beliefs and the right to teach those beliefs to your children, you have the obligation and responsibility to monitor your child's activities and insure that they are adequately counseled as to what is appropriate, and what might be going over the line (or over a cliff in this case).
It doesn't matter whether the crime they committed, and attempted to commit, was a hate crime, or a desperate act of misguided love meant to save the soul of a friend from hellfire. Something like this should never happen, and if these three teens are punished to the fullest extent of the law, it would be right and appropriate. No one would have a legitimate right to cry about leftist discriminatory policies against Christian beliefs-well, unless those who might do so only want to look even more ridiculous than they already do.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Lost Tomight-Desmond Hume's Scheme
The sideways time Desmond Hume is a man on a self-appointed mission to awaken all of the Sideways time versions of the Island Lost characters to their seemingly dual existences. Having been awakened to this conundrum by Charlie Pace in the course of a near death experience, he has now endeavored to track down all of the Flight 815 passengers in order to avail them of this knowledge as well. As seen last night, he did so successfully with Hugo, and at the end of the episode, he seems to have gone to extremes in order to awaken Sideways Locke-he run him down with his car, wheelchair and all, leaving a critically injured Locke in convulsions on the road right in front of a horrified Sideways Ben. Personally, I think I would have taken a different approach, but evidently Desmond is on top of his game enough to know the risk is minimal.
It will be interesting to see where he goes with this from this point on, and perhaps fun to speculate. He has already met Sideways Claire, of whom he is aware also due to Charlie's awakened feelings for her. We know that Island Claire is insane at least in part due to her loss of her infant son Aaron (Kate having in an earlier season abducted the young lad and taken him to the outside world to be raised). Will Desmond go that extra mile and abduct Sideways Aaron from Claire as a means of awakening her to her island past?
What of Sayid, whom we saw last week in the previews for this week's episode discharging a firearm into the bottom of the well into which Island Flocke (Smoke Monster in the guise of John Locke) had unceremoniously dumped Island Desmond towards the end of the last episode. Will he clear the way for Sayid to recapture his love for Nadia (and his island memories as well) by going to the extent of murdering Sayid's brother right where he is in the hospital?
And then there is Jack, whom I have read this weeks Sideways plot is centered around. Obviously he will in his capacity as a spinal surgeon work on the injured Sideways Locke, whom I have no doubt will start to realize his island life-and death. How will this make him react to Jack, with whom he was at enmity throughout the series. And what will his reaction be to Ben, who murdered him in the Island universe (though this occurred off the island)?
Thankfully, Hugo's meddling may produce some unexpected positive results on the island world. The ghost of Michael advised Hugo to talk to Locke, so off he went, taking some of his compatriots with him, although Ben and Miles elected to follow Richard, who is determined to destroy the Ajira plane in order to prevent Flocke from leaving the island. This all followed the shocking death of Illana, who suffered the same death-by-dynamite fate as Dr. Arzt (in the season one finale) when she secured dynamite from the Black Rock in order to destroy the Ajira plane.
Otherwise, Jack seems resigned to whatever fate awaits him for once, and has agreed to follow Hugo's lead, as has a reluctant Sun, desperate to be reunited with husband Jin. My first reaction was, well, Michael meant to talk to John Locke's ghost-since Hugo alone of the characters has that ability (Miles can only hear their last thoughts if he comes in contact with their remains). He did not mean, obviously, that Hugo should talk to the Smoke Monster in the guise of Locke.
But then it occurred to me, since Locke's memories and even a large part of his personality seems contained within the form adopted by the Smoke Monster, whatever that creature really is, then it is possible, in fact probable, that communicating with Locke through that form might actually cause John Locke-the real one-to actually take control of the form. Kind of like an exorcism in reverse, sort of.
As for Desmond, will his scheme work on peripheral characters who were not passengers on 815? For example, will Martin Keamy, assuming he somehow survives his gunshot wound in Sideways time, awaken to his past as a mercenary for Charles Widmore on the island?
And what of Ben?
It will be interesting to see where he goes with this from this point on, and perhaps fun to speculate. He has already met Sideways Claire, of whom he is aware also due to Charlie's awakened feelings for her. We know that Island Claire is insane at least in part due to her loss of her infant son Aaron (Kate having in an earlier season abducted the young lad and taken him to the outside world to be raised). Will Desmond go that extra mile and abduct Sideways Aaron from Claire as a means of awakening her to her island past?
What of Sayid, whom we saw last week in the previews for this week's episode discharging a firearm into the bottom of the well into which Island Flocke (Smoke Monster in the guise of John Locke) had unceremoniously dumped Island Desmond towards the end of the last episode. Will he clear the way for Sayid to recapture his love for Nadia (and his island memories as well) by going to the extent of murdering Sayid's brother right where he is in the hospital?
And then there is Jack, whom I have read this weeks Sideways plot is centered around. Obviously he will in his capacity as a spinal surgeon work on the injured Sideways Locke, whom I have no doubt will start to realize his island life-and death. How will this make him react to Jack, with whom he was at enmity throughout the series. And what will his reaction be to Ben, who murdered him in the Island universe (though this occurred off the island)?
Thankfully, Hugo's meddling may produce some unexpected positive results on the island world. The ghost of Michael advised Hugo to talk to Locke, so off he went, taking some of his compatriots with him, although Ben and Miles elected to follow Richard, who is determined to destroy the Ajira plane in order to prevent Flocke from leaving the island. This all followed the shocking death of Illana, who suffered the same death-by-dynamite fate as Dr. Arzt (in the season one finale) when she secured dynamite from the Black Rock in order to destroy the Ajira plane.
Otherwise, Jack seems resigned to whatever fate awaits him for once, and has agreed to follow Hugo's lead, as has a reluctant Sun, desperate to be reunited with husband Jin. My first reaction was, well, Michael meant to talk to John Locke's ghost-since Hugo alone of the characters has that ability (Miles can only hear their last thoughts if he comes in contact with their remains). He did not mean, obviously, that Hugo should talk to the Smoke Monster in the guise of Locke.
But then it occurred to me, since Locke's memories and even a large part of his personality seems contained within the form adopted by the Smoke Monster, whatever that creature really is, then it is possible, in fact probable, that communicating with Locke through that form might actually cause John Locke-the real one-to actually take control of the form. Kind of like an exorcism in reverse, sort of.
As for Desmond, will his scheme work on peripheral characters who were not passengers on 815? For example, will Martin Keamy, assuming he somehow survives his gunshot wound in Sideways time, awaken to his past as a mercenary for Charles Widmore on the island?
And what of Ben?
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Cookbook Should Stirve For Accuracy Above All
Penguin Australia Books has suffered some embarrassment due to a misprint in one of their recipe books, in a recipe for "spent tagliatelle with sardines and prosciutto" which called for "freshly ground black people" as an ingredient.
They've gone off the deep end over this minor misprint, and so evidently have some of their customers, to the point they have recalled all of the unsold books, to be replaced with the corrected version. They have further promised to replace the misprint version for any customer that might be offended by what the company refers to as a "silly mistake".
Well personally I can see why an unaware customer might take offense, and it is certainly good that the company has offered to make restitution.
After all, "Freshly Ground Black People" is a bit much isn't it? The recipe doesn't even specify HOW MANY freshly ground black people one is to use in the recipe. Some might defensively insist that one should obviously use this particular ingredient to suit ones taste. However, it seems quite obvious to me that, if that is the case the recipe should simply read "Freshly Ground Black Person (to taste)".
"Person" singular, not "People" plural.
An entire person would be a bit much at that, even if cooking for a banquet, so once you are finished preparing your meal, I would suggest you keep your Freshly Ground Black Person in a tightly sealed container in order to retain freshness for future use.
They've gone off the deep end over this minor misprint, and so evidently have some of their customers, to the point they have recalled all of the unsold books, to be replaced with the corrected version. They have further promised to replace the misprint version for any customer that might be offended by what the company refers to as a "silly mistake".
Well personally I can see why an unaware customer might take offense, and it is certainly good that the company has offered to make restitution.
After all, "Freshly Ground Black People" is a bit much isn't it? The recipe doesn't even specify HOW MANY freshly ground black people one is to use in the recipe. Some might defensively insist that one should obviously use this particular ingredient to suit ones taste. However, it seems quite obvious to me that, if that is the case the recipe should simply read "Freshly Ground Black Person (to taste)".
"Person" singular, not "People" plural.
An entire person would be a bit much at that, even if cooking for a banquet, so once you are finished preparing your meal, I would suggest you keep your Freshly Ground Black Person in a tightly sealed container in order to retain freshness for future use.
Rules For Radicals
Bill Clinton has been warning us that the Tea-Party movement and anti-government rhetoric could lead to another Oklahoma City bombing, the fifteenth anniversary of which is today.
However, the Soccer Dad points out that this is a typical Clintonian tactic, one that he polished during his presidency at the instigation of then adviser Dick Morris.
It's pretty ingenious. Use government to enact an intrusive law-the example from the Clinton presidency and which is enumerated in the link is the Brady Bill-and then when conservatives rail to their Republican representatives, use this to paint the Republican Party as inciting or encouraging potential violence. If you have an actual example of violence, so much the better. You have a precedent to point towards.
It never seems to occur to Democrats and leftists that if they would just stop using the federal government as a tool to intrude in practically every area of American life, there would not be nearly as much chance of violent upheaval. Or I guess they just don't want most Americans to realize that.
Nor does it seem to occur to anybody that the vast majority of politically motivated violence that occurs in the US is from the Left. Here's an example that occurred recently in California, when leftists attacked a legal demonstration of national socialists. Yes, they were Nazis, and as such, given their inherent disloyalty to the Constitution, they should not have been allowed to speak, as far as I'm concerned.
What is telling about this,however, is that it was leftist counter-protesters who got physically violent, resulting in injuries to two National Socialist protesters, and arrests of a number of the leftist counter-demonstrators.
An even more pertinent point, however, is in how leftists tend to regard conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. One of the many pejoratives aimed at the Tea Party and conservatives in general, from the left, is that they are all, or at least that a good many if not most of them, are fascists-and Nazis. Given this is in fact how they feel, or at least that this is the kind of rhetoric they engage in, how can conservatives, or members of the Tea Party, not consider or expect that they too might one day be physically assaulted, partially on those grounds? It is certainly something to consider.
Then there was this little tidbit where the daughter of Louisiana Governor Jindal and a male escort were followed from the Conservative Leadership Conference by a gang of protesters and attacked. Although Michelle Malkin in the linked post cautions that there is no proof the assault was politically motivated or anything other than rampant New Orleans style thuggery, I would point out that they were followed from the event and from the area where there were still some protesters present, and that there was no robbery committed or demands made, nor was Miss Jindal sexually assaulted, though she was called a "blonde bitch", and her escort was referred to as a "fucking faggot" right before they were beaten so badly they had to be hospitalized, one for a broken leg.
My advice to anybody who is assaulted by leftist thugs is, if you are attacked, fight back. Don't try to play Gandhi. If you kill these thugs, so long as they are the ones who instigate the violence, you are doing the country a big favor. However, don't instigate the violence yourselves. You will be criticized badly enough just for protecting yourselves from these worthless scumbags.
If they start it themselves and you protect yourselves, and are criticized for it, make sure you are unapologetic about it, and that you make it clear that if you are attacked, as far as you are concerned you are defending your life and won't care one iota to take the life of your assailant. If a few of these fucktards are killed in this way, maybe the Democrats and the media will get the message-
If you don't want violence and bloodshed and loss of life-don't instigate it and then think you are going to manipulate public sentiment by playing the victim. The majority of us are wise to that bullshit, and the time for playing by your rule book has come and gone.
However, the Soccer Dad points out that this is a typical Clintonian tactic, one that he polished during his presidency at the instigation of then adviser Dick Morris.
It's pretty ingenious. Use government to enact an intrusive law-the example from the Clinton presidency and which is enumerated in the link is the Brady Bill-and then when conservatives rail to their Republican representatives, use this to paint the Republican Party as inciting or encouraging potential violence. If you have an actual example of violence, so much the better. You have a precedent to point towards.
It never seems to occur to Democrats and leftists that if they would just stop using the federal government as a tool to intrude in practically every area of American life, there would not be nearly as much chance of violent upheaval. Or I guess they just don't want most Americans to realize that.
Nor does it seem to occur to anybody that the vast majority of politically motivated violence that occurs in the US is from the Left. Here's an example that occurred recently in California, when leftists attacked a legal demonstration of national socialists. Yes, they were Nazis, and as such, given their inherent disloyalty to the Constitution, they should not have been allowed to speak, as far as I'm concerned.
What is telling about this,however, is that it was leftist counter-protesters who got physically violent, resulting in injuries to two National Socialist protesters, and arrests of a number of the leftist counter-demonstrators.
An even more pertinent point, however, is in how leftists tend to regard conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. One of the many pejoratives aimed at the Tea Party and conservatives in general, from the left, is that they are all, or at least that a good many if not most of them, are fascists-and Nazis. Given this is in fact how they feel, or at least that this is the kind of rhetoric they engage in, how can conservatives, or members of the Tea Party, not consider or expect that they too might one day be physically assaulted, partially on those grounds? It is certainly something to consider.
Then there was this little tidbit where the daughter of Louisiana Governor Jindal and a male escort were followed from the Conservative Leadership Conference by a gang of protesters and attacked. Although Michelle Malkin in the linked post cautions that there is no proof the assault was politically motivated or anything other than rampant New Orleans style thuggery, I would point out that they were followed from the event and from the area where there were still some protesters present, and that there was no robbery committed or demands made, nor was Miss Jindal sexually assaulted, though she was called a "blonde bitch", and her escort was referred to as a "fucking faggot" right before they were beaten so badly they had to be hospitalized, one for a broken leg.
My advice to anybody who is assaulted by leftist thugs is, if you are attacked, fight back. Don't try to play Gandhi. If you kill these thugs, so long as they are the ones who instigate the violence, you are doing the country a big favor. However, don't instigate the violence yourselves. You will be criticized badly enough just for protecting yourselves from these worthless scumbags.
If they start it themselves and you protect yourselves, and are criticized for it, make sure you are unapologetic about it, and that you make it clear that if you are attacked, as far as you are concerned you are defending your life and won't care one iota to take the life of your assailant. If a few of these fucktards are killed in this way, maybe the Democrats and the media will get the message-
If you don't want violence and bloodshed and loss of life-don't instigate it and then think you are going to manipulate public sentiment by playing the victim. The majority of us are wise to that bullshit, and the time for playing by your rule book has come and gone.
A Perfect Example Of WHy We Should Welcome Muslims With Open Arms
Iranian Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi has an explanation for the recent earthquake phenomenon of the last few months.
Many women who dress inappropriately... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes.
You just gotta love these guys. A few years back, another Iranian Ayatollah, after much apparent thoughtful deliberation on the subject, solemnly announced that, if a woman was to fall from the top of a staircase while naked, and she were to land on top of her naked son in such a manner that his penis went up inside her vagina-
TA_DAAAAAAAA-It would not be incest.
How enlightened. Me, I would say it would depend on how long they stayed in that position if conscious and able to move, how much thrusting and writhing was involved, and whether or not an orgasm resulted.
I would also have to add-WHO THE FUCK SITS AROUND AND THINKS ABOUT SHIT LIKE THAT?
And the answer would be, of course, an Ayatollah.
Yeah, let's open the US up to more immigration from Muslim countries. Let's make sure we have an equal amount of Sunni and Shia though, otherwise it might cause an imbalance, which could eventually lead to chaos. As long as we make sure we allow a proportionate number of the imams and Ayatollahs in as well, since those are the only people Muslims tend to listen to, and in fact believe without question, everything should be hunky-dory.
Many women who dress inappropriately... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes.
You just gotta love these guys. A few years back, another Iranian Ayatollah, after much apparent thoughtful deliberation on the subject, solemnly announced that, if a woman was to fall from the top of a staircase while naked, and she were to land on top of her naked son in such a manner that his penis went up inside her vagina-
TA_DAAAAAAAA-It would not be incest.
How enlightened. Me, I would say it would depend on how long they stayed in that position if conscious and able to move, how much thrusting and writhing was involved, and whether or not an orgasm resulted.
I would also have to add-WHO THE FUCK SITS AROUND AND THINKS ABOUT SHIT LIKE THAT?
And the answer would be, of course, an Ayatollah.
Yeah, let's open the US up to more immigration from Muslim countries. Let's make sure we have an equal amount of Sunni and Shia though, otherwise it might cause an imbalance, which could eventually lead to chaos. As long as we make sure we allow a proportionate number of the imams and Ayatollahs in as well, since those are the only people Muslims tend to listen to, and in fact believe without question, everything should be hunky-dory.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Excuse My Seeming Disregard For Human Rights Here, But-
Everybody has the right to a fair trial. If convicted, some deserve twenty years to life without parole. Some deserve the death penalty to be implemented as quickly and relatively painlessly as possible.
And then there are these motherfuckers.
In a case this heinous, this brutal, nothing would satisfy me less than death by slow, excruciating, hard-core torture, with the goal of keeping the motherfuckers alive and conscious throughout the entire ordeal, while injected with a drug that would heighten sensitivity to pain.
Actually, fuck the trial. There might be some scumbags that don't really deserve one after all. I don't suggest the state act in this manner, I think private citizens should go all Rambo on the bastards and any public official who might be stupid enough to protect their "rights", if absolutely necessary.
You see, the thing is, animals can't speak up for themselves, and they get no vote or no say-so on anything. Animal rights activists don't matter, because far too often they don't know what the fuck they're doing or talking about either. I guess they do their best, but too many of them have more of a leftist agenda than are concerned with legitimate animal welfare.
So anyway, fuck it, since animals don't have the same degree of constitutional protections as humans, I think I'm well within reason to insist that those that abuse them should pretty much be considered to have abrogated their own constitutional protections, or for that matter any kind of legitimate claim to human rights at all. Kill these motherfuckers and make an example out of them.
And by the way, how in the hell do you sexually abuse mice so badly they have to be euthanized? WTF?
At least one part of this sorry ass story had a happy ending. One creep that had sex with a horse died from it. Good!!!
And then there are these motherfuckers.
In a case this heinous, this brutal, nothing would satisfy me less than death by slow, excruciating, hard-core torture, with the goal of keeping the motherfuckers alive and conscious throughout the entire ordeal, while injected with a drug that would heighten sensitivity to pain.
Actually, fuck the trial. There might be some scumbags that don't really deserve one after all. I don't suggest the state act in this manner, I think private citizens should go all Rambo on the bastards and any public official who might be stupid enough to protect their "rights", if absolutely necessary.
You see, the thing is, animals can't speak up for themselves, and they get no vote or no say-so on anything. Animal rights activists don't matter, because far too often they don't know what the fuck they're doing or talking about either. I guess they do their best, but too many of them have more of a leftist agenda than are concerned with legitimate animal welfare.
So anyway, fuck it, since animals don't have the same degree of constitutional protections as humans, I think I'm well within reason to insist that those that abuse them should pretty much be considered to have abrogated their own constitutional protections, or for that matter any kind of legitimate claim to human rights at all. Kill these motherfuckers and make an example out of them.
And by the way, how in the hell do you sexually abuse mice so badly they have to be euthanized? WTF?
At least one part of this sorry ass story had a happy ending. One creep that had sex with a horse died from it. Good!!!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
24-The Series Comes To An End
Following years of more or less steady decline in the quality of the series, 24 is finally calling it quits after the current season 8, or as it is called, "Day 8". Fox Network has declined to renew the program, which NBC also declined to pick up. That is probably a good thing. To those of you who think 24 has veered too greatly into the arena of political correctness over the course of the last three years or so, can you imagine what a shadow of its former self it would become as an NBC program? The only worse fate would be were it to be picked up by CBS. As it stands now, perhaps it is best that it is ending its television run, after which it is slated to be made into a full length feature film.
As far as the political correctness goes, I can see where that might have something to do with the declining quality of the program, but I think its a minor factor in comparison to the fact that the show is just getting old and, even worse, predictable.
24 made its mark as one of those kinds of action suspense series where you never knew nor suspected what was going to happen next. It was a wild ride, an adrenaline rush which could easily take your breath away and keep you lighting up one cigarette after another with your eyes and attention breathlessly glued to the screen.
Naturally, it would be next to impossible to keep up that level of suspense year after year, especially when the show followed more or less the same formula, repeatedly. A terrorist threat, be it a nuclear or dirty bomb, or a chemical weapon attack, or biological weapon, threatened a major American city. Jack Bauer to the rescue. Jack learns there is a mole, at CTU, or close to the President, working with the villains. Jack engages in questionable tactics, usually some degree of torture, in order to extract the necessary information to save tens of thousands, potentially millions of lives. Some key character or characters eventually dies unexpectedly.
On to the next day, the next year, and the same formula. Naturally, as I said, it got predictable, and when Season 7 saw the inclusion of liberal comedienne activist Jeannine Garafolo in the role of an FBI analyst, it was taken by many as a sign of impending doom. Sure enough, Jack began to question his own methods. He felt guilty about many of his past actions. At the end of the show, when it looked as though he might be nearing the end of his life, he turned to an Islamic imam for spiritual guidance.
All of that most of us could have lived with and even accepted as an aspect of character growth and development, even if we didn't appreciate the apparent behind the scenes reasons. But the fact remains, after so long, you can only jump out at someone from around the same corner at the same time and scream "Booyah" so many times before such an exercise loses the element of surprise.
Like I said, there was a progressive decline over the years, speaking in a general sense, although Season 5 did seem to reverse the trend, and came close to matching the original adrenaline rush that was the premiere season. But as though to balance out this anomaly, Season 6 was to all intents and purposes execrable, generally agreed by most to be the series worst year. Season 7 was better, but still not quite up to the par of the old magic of the earlier seasons.
Ironically, this season has in my opinion been the best since 5, and by the time it is over with may well surpass that mark. Jack's lover Renee' Walker was killed in last nights episode, which most people might have saw coming, but at least in my own case only in the last couple of minutes before it actually happened.
The Prime Minister of the IRK, who has been trying to forge a peace deal with President Allison Taylor, was brutally murdered in the last episode after turning himself over to IRK terrorists in order to save tens of thousands of New York City lives from the explosion of a dirty bomb. This development took me totally by surprise.
A lot of people were surprised by the reveal of Jenny Scott as the CTU mole, but only because they spent so much time complaining about what seemed to be her useless subplot, the seemingly good-hearted beleaguered former criminal trying to turn her life around while being blackmailed by her redneck former boyfriend who was threatening to reveal the truth about her past. I was not surprised. In fact I figured that one out early on. It made no sense that someone with that background could hide her past and get a job that entails such sensitive responsibilities of national security as a CTU systems analyst involves.
Now, former President Logan is back, seemingly as villainous as ever. Where is all this leading to? With the death of Renee Walker, Jack has lost all hope for a happy ending to this series, though at least he still has his daughter and grandchild. Will he find at least some degree of peace and happiness through them? Will he acquire the justice and vengeance his heart has to crave? Will he make a conversion to Islam?
And, what of Tony Almeida? Will he get in on the action and get revenge on Logan for his involvement in the death of his wife and unborn son?
Will Chloe remain as CTU boss?
This season, incidentally, might well go down as the most cerebral one of the entire series, though not lacking in action and suspense.
Unfortunately, the formula for the series seems to have devolved into a presumed need for a high body count. Unfortunately, that only matters when you care about the bodies being counted. The vast majority of them are merely nameless, almost faceless figures-a handful of terrorists here, two or three members of this or that criminal crew there, a handful of cops, CTU or FBI agents, etc., and before you know it, you get numb to the carnage which seems to amount to nothing more than violence for the sake of the body count. Plot and character development all too often took a back seat for far too long.
But it was a hell of a ride while it lasted, and to be fair, even the disappointing Season 6 was better than most of the shit that is perpetrated on the American television viewing public.
At any rate, it was nice knowing you, Jack Bauer. See you at the movies.
As far as the political correctness goes, I can see where that might have something to do with the declining quality of the program, but I think its a minor factor in comparison to the fact that the show is just getting old and, even worse, predictable.
24 made its mark as one of those kinds of action suspense series where you never knew nor suspected what was going to happen next. It was a wild ride, an adrenaline rush which could easily take your breath away and keep you lighting up one cigarette after another with your eyes and attention breathlessly glued to the screen.
Naturally, it would be next to impossible to keep up that level of suspense year after year, especially when the show followed more or less the same formula, repeatedly. A terrorist threat, be it a nuclear or dirty bomb, or a chemical weapon attack, or biological weapon, threatened a major American city. Jack Bauer to the rescue. Jack learns there is a mole, at CTU, or close to the President, working with the villains. Jack engages in questionable tactics, usually some degree of torture, in order to extract the necessary information to save tens of thousands, potentially millions of lives. Some key character or characters eventually dies unexpectedly.
On to the next day, the next year, and the same formula. Naturally, as I said, it got predictable, and when Season 7 saw the inclusion of liberal comedienne activist Jeannine Garafolo in the role of an FBI analyst, it was taken by many as a sign of impending doom. Sure enough, Jack began to question his own methods. He felt guilty about many of his past actions. At the end of the show, when it looked as though he might be nearing the end of his life, he turned to an Islamic imam for spiritual guidance.
All of that most of us could have lived with and even accepted as an aspect of character growth and development, even if we didn't appreciate the apparent behind the scenes reasons. But the fact remains, after so long, you can only jump out at someone from around the same corner at the same time and scream "Booyah" so many times before such an exercise loses the element of surprise.
Like I said, there was a progressive decline over the years, speaking in a general sense, although Season 5 did seem to reverse the trend, and came close to matching the original adrenaline rush that was the premiere season. But as though to balance out this anomaly, Season 6 was to all intents and purposes execrable, generally agreed by most to be the series worst year. Season 7 was better, but still not quite up to the par of the old magic of the earlier seasons.
Ironically, this season has in my opinion been the best since 5, and by the time it is over with may well surpass that mark. Jack's lover Renee' Walker was killed in last nights episode, which most people might have saw coming, but at least in my own case only in the last couple of minutes before it actually happened.
The Prime Minister of the IRK, who has been trying to forge a peace deal with President Allison Taylor, was brutally murdered in the last episode after turning himself over to IRK terrorists in order to save tens of thousands of New York City lives from the explosion of a dirty bomb. This development took me totally by surprise.
A lot of people were surprised by the reveal of Jenny Scott as the CTU mole, but only because they spent so much time complaining about what seemed to be her useless subplot, the seemingly good-hearted beleaguered former criminal trying to turn her life around while being blackmailed by her redneck former boyfriend who was threatening to reveal the truth about her past. I was not surprised. In fact I figured that one out early on. It made no sense that someone with that background could hide her past and get a job that entails such sensitive responsibilities of national security as a CTU systems analyst involves.
Now, former President Logan is back, seemingly as villainous as ever. Where is all this leading to? With the death of Renee Walker, Jack has lost all hope for a happy ending to this series, though at least he still has his daughter and grandchild. Will he find at least some degree of peace and happiness through them? Will he acquire the justice and vengeance his heart has to crave? Will he make a conversion to Islam?
And, what of Tony Almeida? Will he get in on the action and get revenge on Logan for his involvement in the death of his wife and unborn son?
Will Chloe remain as CTU boss?
This season, incidentally, might well go down as the most cerebral one of the entire series, though not lacking in action and suspense.
Unfortunately, the formula for the series seems to have devolved into a presumed need for a high body count. Unfortunately, that only matters when you care about the bodies being counted. The vast majority of them are merely nameless, almost faceless figures-a handful of terrorists here, two or three members of this or that criminal crew there, a handful of cops, CTU or FBI agents, etc., and before you know it, you get numb to the carnage which seems to amount to nothing more than violence for the sake of the body count. Plot and character development all too often took a back seat for far too long.
But it was a hell of a ride while it lasted, and to be fair, even the disappointing Season 6 was better than most of the shit that is perpetrated on the American television viewing public.
At any rate, it was nice knowing you, Jack Bauer. See you at the movies.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Octodick
It's semi-official, I guess you could say. In the next James Bond film, the world's preeminent film spy is coming out of the closet, with at least one gay sex scene involving Bond, along with one scene depicting full-frontal nudity, as per star Daniel Craig's request.
Reportedly, the film will be set in India, with the pivotal role of what has been described as the "Bond guy" played by Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan. No word yet on the overall story plot, still in development, parts of which take part in such diverse areas as Kashmir, Tibet, and a remote Indian village, in addition to New Delhi, Mumbai, and Calcutta.
Not to worry, though, purists, as there will also be the traditional Bond girl in the film, in the person of Freida Pinto, from Slumdog Millionaire.
So what would be a good title? Octodick might seem a little obvious.
Moonraker?
Reportedly, the film will be set in India, with the pivotal role of what has been described as the "Bond guy" played by Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan. No word yet on the overall story plot, still in development, parts of which take part in such diverse areas as Kashmir, Tibet, and a remote Indian village, in addition to New Delhi, Mumbai, and Calcutta.
Not to worry, though, purists, as there will also be the traditional Bond girl in the film, in the person of Freida Pinto, from Slumdog Millionaire.
So what would be a good title? Octodick might seem a little obvious.
Moonraker?
A Slice Of History
Street scene of San Francisco, April 14th, 1906-four days before the great earthquake and fire.
H/T Car Lust Blog
H/T Car Lust Blog
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Obama Targets US Citizen Traitor For Assassination (Or, A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day)
An American citizen has been targeted for assassination by the Obama Administration, and in this case, that's fine with me. New Mexico born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Alawki is a man who has openly declared war against the US, while living in Yemen, an Al-Queda stronghold, and has offered comfort and support to known terrorists. Specifically, the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas "underwear bomber".
National Review Online supports the policy as well, though the linked article does call to attention the seeming disparity between this and other Obama Administration policies in regards to terrorists apprehended on and off the field of battle. Their stated preference of trying them in civilian courts, with full Miranda rights and other constitutional protection afforded to most common criminals, provides the most telling an obvious example of this disparity.
In the meantime, some leftist sites are on record as calling into question this policy-while some right-leaning blogs also criticize the policy, one of them going so far as to declare an "amber alert" on behalf of the constitution. No one on the left has joined in this particular cause, which is good, as most of those assholes wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it bit them on the ass, let alone was missing. They never bothered to familiarize themselves with it before, so it would be unseemly for them to put it on a fucking milk carton. Doubtless they would portray it in the form of an age-progression sketch which would look very little like the original document.
But for pundits on the Right to criticize this policy strikes me as no more than a knee-jerk anti-Obama reaction. While it is to be expected, it is every bit as unseemly as the Left with their constant harping about the Bush Administration, come what may, for whatever reason, which could pretty well be distilled in essence as, hey it's a new day, what can we find to bash Bush about?
I have yet to see anything by the Daily Kos or the HuffPo concerning the matter, which is not to say they haven't posted anything, I just haven't taken the time to go directly to those sites yet. I have not seen anything by them linked by other sites, however, which might be significant. Doubtless were this a Bush Administration policy, again, traffic to these and other leftist sites bitching about it might well crash the net. But so it goes.
Ordinarily, it would be legitimate cause for concern if the feds were to target a civilian citizen for assassination, or for some other action which might be seen as in violation of that person's constitutional rights. For example, suppose an AG were to kidnap a Mafia member and have him whisked away and unceremoniously dumped in the jungles of Guatemala without benefit of a trial or hearing, with nothing but the clothes on his back and money in his wallet, with not so much as a toothbrush, suitcase, or change of clothes otherwise. We would ordinarily be aghast at such unofficial official behavior, regardless of our lack of sympathy as to the plight of the individual in question. Unless of course the AG in question was Robert Kennedy, at which point, if you're a Democrat, you continue to bow and worship at the Kennedy altar.
This, however, is a man who is a known, proven, and demonstrated traitor to his country, who is acting in concert with declared enemies of the US, on foreign soil. He deserves no special consideration. No trial, hearing, or judicial review here in needed nor is it warranted. He is on record, in person, recorded on tape from Yemen, as encouraging attacks on this country and its citizens.
As much as it pains me to admit it, Obama is right in this matter. The only problem is, he doesn't go far enough. It shouldn't stop with American citizens.
Any Islamic imam who declares war, jihad, fatwa, or otherwise engages in violent, or otherwise criminal activity against the US, should be taken out, along with his core supporters. This wouldn't be that hard to do. Yes, it might involve loss of innocent lives, but I would suggest that those around such people, in his immediate orbit, are mostly supporters. If this policy were pursued over a five year period, it might result in the loss of a few thousand lives, maybe even ten or twenty thousand or so, and yes, many of these will be relatively innocent family members, including children.
On the other hand, it would give these people pause to consider that maybe encouraging attacks against the US, against US citizens on US soil and abroad, and against US interests, might not be the wisest move they might make.
It's called cutting off the head of the snake. I say go for it. No matter how many deaths are the result of such a policy, it probably would be a fraction of the deaths that would otherwise occur, the vast majority of who might well be, in fact more than likely would be, innocents.
Of course, we would need a carrot to go with this stick. In this case, we might well find that, when it comes to the majority of people on the so-called Arab street, the carrot and the stick might well be one and the same thing. I honestly believe the Muslim population would be well served by cutting off this cancer in their midst. They just can't tell you that openly, for obvious reasons.
National Review Online supports the policy as well, though the linked article does call to attention the seeming disparity between this and other Obama Administration policies in regards to terrorists apprehended on and off the field of battle. Their stated preference of trying them in civilian courts, with full Miranda rights and other constitutional protection afforded to most common criminals, provides the most telling an obvious example of this disparity.
In the meantime, some leftist sites are on record as calling into question this policy-while some right-leaning blogs also criticize the policy, one of them going so far as to declare an "amber alert" on behalf of the constitution. No one on the left has joined in this particular cause, which is good, as most of those assholes wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it bit them on the ass, let alone was missing. They never bothered to familiarize themselves with it before, so it would be unseemly for them to put it on a fucking milk carton. Doubtless they would portray it in the form of an age-progression sketch which would look very little like the original document.
But for pundits on the Right to criticize this policy strikes me as no more than a knee-jerk anti-Obama reaction. While it is to be expected, it is every bit as unseemly as the Left with their constant harping about the Bush Administration, come what may, for whatever reason, which could pretty well be distilled in essence as, hey it's a new day, what can we find to bash Bush about?
I have yet to see anything by the Daily Kos or the HuffPo concerning the matter, which is not to say they haven't posted anything, I just haven't taken the time to go directly to those sites yet. I have not seen anything by them linked by other sites, however, which might be significant. Doubtless were this a Bush Administration policy, again, traffic to these and other leftist sites bitching about it might well crash the net. But so it goes.
Ordinarily, it would be legitimate cause for concern if the feds were to target a civilian citizen for assassination, or for some other action which might be seen as in violation of that person's constitutional rights. For example, suppose an AG were to kidnap a Mafia member and have him whisked away and unceremoniously dumped in the jungles of Guatemala without benefit of a trial or hearing, with nothing but the clothes on his back and money in his wallet, with not so much as a toothbrush, suitcase, or change of clothes otherwise. We would ordinarily be aghast at such unofficial official behavior, regardless of our lack of sympathy as to the plight of the individual in question. Unless of course the AG in question was Robert Kennedy, at which point, if you're a Democrat, you continue to bow and worship at the Kennedy altar.
This, however, is a man who is a known, proven, and demonstrated traitor to his country, who is acting in concert with declared enemies of the US, on foreign soil. He deserves no special consideration. No trial, hearing, or judicial review here in needed nor is it warranted. He is on record, in person, recorded on tape from Yemen, as encouraging attacks on this country and its citizens.
As much as it pains me to admit it, Obama is right in this matter. The only problem is, he doesn't go far enough. It shouldn't stop with American citizens.
Any Islamic imam who declares war, jihad, fatwa, or otherwise engages in violent, or otherwise criminal activity against the US, should be taken out, along with his core supporters. This wouldn't be that hard to do. Yes, it might involve loss of innocent lives, but I would suggest that those around such people, in his immediate orbit, are mostly supporters. If this policy were pursued over a five year period, it might result in the loss of a few thousand lives, maybe even ten or twenty thousand or so, and yes, many of these will be relatively innocent family members, including children.
On the other hand, it would give these people pause to consider that maybe encouraging attacks against the US, against US citizens on US soil and abroad, and against US interests, might not be the wisest move they might make.
It's called cutting off the head of the snake. I say go for it. No matter how many deaths are the result of such a policy, it probably would be a fraction of the deaths that would otherwise occur, the vast majority of who might well be, in fact more than likely would be, innocents.
Of course, we would need a carrot to go with this stick. In this case, we might well find that, when it comes to the majority of people on the so-called Arab street, the carrot and the stick might well be one and the same thing. I honestly believe the Muslim population would be well served by cutting off this cancer in their midst. They just can't tell you that openly, for obvious reasons.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Tea-Party Racism
I'm going to preface this by stating that I don't give a shit how much of a hero John Lewis supposedly was during the Civil Rights era. What matters to me is what a lying stack of shit he is now. Lewis has a habit of playing the race card This is a man who called John McCain (whom I should first of all point out that I don't like at all) a latter-day George Wallace, in so many words, even though McCain has always spoke of Lewis in glowing, almost idolatrous terms (which is one among many reasons I don't like the despicable old RINO).
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts needs no introduction. We are all aware of his past running a brothel for male prostitution out of the basement of his house involving male staffers, something for which he was neither censored nor for that matter even criticized, at least not officially, by his Democratic compatriots. In the meantime, he has gone on to such a high-ranking position in the Democratic Party controlled Congress, he shares a large part of the blame for the current housing market woes and resultant financial meltdown, due to his influence on the committee charged with overseeing regulation of the housing and banking industries.
Not a man of integrity, to say the least.
When men of this quality claim they are verbally assaulted, called nigger and fag, and spat upon, while purposely walking through crowds of political opponents, I say they are liars. Particularly since there is no proof whatsoever, outside of their word, that the alleged racist and homosexual slurs take place. There is no proof on tape, film, or video, nor is there any verifiable proof from any independent source to corroborate their story, which sounds to me like the same kind of race-hustling politics the Democrats have been playing for decades.
For what its worth, if it did happen, it won't change my vote or my own political philosophy. It's just something that either happened or didn't. I ordinarily wouldn't even give enough of a damn to blog about.
But then, something happened. A poll came out, conducted by Gallup, which showed the overall make-up of the Tea-Party organization. When I saw the results of the poll, it suddenly occurred to me-maybe there are a small percentage of racists in the Tea-Party movement after all.
The results of the poll, according to Gallup-
Political/Ideological make-up of the Tea-Party
Republicans- 49%
Independents- 43%
Democrats- 8%
Conservatives- 70%
Moderates- 22%
Liberals- 7%
So there you have it, folks. I had always figured there would probably be a small number of bigots and racists in the Tea Party, but their numbers would probably be so marginal as to not amount to even one solid percent.
Now, come to find out, they might make up as much as-well, seven or eight percent?
Who knows? And, as long as they vote against the Democrat motherfuckers this fall-who cares?
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts needs no introduction. We are all aware of his past running a brothel for male prostitution out of the basement of his house involving male staffers, something for which he was neither censored nor for that matter even criticized, at least not officially, by his Democratic compatriots. In the meantime, he has gone on to such a high-ranking position in the Democratic Party controlled Congress, he shares a large part of the blame for the current housing market woes and resultant financial meltdown, due to his influence on the committee charged with overseeing regulation of the housing and banking industries.
Not a man of integrity, to say the least.
When men of this quality claim they are verbally assaulted, called nigger and fag, and spat upon, while purposely walking through crowds of political opponents, I say they are liars. Particularly since there is no proof whatsoever, outside of their word, that the alleged racist and homosexual slurs take place. There is no proof on tape, film, or video, nor is there any verifiable proof from any independent source to corroborate their story, which sounds to me like the same kind of race-hustling politics the Democrats have been playing for decades.
For what its worth, if it did happen, it won't change my vote or my own political philosophy. It's just something that either happened or didn't. I ordinarily wouldn't even give enough of a damn to blog about.
But then, something happened. A poll came out, conducted by Gallup, which showed the overall make-up of the Tea-Party organization. When I saw the results of the poll, it suddenly occurred to me-maybe there are a small percentage of racists in the Tea-Party movement after all.
The results of the poll, according to Gallup-
Political/Ideological make-up of the Tea-Party
Republicans- 49%
Independents- 43%
Democrats- 8%
Conservatives- 70%
Moderates- 22%
Liberals- 7%
So there you have it, folks. I had always figured there would probably be a small number of bigots and racists in the Tea Party, but their numbers would probably be so marginal as to not amount to even one solid percent.
Now, come to find out, they might make up as much as-well, seven or eight percent?
Who knows? And, as long as they vote against the Democrat motherfuckers this fall-who cares?
Thursday, April 01, 2010
LOST-It Only Ends Once (Pt. 2)
Okay, since episode ten has recently aired, I thought I would point out that, so far, I haven't seen anything to veer me away from my newest theory that-
1. Sun will eventually be the candidate to replace Jacob.
2. Jin will himself replace MIB (False Locke)
Or, possibly, it will be the other way around.
The two new candidates to take on the mantle of these godlike entities will then by virtue of their undying love for each other, utilize said love to make peace between the two entities-which according to my theory is actually one person. Jacob being the cold, logical rational side of the schizophrenic life force of the island, MIB being the primal, emotional side.
This has all been a game leading up to this healing of the self. Bear in mind, there have been past candidates. Jacob and MIB are themselves past candidates, which explains why they would appear as English speaking Americans, in 1867, to Richard Alpert, a Spanish man from the Canary Islands whose knowledge of English was rudimentary at best.
Otherwise, if Jacob and MIB were not themselves prior candidates, then the two entities would either appear as Spanish people, forms Richard could more easily relate to, or as their original selves-whoever or whatever that might be. Since it stands to reason this has been on-going for centuries, if not thousands of years, it becomes obvious the two original forms of the two entities were not as English speaking Americans.
Since whatever forms the entities take are locked in, the personalities and even emotions becoming merged, then it stands to reason they had no choice but to appear as they did. It also stands to reason that if Sun and Jin are the two ultimate candidates/replacements, their emotions and memories, including how they feel toward each other, will become an integral part of the equation.
So what happened in the last episode? Well, it became clear that Jacob's influence, while profound, is also not irreversible. A mere touch from the Flocke can undo it, though only to a point. When he touched an unconscious Sun in the last episode, he obviously couldn't undo the fact that she and Jin were married. However, he could and did negate another of Jacob's influences-her command of the English language. While she could still understand it, she could no longer speak it. Her communication skills, therefore, with the remainder of the candidates, and others, became limited at best.
The most important effect of Jacob's influence, however, was Sun and Jin's marriage. As we saw in the Sideways' time segment, Sun and Jin were destined to not marry, but merely be would-be secret lovers, a situation which, once it was discovered by Sun's Korean mobster father, led him to arrange a twenty-five thousand dollar payment (to be delivered unknowingly by Jin himself) to Keamy, to kill Jin. Thanks to Jacob's influence, however, this whole scenario was turned on its head. Thanks to him, Sun and Jin were not only legally married, but this came about with the actual blessings of Sun's father.
Seeing as how Sun and Jin were on Flight 815 originally, it stands to reason that this marital arrangement was important to Jacob. He did not want them to be mere lovers and parents of an illegitimate child (who in Sideways Time might turn out to die due to the bullet Sun took toward the end of the show), he wanted them to be united by the bonds of matrimony. That in itself has to be significant, while his desire for them to communicate fluently in English can be seen as a mere matter of convenience.
We have seen other examples of Jacob's influence. For example, originally Sayid, a former Republican Guard member loyal to Saddam's regime, was a brutal torturer who fell in love with a woman who had been destined to be just one more of his victims. This changed him, but apparently, not much. He cares for his family and his love, but knows he is not good enough for her, and so he arranges her marriage to his brother, a weak man he can easily control. When he discovered a bound and gagged Jin at the end of the episode, he showed no concern or sympathy, barely bringing himself to go to the trouble to place a box-cutter in Jin's hands in order for him to extricate himself from the tape with which he was bound. He is basically a cold, heartless thug, a bad man whose one redeeming feature is he knows it and doesn't want to negatively impact those he loves because of this.
Jacob's influence was to make him believe that he was a good man, or that he could become one, even to the point he might be able to live a good enough life with the woman he loved to make a fresh start.
Then, in the blink of an eye, Jacob took that love away from him. But the inspiration was still there, and provided an impetus for Sayid to insist, to himself as much as to others, that he was a good man.
And again, we saw the influence of Flocke's touch. He has reversed Jacob's influence, to where Sayid is now once again a stone cold, hard, uncaring brute of a man with no love, no compassion, and no hope for redemption.
The effects of Flocke's touch on Sawyer is yet to be determined, and thus far Kate has rejected his influence. Nor is it clear whether Flocke will exercise the power of his touch, the power to reverse Jacob's influence, on any of the other candidates. But one thing is abundantly clear, though perhaps not to Flocke. And that is, he can not hope to reverse Sun and Jin's love for each other, for that came about independent of Jacob's influence.
And that fact might well in the long run be what leads to Flock's undoing.
Note that Jacob has done bad things in his career, even evil things, while MIB has arguably presented clues that he is not totally evil. Again, this is not, in my opinion, a simple timeless battle between good and evil, but a question of balance between two warring aspects of the same personality. The marriage of Sun and Jin seems to be the most likely means to brings this conflict into balance.
What remains to be determined is who these entities are, and their origins. Are they Djinn, as I speculated in my last post, or are they possibly literally sons, or the scizophrenic son, of the goddess Tiawaret? My own opinion on that is the statue of the goddess was built during a time when visitors to the island interpreted the island's properties based on their own cultural and religious proclivities, during a time when the constantly moving island appeared for a brief time in the Mediterranean or Red Sea region.
At any rate, the true identity/identities of the two warring entities, regardless of whether or not they turn out to be one schizophrenic entity or two separate ones, might well be one of those mysteries the writers alluded might not be completely answered, at least not in full. We might get the who and why, but not the how or when, for example. We'll just have to wait and see.
1. Sun will eventually be the candidate to replace Jacob.
2. Jin will himself replace MIB (False Locke)
Or, possibly, it will be the other way around.
The two new candidates to take on the mantle of these godlike entities will then by virtue of their undying love for each other, utilize said love to make peace between the two entities-which according to my theory is actually one person. Jacob being the cold, logical rational side of the schizophrenic life force of the island, MIB being the primal, emotional side.
This has all been a game leading up to this healing of the self. Bear in mind, there have been past candidates. Jacob and MIB are themselves past candidates, which explains why they would appear as English speaking Americans, in 1867, to Richard Alpert, a Spanish man from the Canary Islands whose knowledge of English was rudimentary at best.
Otherwise, if Jacob and MIB were not themselves prior candidates, then the two entities would either appear as Spanish people, forms Richard could more easily relate to, or as their original selves-whoever or whatever that might be. Since it stands to reason this has been on-going for centuries, if not thousands of years, it becomes obvious the two original forms of the two entities were not as English speaking Americans.
Since whatever forms the entities take are locked in, the personalities and even emotions becoming merged, then it stands to reason they had no choice but to appear as they did. It also stands to reason that if Sun and Jin are the two ultimate candidates/replacements, their emotions and memories, including how they feel toward each other, will become an integral part of the equation.
So what happened in the last episode? Well, it became clear that Jacob's influence, while profound, is also not irreversible. A mere touch from the Flocke can undo it, though only to a point. When he touched an unconscious Sun in the last episode, he obviously couldn't undo the fact that she and Jin were married. However, he could and did negate another of Jacob's influences-her command of the English language. While she could still understand it, she could no longer speak it. Her communication skills, therefore, with the remainder of the candidates, and others, became limited at best.
The most important effect of Jacob's influence, however, was Sun and Jin's marriage. As we saw in the Sideways' time segment, Sun and Jin were destined to not marry, but merely be would-be secret lovers, a situation which, once it was discovered by Sun's Korean mobster father, led him to arrange a twenty-five thousand dollar payment (to be delivered unknowingly by Jin himself) to Keamy, to kill Jin. Thanks to Jacob's influence, however, this whole scenario was turned on its head. Thanks to him, Sun and Jin were not only legally married, but this came about with the actual blessings of Sun's father.
Seeing as how Sun and Jin were on Flight 815 originally, it stands to reason that this marital arrangement was important to Jacob. He did not want them to be mere lovers and parents of an illegitimate child (who in Sideways Time might turn out to die due to the bullet Sun took toward the end of the show), he wanted them to be united by the bonds of matrimony. That in itself has to be significant, while his desire for them to communicate fluently in English can be seen as a mere matter of convenience.
We have seen other examples of Jacob's influence. For example, originally Sayid, a former Republican Guard member loyal to Saddam's regime, was a brutal torturer who fell in love with a woman who had been destined to be just one more of his victims. This changed him, but apparently, not much. He cares for his family and his love, but knows he is not good enough for her, and so he arranges her marriage to his brother, a weak man he can easily control. When he discovered a bound and gagged Jin at the end of the episode, he showed no concern or sympathy, barely bringing himself to go to the trouble to place a box-cutter in Jin's hands in order for him to extricate himself from the tape with which he was bound. He is basically a cold, heartless thug, a bad man whose one redeeming feature is he knows it and doesn't want to negatively impact those he loves because of this.
Jacob's influence was to make him believe that he was a good man, or that he could become one, even to the point he might be able to live a good enough life with the woman he loved to make a fresh start.
Then, in the blink of an eye, Jacob took that love away from him. But the inspiration was still there, and provided an impetus for Sayid to insist, to himself as much as to others, that he was a good man.
And again, we saw the influence of Flocke's touch. He has reversed Jacob's influence, to where Sayid is now once again a stone cold, hard, uncaring brute of a man with no love, no compassion, and no hope for redemption.
The effects of Flocke's touch on Sawyer is yet to be determined, and thus far Kate has rejected his influence. Nor is it clear whether Flocke will exercise the power of his touch, the power to reverse Jacob's influence, on any of the other candidates. But one thing is abundantly clear, though perhaps not to Flocke. And that is, he can not hope to reverse Sun and Jin's love for each other, for that came about independent of Jacob's influence.
And that fact might well in the long run be what leads to Flock's undoing.
Note that Jacob has done bad things in his career, even evil things, while MIB has arguably presented clues that he is not totally evil. Again, this is not, in my opinion, a simple timeless battle between good and evil, but a question of balance between two warring aspects of the same personality. The marriage of Sun and Jin seems to be the most likely means to brings this conflict into balance.
What remains to be determined is who these entities are, and their origins. Are they Djinn, as I speculated in my last post, or are they possibly literally sons, or the scizophrenic son, of the goddess Tiawaret? My own opinion on that is the statue of the goddess was built during a time when visitors to the island interpreted the island's properties based on their own cultural and religious proclivities, during a time when the constantly moving island appeared for a brief time in the Mediterranean or Red Sea region.
At any rate, the true identity/identities of the two warring entities, regardless of whether or not they turn out to be one schizophrenic entity or two separate ones, might well be one of those mysteries the writers alluded might not be completely answered, at least not in full. We might get the who and why, but not the how or when, for example. We'll just have to wait and see.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
LOST-It Only Ends Once
Forget everything I said previously about what I thought about who the potential candidates are to replace Jacob, and conceivable MIB. I have a new, even more compelling theory, based on what seemed to be an almost throw-away line by Sun in last week's Richard Alpert-centric episode.
Before I go into that, however, a few words about that episode.
We finally learned a lot about Richard Alpert last week, though any reveal concerning him wasn't exactly earth-shattering. We did learn why he never ages. Jacob did not possess the power to restore to life his lost love Isabella, nor did he have it within his means to forgive "Ricardo" his sin of accidentally killing the doctor who refused to heal her of the tuberculosis that eventually claimed her life. Since Riccardo could find no one to forgive him for this sin, he opted for the one gift Jacob could bestow-eternal life, a life that unfortunately would keep him eternally separate from Isabella.
We also learned how the statue of Tiawaret was destroyed-a gigantic tsunami wave crashed the Black Rock into it, while somehow leaving the Black Rick itself intact. We'll just assume for the sake of argument that the wave actually gets the lion's share of the credit for smashing the statue, and the Black Rock just helped it along.
We saw how the island was explained as a cork in a bottle which contained the evil of the Smoke (by the way, could MIB, and Jacob as well, possibly be Djinn?). MIB symbolically destroyed the bottle, telling Jacob that the latter would see him "sooner than you think".
Finally, Riccardo, now convinced that he has been dead and in hell all along, digs up the crucifix necklace that had belonged to Isabella from where he had buried it after the MIB had given it back to him, having found it after the wreck of the Black Rock, the ship on which Riccardo had been destined to voyage to a life of slavery in the "New World", a previous bit of good fortune he had experienced due to his rudimentary at best knowledge of English, and his strong, white teeth. (evidently his lush eyebrows were not a factor).
Anyway, having dug up the necklace, Riccardo proclaimed that he was now ready to accept MIB's previous offer, provided it still stands. That's when Hurley appeared, and convinced him that Isabella was still with him, relaying her messages to him. Riccardo was convinced to stick with the good side. It probably was not that hard a sell. MIB had previously scanned Riccardo's mind and presented an illusion of Isabella, which told him they were in hell and the devil was after them. She run and was seemingly attacked by something Riccardo assumed was the same smoke monster that had earlier destroyed the ship's crew and Captain Whitfield, plus what few of the slaves were left that Whitfield himself had not run through with his sword.
MIB appeared and convinced him the devil was-Jacob, of course. When Riccardo went with the dagger, given the same speech by MIB as Dogun had earlier given Sayid, he got his ass kicked. He was then almost drowned by Jacob, which convinced Riccardo he was still alive after all.
Riccardo now has the mission of acting as an intermediary between Jacob and the Others, and anyone else Jacob brings to the island, including the survivors of Flight 815, all of whom Jacob would prefer to avoid. He wants them to make the right decisions of their own initiative. He thinks they have that capacity. The MIB does not. He thinks all mankind is by nature evil, violent, and corrupt.
It all goes back to the season five finale, "The Incident", where MIB and Jacob were engaged in conversation outside the statue, both watching the approach of a ship that may or may not have been the Black Rock, depending on who you believe.
MIB declared that "it always ends the same", that they come, they fight, they corrupt, they destroy, etc.
Jacob's response was telling.
"It only ends once", he replied. "Everything else is just progress."
It only ends once. In other words, this "game" has been going on for, presumably, centuries at least. All of which begs the question-and it is an important one-
Why would Jacob and MIB appear-in 1867-to Richard, a Spanish prisoner and slave with a rudimentary at best knowledge of English-as two English speaking Americans? Would this conceivable be the true forms of two entities who have existed for centuries, if not thousands of years?
The obvious answer to this would be that the forms of Jacob and MIB are themselves former candidates-chosen replacements of previous replacements, all of whom have taken on the mantle, for a limited time span, of what I hold to be two different sides of the same schizophrenic personality, the life force of the island.
You have the coldly calculating, shrewdly rational Jacob, in an ageless conflict with the primal, emotional, contained rage and chaos of the MIB.
So, if it only ends once, it stands to reason that the coming end will be more than just which candidate replaces Jacob, and presumably which of the other candidates replaces MIB. Whoever replaces him (or them) this time around will finally bring the ages old contest to an end. But how? Will MIB be killed, or destroyed, his vast terrible energy broken up and dissipated?
I don't think so. For one thing, while that might sound reasonable (even obvious), its a bit too pat of an answer. I think there's more to it than that. I think that the goal will turn out to be to establish a resolution to the on-going conflict that will entail re-integrating the two sides of the personalities of this schizophrenic entity.
To that end, I remind those who watched last week's episode of what might have been the biggest reveal of the evening, yet one that went so fast, if you blinked, or farted, or burped, you might well have missed it.
That reveal, which had nothing to do with the Riccardo saga-
Sun identified herself as a candidate.
Whoooahhh! Think about that. Sun-identified herself as a candidate. That is a significant development.
Previously, we only knew that one of the candidates was named Kwon, and that the Kwon in question might be Sun, or it might be her South Korean mobster husband Jin. Not even Illana expressed a knowledge of which one of the two was one of the six candidates, and some have even speculated that the candidate might be Sun and Jin's child.
But let's think about this. All of the candidates have one thing in common. They have daddy issues. Sun does, but insofar as I am aware, Jin does not. He was simply a hired thug of Sun's Korean mobster father, who more or less arranged for the two of them to marry.
However, there is another point that might be even more pertinent. And that is-what if both of them are the true candidates? What if Sun ends up being the candidate to replace Jacob, while Jin ends up being the candidate to replace MIB-or vice versa?
Remember, even though Sun and Jin were forced into a marriage, they grew to love each other, and have sought each other for three years, ever since they were separated by events on the island.
Remember also, that when MIB takes on a form, he seems to also adapt the personalities, and well as memories, of the form he takes. This was on full display in episode four of this season, when False Locke (Smokey in the form of John Locke) on being reminded by the unknown child who confronted him that he could not kill somebody, went into a rage and screamed "Don't tell me what I can't do!"
So there you have it. If Sun takes on the identity of Jacob (or MIB), and Jin takes on the identity of MIB (or Jacob), does it not stand to reason both Jacob and MIB will adapt the same personalities, emotions, memories, etc., as these two prospective candidates?
If this is true, could this not help but lead to a re-integration of the two warring personalities?
Remember-It only ends once. Everything else is just progress.
For that matter, it could well be that the other candidates are yet not out of the picture in the grand final scenario. With the island now transformed into a veritable hidden paradise, they too could have a role, as candidates for other missions. Hurley could be a replacement for Riccardo, who might finally find peace and salvation, and go off to spend eternity with his beloved Isabella. Sayid, hopefully healed of the darkness taking him over, could be a replacement for Dogun, whom he killed, as Temple Master. Jack could be the new leader of the Others. And so on.
Tonight's episode, the tenth of the season, will be Sun and Jin-centric, so maybe we'll see some more clues that might shed more light on things.
Before I go into that, however, a few words about that episode.
We finally learned a lot about Richard Alpert last week, though any reveal concerning him wasn't exactly earth-shattering. We did learn why he never ages. Jacob did not possess the power to restore to life his lost love Isabella, nor did he have it within his means to forgive "Ricardo" his sin of accidentally killing the doctor who refused to heal her of the tuberculosis that eventually claimed her life. Since Riccardo could find no one to forgive him for this sin, he opted for the one gift Jacob could bestow-eternal life, a life that unfortunately would keep him eternally separate from Isabella.
We also learned how the statue of Tiawaret was destroyed-a gigantic tsunami wave crashed the Black Rock into it, while somehow leaving the Black Rick itself intact. We'll just assume for the sake of argument that the wave actually gets the lion's share of the credit for smashing the statue, and the Black Rock just helped it along.
We saw how the island was explained as a cork in a bottle which contained the evil of the Smoke (by the way, could MIB, and Jacob as well, possibly be Djinn?). MIB symbolically destroyed the bottle, telling Jacob that the latter would see him "sooner than you think".
Finally, Riccardo, now convinced that he has been dead and in hell all along, digs up the crucifix necklace that had belonged to Isabella from where he had buried it after the MIB had given it back to him, having found it after the wreck of the Black Rock, the ship on which Riccardo had been destined to voyage to a life of slavery in the "New World", a previous bit of good fortune he had experienced due to his rudimentary at best knowledge of English, and his strong, white teeth. (evidently his lush eyebrows were not a factor).
Anyway, having dug up the necklace, Riccardo proclaimed that he was now ready to accept MIB's previous offer, provided it still stands. That's when Hurley appeared, and convinced him that Isabella was still with him, relaying her messages to him. Riccardo was convinced to stick with the good side. It probably was not that hard a sell. MIB had previously scanned Riccardo's mind and presented an illusion of Isabella, which told him they were in hell and the devil was after them. She run and was seemingly attacked by something Riccardo assumed was the same smoke monster that had earlier destroyed the ship's crew and Captain Whitfield, plus what few of the slaves were left that Whitfield himself had not run through with his sword.
MIB appeared and convinced him the devil was-Jacob, of course. When Riccardo went with the dagger, given the same speech by MIB as Dogun had earlier given Sayid, he got his ass kicked. He was then almost drowned by Jacob, which convinced Riccardo he was still alive after all.
Riccardo now has the mission of acting as an intermediary between Jacob and the Others, and anyone else Jacob brings to the island, including the survivors of Flight 815, all of whom Jacob would prefer to avoid. He wants them to make the right decisions of their own initiative. He thinks they have that capacity. The MIB does not. He thinks all mankind is by nature evil, violent, and corrupt.
It all goes back to the season five finale, "The Incident", where MIB and Jacob were engaged in conversation outside the statue, both watching the approach of a ship that may or may not have been the Black Rock, depending on who you believe.
MIB declared that "it always ends the same", that they come, they fight, they corrupt, they destroy, etc.
Jacob's response was telling.
"It only ends once", he replied. "Everything else is just progress."
It only ends once. In other words, this "game" has been going on for, presumably, centuries at least. All of which begs the question-and it is an important one-
Why would Jacob and MIB appear-in 1867-to Richard, a Spanish prisoner and slave with a rudimentary at best knowledge of English-as two English speaking Americans? Would this conceivable be the true forms of two entities who have existed for centuries, if not thousands of years?
The obvious answer to this would be that the forms of Jacob and MIB are themselves former candidates-chosen replacements of previous replacements, all of whom have taken on the mantle, for a limited time span, of what I hold to be two different sides of the same schizophrenic personality, the life force of the island.
You have the coldly calculating, shrewdly rational Jacob, in an ageless conflict with the primal, emotional, contained rage and chaos of the MIB.
So, if it only ends once, it stands to reason that the coming end will be more than just which candidate replaces Jacob, and presumably which of the other candidates replaces MIB. Whoever replaces him (or them) this time around will finally bring the ages old contest to an end. But how? Will MIB be killed, or destroyed, his vast terrible energy broken up and dissipated?
I don't think so. For one thing, while that might sound reasonable (even obvious), its a bit too pat of an answer. I think there's more to it than that. I think that the goal will turn out to be to establish a resolution to the on-going conflict that will entail re-integrating the two sides of the personalities of this schizophrenic entity.
To that end, I remind those who watched last week's episode of what might have been the biggest reveal of the evening, yet one that went so fast, if you blinked, or farted, or burped, you might well have missed it.
That reveal, which had nothing to do with the Riccardo saga-
Sun identified herself as a candidate.
Whoooahhh! Think about that. Sun-identified herself as a candidate. That is a significant development.
Previously, we only knew that one of the candidates was named Kwon, and that the Kwon in question might be Sun, or it might be her South Korean mobster husband Jin. Not even Illana expressed a knowledge of which one of the two was one of the six candidates, and some have even speculated that the candidate might be Sun and Jin's child.
But let's think about this. All of the candidates have one thing in common. They have daddy issues. Sun does, but insofar as I am aware, Jin does not. He was simply a hired thug of Sun's Korean mobster father, who more or less arranged for the two of them to marry.
However, there is another point that might be even more pertinent. And that is-what if both of them are the true candidates? What if Sun ends up being the candidate to replace Jacob, while Jin ends up being the candidate to replace MIB-or vice versa?
Remember, even though Sun and Jin were forced into a marriage, they grew to love each other, and have sought each other for three years, ever since they were separated by events on the island.
Remember also, that when MIB takes on a form, he seems to also adapt the personalities, and well as memories, of the form he takes. This was on full display in episode four of this season, when False Locke (Smokey in the form of John Locke) on being reminded by the unknown child who confronted him that he could not kill somebody, went into a rage and screamed "Don't tell me what I can't do!"
So there you have it. If Sun takes on the identity of Jacob (or MIB), and Jin takes on the identity of MIB (or Jacob), does it not stand to reason both Jacob and MIB will adapt the same personalities, emotions, memories, etc., as these two prospective candidates?
If this is true, could this not help but lead to a re-integration of the two warring personalities?
Remember-It only ends once. Everything else is just progress.
For that matter, it could well be that the other candidates are yet not out of the picture in the grand final scenario. With the island now transformed into a veritable hidden paradise, they too could have a role, as candidates for other missions. Hurley could be a replacement for Riccardo, who might finally find peace and salvation, and go off to spend eternity with his beloved Isabella. Sayid, hopefully healed of the darkness taking him over, could be a replacement for Dogun, whom he killed, as Temple Master. Jack could be the new leader of the Others. And so on.
Tonight's episode, the tenth of the season, will be Sun and Jin-centric, so maybe we'll see some more clues that might shed more light on things.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Idiot's Guide To Political Correctness
A lot of people are up in arms over the recent treatment Anne Coulter received at the University of Ottawa, where she had been scheduled to appear as part of a speaking tour that took her to various places in Canada. Unfortunately, due to security concerns, her speech was canceled. Prior to this, she received a communication from one Francois Houle', an official of the University, in which she was oh so politely advised to refrain from hate speech-defined in part as speaking against any recognized group-on pain of prosecution, fine, and possibly incarceration. After sending the e-mail, he leaked it to various Canadian press and government officials.
I am as appalled as anyone about this, but I am by no means surprised. Nor would I be surprised were this to happen to her during a speaking engagement in almost any place in Europe. Nor would I be surprised if, during an appearance in China, North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba, she were arrested and sentenced to a labor camp.
Nor would I be surprised if, during an appearance in Iran or Saudi Arabia, or any number of places in the Muslim world (read-any of them) she were arrested and put to death by beheading or stoning-whether the appearance in question was as part of a speaking tour or merely as an immodestly dressed tourist.
Plainly speaking, it is a hard, cold, brutal world we live in, and if you don't like it, the obvious recourse is-don't even go there.
Citizens of those countries have less recourse, but they do have some options-they can leave, they can rebel, or they can learn to live with it.
While what happened in Canada is maddening-infuriating, even-it is not my country, so I don't get a vote. The people in Canada can change things if they want to, which evidently, they would prefer not to. That's too bad.
However, as enraged in principle as I am at stories like this, it is nothing in comparison to the outrage I feel when the elites of these countries, individually and collectively, express the wish that their "values" should in some way be imposed on my country.
But even more to the point, is the outright disgust and enmity I hold towards any here in this country who, for whatever reason, wants to turn this country into a mirror image of Canada, or Europe. Or anywhere else.
Luckily, that can't happen here. Or can it? What we have, that those nations don't have, is a constitution in which freedom of expression is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, specifically in the First Amendment. We also have a tradition of respect for both majority and minority rights-and opinions, both spoken and printed.
Unfortunately, we also are to a great extent controlled by a major political party who seems to think the Constitution can be tweaked to mean anything at any given time, according to the convenience of the moment. It has not been that long ago that a sizable portion, possibly a slim majority, of these so-called Americans honestly believed that the Second Amendment referred to an actual militia, and not the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms (as though Amendments 1 plus 3-10 were meant to limit the power of the federal government, yet for some unknown reason Amendment 2 was meant to strengthen the federal government at the expense of the states and states citizens). Those who believe this are not as significant in numbers as they once were, but they are still around. And waiting.
So too are those who want to change the context and spirit of the First Amendment. It won't be long before someone, somewhere, will stand up for the rights of these University of Ottawa student rioters. After all, they too were exercising their freedom of expression. Anne Coulter was merely outnumbered, and outshouted. Or she would have been if she had been allowed to speak. She also may have been seriously injured or killed, but that's beside the point.
Canada believes in equality, to be sure. It just seems that some people are more equal than others, certainly when it comes to speech and expression.
It's almost irrelevant to me what Canadian policy is in regards to these matters, or what the attitudes of Canadian citizens are regarding them. What happens here, on the other hand, in the United States, or what may happen here at some future date, concerns me very much.
Is this what we want our country to be? I damn sure don't, nor would I ever accept it as long as I lived. Luckily, the First Amendment-for now, at least-guarantees that my rights of freedom of speech and expression cannot be infringed, by either a majority, or by a loud and vocal minority. It cannot be infringed, by the government, or by the states, or by the rabble.
Thankfully, when it comes to this, we do not get a vote.
I am as appalled as anyone about this, but I am by no means surprised. Nor would I be surprised were this to happen to her during a speaking engagement in almost any place in Europe. Nor would I be surprised if, during an appearance in China, North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba, she were arrested and sentenced to a labor camp.
Nor would I be surprised if, during an appearance in Iran or Saudi Arabia, or any number of places in the Muslim world (read-any of them) she were arrested and put to death by beheading or stoning-whether the appearance in question was as part of a speaking tour or merely as an immodestly dressed tourist.
Plainly speaking, it is a hard, cold, brutal world we live in, and if you don't like it, the obvious recourse is-don't even go there.
Citizens of those countries have less recourse, but they do have some options-they can leave, they can rebel, or they can learn to live with it.
While what happened in Canada is maddening-infuriating, even-it is not my country, so I don't get a vote. The people in Canada can change things if they want to, which evidently, they would prefer not to. That's too bad.
However, as enraged in principle as I am at stories like this, it is nothing in comparison to the outrage I feel when the elites of these countries, individually and collectively, express the wish that their "values" should in some way be imposed on my country.
But even more to the point, is the outright disgust and enmity I hold towards any here in this country who, for whatever reason, wants to turn this country into a mirror image of Canada, or Europe. Or anywhere else.
Luckily, that can't happen here. Or can it? What we have, that those nations don't have, is a constitution in which freedom of expression is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, specifically in the First Amendment. We also have a tradition of respect for both majority and minority rights-and opinions, both spoken and printed.
Unfortunately, we also are to a great extent controlled by a major political party who seems to think the Constitution can be tweaked to mean anything at any given time, according to the convenience of the moment. It has not been that long ago that a sizable portion, possibly a slim majority, of these so-called Americans honestly believed that the Second Amendment referred to an actual militia, and not the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms (as though Amendments 1 plus 3-10 were meant to limit the power of the federal government, yet for some unknown reason Amendment 2 was meant to strengthen the federal government at the expense of the states and states citizens). Those who believe this are not as significant in numbers as they once were, but they are still around. And waiting.
So too are those who want to change the context and spirit of the First Amendment. It won't be long before someone, somewhere, will stand up for the rights of these University of Ottawa student rioters. After all, they too were exercising their freedom of expression. Anne Coulter was merely outnumbered, and outshouted. Or she would have been if she had been allowed to speak. She also may have been seriously injured or killed, but that's beside the point.
Canada believes in equality, to be sure. It just seems that some people are more equal than others, certainly when it comes to speech and expression.
It's almost irrelevant to me what Canadian policy is in regards to these matters, or what the attitudes of Canadian citizens are regarding them. What happens here, on the other hand, in the United States, or what may happen here at some future date, concerns me very much.
Is this what we want our country to be? I damn sure don't, nor would I ever accept it as long as I lived. Luckily, the First Amendment-for now, at least-guarantees that my rights of freedom of speech and expression cannot be infringed, by either a majority, or by a loud and vocal minority. It cannot be infringed, by the government, or by the states, or by the rabble.
Thankfully, when it comes to this, we do not get a vote.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Now Comes The Law Of Unintended Consequences
Rob Taylor at Red Alerts has a compelling post up about a recent article from the New England Journal of Medicine, concerning a survey conducted sometime before the passage last night of the Senate Health Care Bill by the House of Representatives. What it basically states is that, such a bill will likely result in close to one third of American doctors leaving the medical profession, either taking early retirement or in some cases leaving in the prime of their careers.
It could have been worse. Had the bill contained a public option, of the kind wanted by most Democrats (though not enough of them to overcome Republican opposition) the percentage of doctors leaving the field would be something more like a little more than forty percent. I shudder to think of what it would have been like with single-payer.
When all is said and done, I doubt it will be that bad, at least not at first. Doubtless it will be bad, but I tend to think most doctors are far too tied up in paying off their mortgages and medical school loans to seriously consider walking off the job. At least, not right away. However, somewhere down the road, this could be a possibility, and I have no doubt it could result in as many as ten or even twenty percent of doctors quitting, in many cases precisely because many of them will no longer be able to meet their financial obligations under any scenario.
But it could get even worse. We are talking here about the number of currently practicing physicians who might or might not leave. The most unnerving possibility is later down the line, when enrollment in medical school, and so new entries into the medical profession, takes a steep dive of ten, twenty, even thirty percent or more. Nor is it likely that all of these reductions will be made up by immigrants. In fact, passage of this law will probably reduce those numbers considerably as well. In the meantime, we have a significantly aging and ailing population. Rationed care may well have never been a considered factor or plan in drawing up this bill, but harsh reality might nevertheless make it a foregone conclusion.
There are some things that might be done to stem the tide of defections of currently practicing physicians, things that might not be popular, but may yet be unavoidable. A federal law mandating the ability of doctors to renegotiate the terms of their loan payments and mortgages might be one example. An increase in the number and amounts of student loans, with guaranteed locked in rates of low interest. All of this of course would serve to add to the deficit, and may do little to reduce the numbers of those leaving the medical profession, and more importantly, encouraging new students to enter medical school.
This is going to sour real quick. It would have been a far better approach to work piecemeal toward health care reform. However, that would not have been in the short-term best interests of those who actually control the Democratic congressional majority. This is not just an entitlement, this is or will be a giant, Byzantine structure equal in size and bureaucracy to the largest of cabinet departments. Who will run this thing? How?
By ramming this massive bill through into law, by its nature limited debate. It was intended to discourage transparency, but that proved more difficult than the proponents had hoped. Had they approached the problem one aspect at a time, it would have heightened transparency and allowed more room for substantive debate. Of course, that's the last thing Obama and the Democrats wanted. Had they done that, reform would have looked more like what the people actually wanted. As it stands now, we now are faced with the first case of the federal government mandating that US citizens will now be forced to buy a commercial product, or face fines-possibly jail time.
For this reason, as many as thirty states are in the process of filing suit against the federal government.
We might well be faced before long with the looming of a potential constitutional crisis. We might even see a constitutional amendment somewhere down the road.
It's not over yet.
It could have been worse. Had the bill contained a public option, of the kind wanted by most Democrats (though not enough of them to overcome Republican opposition) the percentage of doctors leaving the field would be something more like a little more than forty percent. I shudder to think of what it would have been like with single-payer.
When all is said and done, I doubt it will be that bad, at least not at first. Doubtless it will be bad, but I tend to think most doctors are far too tied up in paying off their mortgages and medical school loans to seriously consider walking off the job. At least, not right away. However, somewhere down the road, this could be a possibility, and I have no doubt it could result in as many as ten or even twenty percent of doctors quitting, in many cases precisely because many of them will no longer be able to meet their financial obligations under any scenario.
But it could get even worse. We are talking here about the number of currently practicing physicians who might or might not leave. The most unnerving possibility is later down the line, when enrollment in medical school, and so new entries into the medical profession, takes a steep dive of ten, twenty, even thirty percent or more. Nor is it likely that all of these reductions will be made up by immigrants. In fact, passage of this law will probably reduce those numbers considerably as well. In the meantime, we have a significantly aging and ailing population. Rationed care may well have never been a considered factor or plan in drawing up this bill, but harsh reality might nevertheless make it a foregone conclusion.
There are some things that might be done to stem the tide of defections of currently practicing physicians, things that might not be popular, but may yet be unavoidable. A federal law mandating the ability of doctors to renegotiate the terms of their loan payments and mortgages might be one example. An increase in the number and amounts of student loans, with guaranteed locked in rates of low interest. All of this of course would serve to add to the deficit, and may do little to reduce the numbers of those leaving the medical profession, and more importantly, encouraging new students to enter medical school.
This is going to sour real quick. It would have been a far better approach to work piecemeal toward health care reform. However, that would not have been in the short-term best interests of those who actually control the Democratic congressional majority. This is not just an entitlement, this is or will be a giant, Byzantine structure equal in size and bureaucracy to the largest of cabinet departments. Who will run this thing? How?
By ramming this massive bill through into law, by its nature limited debate. It was intended to discourage transparency, but that proved more difficult than the proponents had hoped. Had they approached the problem one aspect at a time, it would have heightened transparency and allowed more room for substantive debate. Of course, that's the last thing Obama and the Democrats wanted. Had they done that, reform would have looked more like what the people actually wanted. As it stands now, we now are faced with the first case of the federal government mandating that US citizens will now be forced to buy a commercial product, or face fines-possibly jail time.
For this reason, as many as thirty states are in the process of filing suit against the federal government.
We might well be faced before long with the looming of a potential constitutional crisis. We might even see a constitutional amendment somewhere down the road.
It's not over yet.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Hypocritical and Conniving Obama Administration
A number of points about the recent dust-up over Vice-President Biden's visit to Israel, and the "humiliation" visited upon him by the announcement of the issuance of building permits in East Jerusalem. But first, a little background. There are two different definitions of East Jerusalem. To Westerners, East Jerusalem generally means Arab East Jerusalem. To Arabs, however, specifically to Palestinian Arabs, East Jerusalem entails an entirely different meaning. Though it would include Arab East Jerusalem, it also encompasses that part of Jerusalem which is east of the "green line"-in other words, any part of the area taken by Israel in the 1967 war.
So, with this in mind, which part of East Jerusalem do you think the recent announcement during the Biden visit was concerned with? Arab East Jerusalem, or the entirety of East Jerusalem that is east of the "green line"?
The answer-neither. That's right, neither nor. Ramat Shlomo, the neighborhood-the JEWISH NEIGHBORHOOD, incidentally-that is slated or at least was the subject for the announced future housing units, is-in NORTH JERUSALEM. A JEWISH NEIGHBORHOOD at its core. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of East Jerusalem, nor is it a part of the territories taken by Israel in the 1967 war, nor, finally, is it an Arab neighborhood, but a Jewish neighborhood.
So what is all this about? I don't know, but I suspect its an attempt to destabilize the current Israeli government with the goal of bringing down the coalition headed by Netanyahu, the current conservative Prime Minister. It may also have to do with appeasing the Arab, and especially, the Palestinian Arab populations, who, far from being appeased, have started protests and even riots in Jerusalem in response to the controversy.
Here's the main problem, as I see it. The American left, including the majority of politicians, bureaucrats, and office-holders of the Democratic Party, see the Israelis as responsible for the lion's share of the problems in the Middle East. Not just in their own neck of the woods, if the truth were known, but probably for the entire region. It doesn't hurt that possibly a majority (certainly a large and vocal segment) of the rank-and-file Democratic voters in the US sees Israel as the major problem and obstacle to Mid-East peace.
However, here is another important point to remember. The earlier promise by the Israelis to refrain from building any further settlements, did not apply to Jerusalem, at least not to those sections of Jerusalem that are Jewish neighborhoods, which is exactly where Ramat Schlomo is located-again, it can't be stressed too much, in North, nor East, Jerusalem. Their agreement to refrain from building future settlements simply applied to territories taken in the previous wars-Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan.
So what does this all mean? It means that Obama, Biden, Clinton, and everyone else pursuing this reckless disregard for the facts, and for regional stability, and for the sake of our decades long alliance with the Israeli government and people-are frankly full of shit. They are playing geopolitics with an aim of establishing a position of solidarity with a group of people (in this case Fatah, but also, looking at the long-term, Hamas and Hezbollah) with a history of terror, murder, and corruption. If they can cause the current Israeli government to fall and hopefully be replaced by a more liberal government, one more to their liking, so much the better.
Very much more of this and the whole thing could unravel. Bear in mind, the Palestinians are not being unduly pressured by the Obama Administration to make concessions, only obliquely encouraged to come to the table and to not conduct terror or otherwise assault the Israeli citizens. The Israelis get the smackdown-the Palestinians are presented with "pretty please". And they are responding to this, again, by staging riots.
And the whole thing, the entire scenario as presented by the American media and by the Obama Administration-is a lie, a complete fabrication.
It's beyond disgusting.
So, with this in mind, which part of East Jerusalem do you think the recent announcement during the Biden visit was concerned with? Arab East Jerusalem, or the entirety of East Jerusalem that is east of the "green line"?
The answer-neither. That's right, neither nor. Ramat Shlomo, the neighborhood-the JEWISH NEIGHBORHOOD, incidentally-that is slated or at least was the subject for the announced future housing units, is-in NORTH JERUSALEM. A JEWISH NEIGHBORHOOD at its core. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of East Jerusalem, nor is it a part of the territories taken by Israel in the 1967 war, nor, finally, is it an Arab neighborhood, but a Jewish neighborhood.
So what is all this about? I don't know, but I suspect its an attempt to destabilize the current Israeli government with the goal of bringing down the coalition headed by Netanyahu, the current conservative Prime Minister. It may also have to do with appeasing the Arab, and especially, the Palestinian Arab populations, who, far from being appeased, have started protests and even riots in Jerusalem in response to the controversy.
Here's the main problem, as I see it. The American left, including the majority of politicians, bureaucrats, and office-holders of the Democratic Party, see the Israelis as responsible for the lion's share of the problems in the Middle East. Not just in their own neck of the woods, if the truth were known, but probably for the entire region. It doesn't hurt that possibly a majority (certainly a large and vocal segment) of the rank-and-file Democratic voters in the US sees Israel as the major problem and obstacle to Mid-East peace.
However, here is another important point to remember. The earlier promise by the Israelis to refrain from building any further settlements, did not apply to Jerusalem, at least not to those sections of Jerusalem that are Jewish neighborhoods, which is exactly where Ramat Schlomo is located-again, it can't be stressed too much, in North, nor East, Jerusalem. Their agreement to refrain from building future settlements simply applied to territories taken in the previous wars-Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan.
So what does this all mean? It means that Obama, Biden, Clinton, and everyone else pursuing this reckless disregard for the facts, and for regional stability, and for the sake of our decades long alliance with the Israeli government and people-are frankly full of shit. They are playing geopolitics with an aim of establishing a position of solidarity with a group of people (in this case Fatah, but also, looking at the long-term, Hamas and Hezbollah) with a history of terror, murder, and corruption. If they can cause the current Israeli government to fall and hopefully be replaced by a more liberal government, one more to their liking, so much the better.
Very much more of this and the whole thing could unravel. Bear in mind, the Palestinians are not being unduly pressured by the Obama Administration to make concessions, only obliquely encouraged to come to the table and to not conduct terror or otherwise assault the Israeli citizens. The Israelis get the smackdown-the Palestinians are presented with "pretty please". And they are responding to this, again, by staging riots.
And the whole thing, the entire scenario as presented by the American media and by the Obama Administration-is a lie, a complete fabrication.
It's beyond disgusting.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Lost Tonight
Just a quick note about tonight's Sawyer-centric episode-we saw at the end of last week's episode, the imminent return to the island of Widmore, who was the head of The Others prior to Ben, who replaced him and drove him from the island. As we have seen, there are two alternate time-lines going on. One of these involves what is going on, on the island, as it involves the lives of the main characters as we generally know them. The other, "sideways time", deals with what would have happened if the survivors' plane had never crashed on the island, and they went on living their lives per usual, free not only of the island, but free from the influence and lifelong interference of the mysterious Jacob.
However, it's important to remember, these time lines are all going on in the same earth universe. It is not two different world's coexisting side by side in two different dimensions, or "alternate universes". Now, in the current Fox series, Fringe, that is exactly the case. In that series, there are two different alternate universes on two different earth dimensions, or two different planes of existence, if you will. They are very much the same in almost every way, but they are also very different, due to different choices and events that have occurred, which has contributed to subtle and not too subtle differences in the two dimensions, the two alternate realities.
Again, it's important to stress that the situation in Lost is different from that of Fringe. In Lost, we are dealing not with two alternate realities, in two different dimensiona. We are dealing with a wrinkle in time that has created two alternate time lines, but each one coexisting in the same dimension-the exact same time-line. This is due to Juliette's successful explosion of "Jughead", a nuclear bomb which at least temporarily sunk the island, apparently after the survivors were sent off to another time, thus saving their lives. Of course, they are not aware that Jughead actually was detonated. The whole point of this was to prevent the electromagnetic discharge which caused the survivors plane to crash. Which, this was possible due to the fact the survivors, or "Losties", had been sent back to that time (when they first arrived) by the same electromagnetic energy.
Which brings me back to Widmore. When he finally meets one, or some, or all, of the Losties, will he even know who they are? Will he remember them? In other words, which of the two concurrently existing time lines is he now a part of? Is he a part of the time line of the current Lost survivors? Or is he instead now a part of, and been influenced by, the new time line created by the explosion of Jughead?
I guess we'll know the answer to that when he sees one of more of the Survivors and says, "who the hell are you people"-or something to that effect.
Update-Well. so much for that. Maybe I should have wrote tonight's episode, which was in some ways the worse one so far this season. Sawyer, a cop? Really? So why would he have helped Kate get away from the cops in the season premiere. You know, sometimes when you write a surprise element, just for the sake of surprise, you need to cover your bases.
Still, there were some good elements in tonight's show. Sayid just sitting there looking forlorn and resigned while the crazed Claire had a knife at Kate's throat, until she was saved by Smokey Locke-who a little later almost chokes up while explaining to Kate how his mother was as crazy as Claire and how that was the cause of so many of his own problems. In sideways time, it was seeing Sawyer (though here he doesn't use that name) still after the man who caused the murder-suicide of his parents (who, remember, in sideways time has a good relationship with the real sideways time John Locke, though we are still in the dark as to how this Locke version is in a wheelchair).
Otherwise, not much going on of note. Miles, who is Ford's partner in sideways time, is even more annoying than on the island. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't consider it a big favor to be fixed up with somebody that wants to hop into the sack the first night I meet her. From friends like that, I need no favors. Then he declares their partnership over because he lied about a round trip to Sydney? I would say good riddance, but again, that's just me. Other than the Sawyer folder, and the bump into sideways Kate at the end, most boring sideways storyline of the season. Of course, I had high expectations.
The island wasn't much better, other than those parts I already mentioned. The confrontation on Hydra Island and the lead-up to the "deal" with Widmore was pretty much standard. Evidently, nothing's changed for Widmore, as he referred to John Locke as being dead. From that, it would stand to reason that it is the same old Widmore, with the same past history. Of course, it could still very well be that his story could be the one that eventually intersects the two parallel story lines, seeing as how he is the only one going freely back and forth, to and from island.
Next week-we learn the history of Richard Alpert. A few points here. Alpert was probably blessed by Jacob with immortality in order to avoid his message being diluted through the years, a distinct possibility if he is unable to communicate directly with average persons on a consistent basis. Also, it would stand to reason that, if Alpert is one of a very few people blessed with the ability to communicate, and to see, Jacob, then the young child we saw in episode four could not have been Jacob, seeing as Alpert couldn't see him, yet Sawyer could. I'll probably end up being wrong about that too.
ONE MORE POINT-This was some really shabby writing, when you stop to think about it. Why was Jodi Lynn O'Keefe's character arrested at the beginning of the sideways time segment? No clear-cut answer there. Why was she even being investigated? Ditto. Did Ford and Miles go to all that trouble to set up a sting to catch her pulling a gun on somebody? To charge her with falsely accusing them of trying to conduct a scam, even though that was precisely what they were doing? Was she wanted for extortion, robbery, or anything at all? And if so, what exactly did she do in this segment that provided them the evidence they needed to arrest her? Just doesn't make sense. Hopefully, whoever wrote this turd of an episode was either having an uncommonly bad day, or this is the last episode they'll be involved with.
However, it's important to remember, these time lines are all going on in the same earth universe. It is not two different world's coexisting side by side in two different dimensions, or "alternate universes". Now, in the current Fox series, Fringe, that is exactly the case. In that series, there are two different alternate universes on two different earth dimensions, or two different planes of existence, if you will. They are very much the same in almost every way, but they are also very different, due to different choices and events that have occurred, which has contributed to subtle and not too subtle differences in the two dimensions, the two alternate realities.
Again, it's important to stress that the situation in Lost is different from that of Fringe. In Lost, we are dealing not with two alternate realities, in two different dimensiona. We are dealing with a wrinkle in time that has created two alternate time lines, but each one coexisting in the same dimension-the exact same time-line. This is due to Juliette's successful explosion of "Jughead", a nuclear bomb which at least temporarily sunk the island, apparently after the survivors were sent off to another time, thus saving their lives. Of course, they are not aware that Jughead actually was detonated. The whole point of this was to prevent the electromagnetic discharge which caused the survivors plane to crash. Which, this was possible due to the fact the survivors, or "Losties", had been sent back to that time (when they first arrived) by the same electromagnetic energy.
Which brings me back to Widmore. When he finally meets one, or some, or all, of the Losties, will he even know who they are? Will he remember them? In other words, which of the two concurrently existing time lines is he now a part of? Is he a part of the time line of the current Lost survivors? Or is he instead now a part of, and been influenced by, the new time line created by the explosion of Jughead?
I guess we'll know the answer to that when he sees one of more of the Survivors and says, "who the hell are you people"-or something to that effect.
Update-Well. so much for that. Maybe I should have wrote tonight's episode, which was in some ways the worse one so far this season. Sawyer, a cop? Really? So why would he have helped Kate get away from the cops in the season premiere. You know, sometimes when you write a surprise element, just for the sake of surprise, you need to cover your bases.
Still, there were some good elements in tonight's show. Sayid just sitting there looking forlorn and resigned while the crazed Claire had a knife at Kate's throat, until she was saved by Smokey Locke-who a little later almost chokes up while explaining to Kate how his mother was as crazy as Claire and how that was the cause of so many of his own problems. In sideways time, it was seeing Sawyer (though here he doesn't use that name) still after the man who caused the murder-suicide of his parents (who, remember, in sideways time has a good relationship with the real sideways time John Locke, though we are still in the dark as to how this Locke version is in a wheelchair).
Otherwise, not much going on of note. Miles, who is Ford's partner in sideways time, is even more annoying than on the island. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't consider it a big favor to be fixed up with somebody that wants to hop into the sack the first night I meet her. From friends like that, I need no favors. Then he declares their partnership over because he lied about a round trip to Sydney? I would say good riddance, but again, that's just me. Other than the Sawyer folder, and the bump into sideways Kate at the end, most boring sideways storyline of the season. Of course, I had high expectations.
The island wasn't much better, other than those parts I already mentioned. The confrontation on Hydra Island and the lead-up to the "deal" with Widmore was pretty much standard. Evidently, nothing's changed for Widmore, as he referred to John Locke as being dead. From that, it would stand to reason that it is the same old Widmore, with the same past history. Of course, it could still very well be that his story could be the one that eventually intersects the two parallel story lines, seeing as how he is the only one going freely back and forth, to and from island.
Next week-we learn the history of Richard Alpert. A few points here. Alpert was probably blessed by Jacob with immortality in order to avoid his message being diluted through the years, a distinct possibility if he is unable to communicate directly with average persons on a consistent basis. Also, it would stand to reason that, if Alpert is one of a very few people blessed with the ability to communicate, and to see, Jacob, then the young child we saw in episode four could not have been Jacob, seeing as Alpert couldn't see him, yet Sawyer could. I'll probably end up being wrong about that too.
ONE MORE POINT-This was some really shabby writing, when you stop to think about it. Why was Jodi Lynn O'Keefe's character arrested at the beginning of the sideways time segment? No clear-cut answer there. Why was she even being investigated? Ditto. Did Ford and Miles go to all that trouble to set up a sting to catch her pulling a gun on somebody? To charge her with falsely accusing them of trying to conduct a scam, even though that was precisely what they were doing? Was she wanted for extortion, robbery, or anything at all? And if so, what exactly did she do in this segment that provided them the evidence they needed to arrest her? Just doesn't make sense. Hopefully, whoever wrote this turd of an episode was either having an uncommonly bad day, or this is the last episode they'll be involved with.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Muddy Waters
I don't think the Coffee Party people are getting the point of the Tea Party movement. It started as a way of protesting the growing government, increasing debt, specter of increased taxes and regulation, and ever intrusive presence of the federal government in ever more areas of people's lives. Its not likely that any significant number of them are going to be wooed over to a movement-if that's what it really is-that proclaims big government and government spending to be a good thing. Yet, that seems to be the impetus behind the idea, which started as a Yearbook rant by a Democratic activist/operative and turned into a petition to start a corresponding party which has been promoted by a puff piece coverage on CBS News and hailed as an example of how the two different major factions of American political discourse might get together and agree on common goals.
Well, that's not likely, to say the least. I'll go on record once again as reminding everyone that I initially had reservations about the Tea Party movement, but this was basically due to the fact that it seemed, at first, like it might turn into the type of confrontational, in-your-face style of protest disruptions that so turned me against the Left in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, during the Bush years.
Happily, this turned out not to be the case. The Tea-Party people have turned out to be restrained, responsible, and yet effective as critics of government and as potential watchdogs of both political parties-not just Democrats, but Republicans as well.
To be sure, there are those factions within the movement that seem determined to bring them in line with the great GOP "tent", and to that end, Sarah Palin, wrong-headedly in my opinion, appeared at the last Tea=Party convention in Nashville trumpeting the need to keep America in the forefront of protecting the world and to that end keeping our military strong.
Which up to a point is fine. I don't disagree with that, though I do call bullshit on some aspects of it (NATO, for example). The main point is, this has nothing to do with the Tea-Party, and in fact it is vital to cut waste in all aspects of government spending, not only including the military, but especially the military.
Now I do also understand the concerns some might have that the Tea-Party could, potentially, split the Republican Party at a time when it, and the nation, can least afford for that to happen.
However, the way to prevent that eventuality is not for the GOP to vainly try to drag the Tea-Partiers back into line with their agenda. It is for them the GOP, to face the harsh realities of the day, reform themselves, and get in line behind the Tea=Party movement, with all it's hopes and aspirations. Thankfully, it is that aspect of the Tea-Party, that element that will hold all political parties accountable, and will hold all politicians feet to the fire (yes, even Palin's), that is the majority sentiment of the party.
This is not the case with the Coffee Party, which is nothing but a publicity stunt designed to bring Democrats and Independents back in line with the by-gone days of the "Hope and Change" snake-oil of Obama's Democratic Party.
It won't work. We've already woke up, and we can smell that coffee from a mile away.
Well, that's not likely, to say the least. I'll go on record once again as reminding everyone that I initially had reservations about the Tea Party movement, but this was basically due to the fact that it seemed, at first, like it might turn into the type of confrontational, in-your-face style of protest disruptions that so turned me against the Left in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, during the Bush years.
Happily, this turned out not to be the case. The Tea-Party people have turned out to be restrained, responsible, and yet effective as critics of government and as potential watchdogs of both political parties-not just Democrats, but Republicans as well.
To be sure, there are those factions within the movement that seem determined to bring them in line with the great GOP "tent", and to that end, Sarah Palin, wrong-headedly in my opinion, appeared at the last Tea=Party convention in Nashville trumpeting the need to keep America in the forefront of protecting the world and to that end keeping our military strong.
Which up to a point is fine. I don't disagree with that, though I do call bullshit on some aspects of it (NATO, for example). The main point is, this has nothing to do with the Tea-Party, and in fact it is vital to cut waste in all aspects of government spending, not only including the military, but especially the military.
Now I do also understand the concerns some might have that the Tea-Party could, potentially, split the Republican Party at a time when it, and the nation, can least afford for that to happen.
However, the way to prevent that eventuality is not for the GOP to vainly try to drag the Tea-Partiers back into line with their agenda. It is for them the GOP, to face the harsh realities of the day, reform themselves, and get in line behind the Tea=Party movement, with all it's hopes and aspirations. Thankfully, it is that aspect of the Tea-Party, that element that will hold all political parties accountable, and will hold all politicians feet to the fire (yes, even Palin's), that is the majority sentiment of the party.
This is not the case with the Coffee Party, which is nothing but a publicity stunt designed to bring Democrats and Independents back in line with the by-gone days of the "Hope and Change" snake-oil of Obama's Democratic Party.
It won't work. We've already woke up, and we can smell that coffee from a mile away.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Attention Whhaat?
Lindsay Lohan can cry to her mother all she wants, I just don't think she has a case. She has filed a 100 million dollar lawsuit against E-Trade, claiming that she has one name recognition-like Oprah or Madonna-and that the commercial in question is obviously an attack of some kind on her. For its part, E-Trade claims they just picked one of any number of currently popular baby names, in this case one that is also shared by one of their employees. I know that I've seen the following commercial numerous times, and it never occurred to me that it might be a kind of parody of Lindsay.
But, even if it was inspired by her antics, the key here is, it would be classified as a parody by federal law, the vagaries of New York state law notwithstanding. In which case, the outcome of this projected case, assuming it ever sees the light of day in a New York State courtroom, is pretty much a foregone conclusion in the long run. In fact, this is a matter of settled law, as decided in The Supreme Court Hustler Magazine versus Fallwell, better known by its film name The People versus Larry Flynt.
In fact, you could easily make the case that Falwell's complaint had far greater merit than Lohan's. Following is the reproduction of the ad parody from Hustler, in which Falwell waxes poetic about the day when, drunk on Campari, he and his mother had sex in the outhouse-for the first time. Unlike the work of political cartoonists going all the way back to Thomas Nast, when he skewered the corrupt New York Boss Tweed, there was no truth to the parody. Still, it was ultimately decided in favor of Flynt by an 8-0 vote, with Justice Kennedy declining to cast a vote.
Whether this is nothing but a play for attention, or whether Lohan is suffering from some kind of drug induced haze or otherwise is just naturally some kind of paranoid schizophrenic, possible suffering delusions of grandeur and/or persecution, it seems pretty plain to me that she has no case. Too bad she can't see it. And for her mother to encourage this-even referring to the now twenty-three year old woman as a child-goes a long way towards explaining Lindsay Lohan's current mental state.
But, even if it was inspired by her antics, the key here is, it would be classified as a parody by federal law, the vagaries of New York state law notwithstanding. In which case, the outcome of this projected case, assuming it ever sees the light of day in a New York State courtroom, is pretty much a foregone conclusion in the long run. In fact, this is a matter of settled law, as decided in The Supreme Court Hustler Magazine versus Fallwell, better known by its film name The People versus Larry Flynt.
In fact, you could easily make the case that Falwell's complaint had far greater merit than Lohan's. Following is the reproduction of the ad parody from Hustler, in which Falwell waxes poetic about the day when, drunk on Campari, he and his mother had sex in the outhouse-for the first time. Unlike the work of political cartoonists going all the way back to Thomas Nast, when he skewered the corrupt New York Boss Tweed, there was no truth to the parody. Still, it was ultimately decided in favor of Flynt by an 8-0 vote, with Justice Kennedy declining to cast a vote.
Whether this is nothing but a play for attention, or whether Lohan is suffering from some kind of drug induced haze or otherwise is just naturally some kind of paranoid schizophrenic, possible suffering delusions of grandeur and/or persecution, it seems pretty plain to me that she has no case. Too bad she can't see it. And for her mother to encourage this-even referring to the now twenty-three year old woman as a child-goes a long way towards explaining Lindsay Lohan's current mental state.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
While Toyota keeps yammering away about how floormats are the likely cause of the problem of sudden acceleration of so many of their vehicles-despite the fact that the problem strangely enough seems insurmountable by the simple process of brake override-I think I should point out that, until the problem is finally solved, its not only Toyota drivers who are in danger. It's anybody who happens to be on the road in proximity to anybody driving a Toyota. I'm no expert, but it sounds like a computer problem to me, or possibly something to do with the transmission. Whatever the case, somebody better fix this problem, and fast.
The good news for me-I'm not good at identifying makes and models of all the different vehicles out there, so I don't have to worry about suffering a panic attack every time I see a Toyota.
The bad news-I drive in a constant state of anxiety.
The good news for me-I'm not good at identifying makes and models of all the different vehicles out there, so I don't have to worry about suffering a panic attack every time I see a Toyota.
The bad news-I drive in a constant state of anxiety.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Possibly The Craziest Story Ever Told
Because it's just too damn good to pass up, I copied, from the blog Covert History, this rabidly stupid tale of how Sarah Palin, in order to gain some kind of political advantage out of the alleged myth that she had given birth to a child afflicted with Down's Syndrome when she obviously had not, found herself in an awkward situation when the original child died. After a round of discussion with her advisers, she somehow procured a replacement child similarly afflicted, and then went the extra mile of burying the original in her back yard.
So, what happened next, you ask? Read on if you dare.
This tragedy was increased when the neighbor’s Rottweiler, Guenther, apparently dug up the baby’s remains and when neighbors saw the dog running down the street with its dreadful prize clamped in its jaws, law enforcement and animal control people were called. After a wild chase and the use of tranquilizer darts, the dog was asleep on the sidewalk and the horrified officials were left with the half-eaten remains. These would have normally been turned over to the county medical examiner but the Governor’s rank and political aspirations resulted in a reburial. A bucket of cement was used to fill the hole dug out by Guenther (who later regained consciousness and was turned over to his owners with the instructions to not ever let him out of the house again without a leash.)
This incredible tale, originally an obscure post printed in the June 14th 2009 edition of the website TBR News, apparently inspired the investigative talents, otherwise known as the fevered imaginations, contained in the blog The Immoral Minority, which is the product of an Alaskan blogger who goes by the screen name of Gryphen, and who has seemingly devoted the entirety of his time and resources to blogging about the supposed crimes, indiscretions, and dangers posed by the former Alaskan governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate. Nothing is too sordid as to be beyond her manipulative grasp, according to Gryphen, who insists not only that there have actually been two, and possibly even three Trig Palins, all afflicted with Downs Sybdrome and none of whom actually were birthed by Sarah Palin-he claims he has discovered proof to this effect due to an apparent abnormality of the ears of the first Trig, which is not apparent in any of the other supposed incarnations.
This guy actually has a large following, judging by the comments section of his blog, but I'd like to know who he's fronting for? Are we to believe that he spends his time blogging so extensively about Palin due to some misguided loyalty to his version of the truth? Or is he simply a mouthpiece for some rabid left-wing progressive faction of an Alaskan political entity? I have followed him off and on, and I seriously believe he is tied up with the Green movement, basically, although I have nothing in the way of proof to go on.
I do think though that it offers a good glimpse into the mindset of someone who is so ideologically compromised that there exists no boundaries of decency or good taste.
What no one has as yet managed to explain-what's so great about having a child afflicted with Down's Syndrome to begin with, and what could possibly be the advantage in undergoing such subterfuge, and to such ridiculous lengths, in comparison to the fallout if the truth ever did manage to leak out?
I don't discount all conspiracy theories. I myself have always maintained that the best way to denigrate someone who proposes a conspiracy is to, well, call them a conspiracy theorist. I personally always believed JFK died as the result of a conspiracy, and still do. I probably always will.
But then there are those conspiracy theories that are rightly derided-the 9/11 truthers, the birthers, etc. A good rule of thumb is, if a conspiracy theory makes tales of alien abductions seem sane by comparison, it's probably either a purposeful lie, or some kind of insane delusion, or both.
This Trig Palin tale fits the bill on both counts. I don't think even Andrew Sullivan would buy this nonsense. Well, at least not to this extent.
So, what happened next, you ask? Read on if you dare.
This tragedy was increased when the neighbor’s Rottweiler, Guenther, apparently dug up the baby’s remains and when neighbors saw the dog running down the street with its dreadful prize clamped in its jaws, law enforcement and animal control people were called. After a wild chase and the use of tranquilizer darts, the dog was asleep on the sidewalk and the horrified officials were left with the half-eaten remains. These would have normally been turned over to the county medical examiner but the Governor’s rank and political aspirations resulted in a reburial. A bucket of cement was used to fill the hole dug out by Guenther (who later regained consciousness and was turned over to his owners with the instructions to not ever let him out of the house again without a leash.)
This incredible tale, originally an obscure post printed in the June 14th 2009 edition of the website TBR News, apparently inspired the investigative talents, otherwise known as the fevered imaginations, contained in the blog The Immoral Minority, which is the product of an Alaskan blogger who goes by the screen name of Gryphen, and who has seemingly devoted the entirety of his time and resources to blogging about the supposed crimes, indiscretions, and dangers posed by the former Alaskan governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate. Nothing is too sordid as to be beyond her manipulative grasp, according to Gryphen, who insists not only that there have actually been two, and possibly even three Trig Palins, all afflicted with Downs Sybdrome and none of whom actually were birthed by Sarah Palin-he claims he has discovered proof to this effect due to an apparent abnormality of the ears of the first Trig, which is not apparent in any of the other supposed incarnations.
This guy actually has a large following, judging by the comments section of his blog, but I'd like to know who he's fronting for? Are we to believe that he spends his time blogging so extensively about Palin due to some misguided loyalty to his version of the truth? Or is he simply a mouthpiece for some rabid left-wing progressive faction of an Alaskan political entity? I have followed him off and on, and I seriously believe he is tied up with the Green movement, basically, although I have nothing in the way of proof to go on.
I do think though that it offers a good glimpse into the mindset of someone who is so ideologically compromised that there exists no boundaries of decency or good taste.
What no one has as yet managed to explain-what's so great about having a child afflicted with Down's Syndrome to begin with, and what could possibly be the advantage in undergoing such subterfuge, and to such ridiculous lengths, in comparison to the fallout if the truth ever did manage to leak out?
I don't discount all conspiracy theories. I myself have always maintained that the best way to denigrate someone who proposes a conspiracy is to, well, call them a conspiracy theorist. I personally always believed JFK died as the result of a conspiracy, and still do. I probably always will.
But then there are those conspiracy theories that are rightly derided-the 9/11 truthers, the birthers, etc. A good rule of thumb is, if a conspiracy theory makes tales of alien abductions seem sane by comparison, it's probably either a purposeful lie, or some kind of insane delusion, or both.
This Trig Palin tale fits the bill on both counts. I don't think even Andrew Sullivan would buy this nonsense. Well, at least not to this extent.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Lost
I'm not clear whether there's ten more episodes of Lost total, or ten plus the two hour series finale, but whatever the case, this is the year the series ends and most, though not all, questions are answered.
At the end of season five, which saw the Losties stranded via time travel back in time prior to their original crash on the island, Juliette (originally one of The Others) successfully set off a nuclear device which managed to forestall the release of electromagnetic energy which caused the crash. It worked, though they don't know it on the island, and they know even less in the "sideways time" where they now also live parallel lives, though evidently in the same dimension, each group completely unaware of the other, parallel existence.
In the fifth episode of this season, we saw something that was previously unrevealed, either to us the viewers or to the survivors. A huge lighthouse with the unusual function that it shows, from within mirrors high up inside the top, aspects of the viewers life. Or it did until Jack Shepherd smashed the mirrors in a fit of pique after one of them showed him a glimpse of his childhood home.
The fact that this lighthouse has presented itself would seem to suggest that, after Juliette exploded the bomb, the entirety of the island's inhabitants were doubtless whisked away from that time to another, and it would seem to be sometime in the past, when the lighthouse was yet present. Possibly before any of their births. On the other hand, they should have run into The Others by now, so maybe not. All we know is someone is coming to the island, and I for one wonder whether this might herald the first approach of The Black Rock, the ship that first brought The Others to the island sometime around 1850. If so, is this an opportunity to completely change the history of the Island? And what exactly is the Island?
I have long suspected the Island is itself a living, breathing, sentient, even conscious entity, with feelings and a will to live, and that Jacob and the Man In Black (now False John Locke) represent two sides of it's personality. One of them, Jacob, is coldly rational and logical, while the other, Jacob's nemesis, represents its more primal and emotional side. The latter wants to go home (wherever home is) while Jacob's motives remain for the most part unclear, aside from protecting the island, and keeping Smokey contained therein, perhaps eventually destroying him.
But what if the true goal is to integrate the two sides of the personality into a functional whole, something the more erratic, emotional, "smokey" side would tend to reject?
The island can move from place to place via its unusual electromagnetic qualities, and it has been strongly hinted that it is or contains the life force of an ancient Egyptian goddess, Tiawarat. However, the statue of the goddess might well have been erected by ancient inhabitants due to a misunderstanding of the island's nature, at a time when it held its position somewhere within the Red Sea area.
As for who will be the candidate to replace Jacob, my guess is it will eventually be either Sawyer, with Jack Shepherd eventually replacing Smokey, or it will be Hurley who will eventually reign supreme as the newly and finally integrated personality of the two. Or perhaps the island's power will somehow be dissipated and it will become-nothing but just another island. Who knows?
One thing I am fairly certain of, is Dogun is not dead. He was murdered by Sayid, yes, but remember, Sayid drowned him in the sacred pool of the Temple, and left him there. Assuming Dogun managed to purify the previously polluted waters, this should be sufficient to bring him back, after some time.
As for other things, such as the significance of Aaron, or the yet unborn child of Sun and Jin, the identity of the child who presented himself to False Locke and Sawyer, and other mysteries too numerous to mention, and many of which may well be left unresolved, we'll just have to wait and see.
At the end of season five, which saw the Losties stranded via time travel back in time prior to their original crash on the island, Juliette (originally one of The Others) successfully set off a nuclear device which managed to forestall the release of electromagnetic energy which caused the crash. It worked, though they don't know it on the island, and they know even less in the "sideways time" where they now also live parallel lives, though evidently in the same dimension, each group completely unaware of the other, parallel existence.
In the fifth episode of this season, we saw something that was previously unrevealed, either to us the viewers or to the survivors. A huge lighthouse with the unusual function that it shows, from within mirrors high up inside the top, aspects of the viewers life. Or it did until Jack Shepherd smashed the mirrors in a fit of pique after one of them showed him a glimpse of his childhood home.
The fact that this lighthouse has presented itself would seem to suggest that, after Juliette exploded the bomb, the entirety of the island's inhabitants were doubtless whisked away from that time to another, and it would seem to be sometime in the past, when the lighthouse was yet present. Possibly before any of their births. On the other hand, they should have run into The Others by now, so maybe not. All we know is someone is coming to the island, and I for one wonder whether this might herald the first approach of The Black Rock, the ship that first brought The Others to the island sometime around 1850. If so, is this an opportunity to completely change the history of the Island? And what exactly is the Island?
I have long suspected the Island is itself a living, breathing, sentient, even conscious entity, with feelings and a will to live, and that Jacob and the Man In Black (now False John Locke) represent two sides of it's personality. One of them, Jacob, is coldly rational and logical, while the other, Jacob's nemesis, represents its more primal and emotional side. The latter wants to go home (wherever home is) while Jacob's motives remain for the most part unclear, aside from protecting the island, and keeping Smokey contained therein, perhaps eventually destroying him.
But what if the true goal is to integrate the two sides of the personality into a functional whole, something the more erratic, emotional, "smokey" side would tend to reject?
The island can move from place to place via its unusual electromagnetic qualities, and it has been strongly hinted that it is or contains the life force of an ancient Egyptian goddess, Tiawarat. However, the statue of the goddess might well have been erected by ancient inhabitants due to a misunderstanding of the island's nature, at a time when it held its position somewhere within the Red Sea area.
As for who will be the candidate to replace Jacob, my guess is it will eventually be either Sawyer, with Jack Shepherd eventually replacing Smokey, or it will be Hurley who will eventually reign supreme as the newly and finally integrated personality of the two. Or perhaps the island's power will somehow be dissipated and it will become-nothing but just another island. Who knows?
One thing I am fairly certain of, is Dogun is not dead. He was murdered by Sayid, yes, but remember, Sayid drowned him in the sacred pool of the Temple, and left him there. Assuming Dogun managed to purify the previously polluted waters, this should be sufficient to bring him back, after some time.
As for other things, such as the significance of Aaron, or the yet unborn child of Sun and Jin, the identity of the child who presented himself to False Locke and Sawyer, and other mysteries too numerous to mention, and many of which may well be left unresolved, we'll just have to wait and see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)