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.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
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.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Shroud Of Turin
This story out of Italy has got to be the most amazing example I've ever seen of overreach by European courts in quite some time. Four Google executives have been tried and three of them convicted, in an Italian court, for allowing some teenage boys in Turin to upload a video on YouTube which portrayed them bullying an autistic kid. Technically, they were convicted of violating Italian privacy laws, though found not guilty of deformation of the law.
As for the kids in question, they were convicted, and received ten months of community service. The three convicted Google executives received a jail sentence. This despite the fact they had nothing to do with the video, which Google removed as soon as they were informed of its presence on YouTube.
An appeal of the case is pending. It should never have been brought to court to begin with. Naturally, I am not in favor of bullying autistic people, or anybody else for that matter, but does anybody really believe this case is just about that?
I have this strange idea this whole thing is a test case, with the broader goal of enforcing European standards on the worldwide global net. Unlike China, who at least are not hypocrites about it-they'll just ban offending sites outright-the Europeans just seem to have it in their DNA, I suppose, to make the rest of the world bow down to their will.
They know perfectly well they can't directly impose their will on bloggers or social networking site users, but they seem to be ready to attack the companies, and even company personnel. If they are successful, its only a matter of time before the terms of service on a lot of sites become a lot more stringent. After all, they will be seen as having a responsibility to rein in hate speech, bigotry, prejudice, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc., and anything that might be presented as contributing directly or perhaps even indirectly to such things, which of course will be defined by the courts, mostly European. Look for yet another push for global regulation of the net, probably through the UN.
An attack on free speech? Not directly. It's first an attack on free enterprise, the purpose of which will be the establishment of the duty of blog sites and social networking sites to limit speech on their own private businesses.
Of course, they have a right to do that now, and could anytime they want. You are not guaranteed the right to freedom of speech on a blog which you do not own but which is hosted by a business entity. That entity has the right to set its terms of service. You have no rights other than to comply or leave.
Before long, that right of the hosting company to set its own limits as to what is considered acceptable speech or conduct might well become an obligation under international law.
This is a perfect example of why the US should refrain, for now and forever, from becoming signatories to any multinational treaty, of any kind, and to remove ourselves from the entanglements of any other such treaty.
As for the kids in question, they were convicted, and received ten months of community service. The three convicted Google executives received a jail sentence. This despite the fact they had nothing to do with the video, which Google removed as soon as they were informed of its presence on YouTube.
An appeal of the case is pending. It should never have been brought to court to begin with. Naturally, I am not in favor of bullying autistic people, or anybody else for that matter, but does anybody really believe this case is just about that?
I have this strange idea this whole thing is a test case, with the broader goal of enforcing European standards on the worldwide global net. Unlike China, who at least are not hypocrites about it-they'll just ban offending sites outright-the Europeans just seem to have it in their DNA, I suppose, to make the rest of the world bow down to their will.
They know perfectly well they can't directly impose their will on bloggers or social networking site users, but they seem to be ready to attack the companies, and even company personnel. If they are successful, its only a matter of time before the terms of service on a lot of sites become a lot more stringent. After all, they will be seen as having a responsibility to rein in hate speech, bigotry, prejudice, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc., and anything that might be presented as contributing directly or perhaps even indirectly to such things, which of course will be defined by the courts, mostly European. Look for yet another push for global regulation of the net, probably through the UN.
An attack on free speech? Not directly. It's first an attack on free enterprise, the purpose of which will be the establishment of the duty of blog sites and social networking sites to limit speech on their own private businesses.
Of course, they have a right to do that now, and could anytime they want. You are not guaranteed the right to freedom of speech on a blog which you do not own but which is hosted by a business entity. That entity has the right to set its terms of service. You have no rights other than to comply or leave.
Before long, that right of the hosting company to set its own limits as to what is considered acceptable speech or conduct might well become an obligation under international law.
This is a perfect example of why the US should refrain, for now and forever, from becoming signatories to any multinational treaty, of any kind, and to remove ourselves from the entanglements of any other such treaty.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
British PM Brown-Out Of Control?
Gordon Brown's wife denies the British Prime Minister is a bully, but of course she would, the question is, why the hell would anybody ask her to begin with? Any relevant question directed at her should begin with "Has the Prime Minister ever"-
One should not necessarily expect a truthful answer in any event. Remember, she lives with the man who is alleged to have done, among other things too numerous to list here, the following-
A FACTORY worker claims that during an official visit to his plant the PM hurled a tangerine into a laminating machine after flying into a rage while on a phone call. He said: "The fruit got stuck in the machine and clogged it.
"It was very embarrassing, we had to stop the tour and he got even more angry. He called the person that gave him the tangerine an idiot."
POLITICAL blogger Iain Dale claimed that IT experts were called to fix the PM's computer — only to find the keyboard had been hurled through the screen.
Read more:
It's pretty bad when a leader of a country is so allegedly abusive his own staff calls the National Bullying Hotline to report his harassment. Naturally, its a political embarrassment to Brown, but its also caused some problems for the Hotline, who are not supposed to go public with such information. On the other hand, this is the Prime Minister of one of the preeminent nations of the world. This is not exactly a private matter. Brown would be a fool to harass his staff in anger over the whistle blowing. But then again, maybe he's too far gone to control himself. The Sun article reads like a man who is barely in control of his own self. How is he supposed to run a country like Britain, especially since he's not exactly well-loved to begin with?
When you stop to think about it though, bullies almost always back down when confronted. His unpopularity with the voters might be the only thing keeping him in check. Who knows how he would act if his poll numbers were solid. How long would it take him to declare war on Scotland if one of their MP's looked at him wrong?
The British ought to give this guy the boot, but then again, this might increase his popularity, who knows? The Brits seem to put up with a lot of impositions we would never tolerate here. One can only assume they must like it.
H/T-The English Blog.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Obama And The Philosophy Of Christian Realism
Obama's favorite philosopher is, according to him, Reinhold Niebuhr. What is interesting about that is, Reinhold Niebuhr, throughout the course of a very long career, changed his mind with every successive decade. In the 1910's he was pro-American and pro-war. In the 1920's, he was a pacifist. In the 1930's, he was a socialist. In the 1940's, he was apparently a centrist Democrat. In the 1950's, he was an anti-communist who believed in the policy of containment. In the 1960's, he was a pacifist again, somewhat, staking out a position against the Vietnam War and promoting a philosophy of tolerance towards the Soviet Union, claiming the anti-communist movement had been hi-jacked by ideologues. What do all of these stands have in common, besides a seeming divergence with every new decade? Well, they all seem to be outgrowths of what is termed Christian Realism. His philosophy might best be encapsulated by the Serenity Prayer, which he authored.
But how exactly has he influenced Obama? Though some might proclaim it to be a positive influence, might there be other, less beneficent aspects, at least when applied to the political realm?
Niebuhr believed in international cooperation as the best means of attaining national goals and in the spreading and furtherance of American and Western ideals. He disavowed the idealism of most church philosophies of his day, which he charged took man's divine rights and inherent goodness too much for granted. However, he also loathed the inclination of many demagogues who would pursue a might makes right policy. He believed in cooperation, and a kind of carrot-and-stick approach, seemingly with an emphasis on the carrot. Democracy and social justice, he claimed, could be fostered and encouraged, and rewarded, but they could never be forced. Nor did he deem it accurate to suppose that because we believe our way was the best way, that everyone else would necessarily follow suit and adopt Western-American values. That might happen over time, with the proper encouragement and patience. It might never happen.
Many see this philosophy expressed in Obama's recent trip to Cairo and his address from there to the Arab world. America is not always right, nor are her enemies always evil. Almost every word from the speech could have been written by Reinhold Niebuhr. Frankly, there is much to Niebuhrs approach to foreign affairs I can concur with, up to a point, but in this case, it seems odd to spell out such a philosophy openly in an address to such a large segment of the world population, many of with whom we are, like it or not, at war. It seems to reek of the kind of air-headed idealism, minus pragmatic considerations, which Niebuhr himself reportedly deplored.
Interestingly, much of Niebuhr's approach to domestic politics seems drawn from the same philosophy. He knew early on there was going to be increasing racial tensions. His prescribed method of dealing with the eventuality was to encourage the majority to reach out to the minority populations. I have found no indications as to his beliefs as to how minority peoples should respond. He seems to intimate that it will take time, in the form of successive generations, to heal the breach. Of course, we have seen this philosophy expressed multiple times through the filter of leftist progressive politics. While Obama, for perhaps self-conscious reasons, has refrained from this, we have still seen it expressed in other ways, like for example AG Eric Holders denunciation of the self-segregation that envelops society on so many levels and his expressed call for a national dialogue on race in order to deal with it.
Earlier in his career, Niebuhr was a staunch supporter of the union movement, and a harsh critic of Henry Ford, disparaging Ford's assembly line method of automobile production and the loss of real income to Ford's workers, due to inflation and to reduced work hours.
Niebuhr has followers among all branches of politics-liberal, radical, conservative, and even among the neocons. He himself was unabashedly political, yet he was, again, a "Christian Realist" in his approach to problems and policies. Nevertheless, he was unquestioningly liberal in almost all of his incarnations. The following snippet of a critique leveled at a conservative foe of the "Welfare State", during the nineteen fifties, says it all-
Mr. Russell Kirk in his Conservative Mind seems to assume that there is some authentic conservatism in the mere desire to preserve the status quo of the American paradise; and he rather uncritically seeks to relate this American conservatism with a British conservatism which is rooted in the aristocratic tradition and has none of Kirk’s prejudice against the Welfare State, and with the rather pathetic aristocratic tradition of our own Southland, as expounded by Randolph and Calhoun. This Southern tradition was pathetic because it was but a remnant of an old aristocratic society in a nation which had no conscious relations with the European feudal past, and because it was a form of aristocracy based upon chattel slavery and was naturally destroyed with the institution of slavery.
Note that the policy of the Mr. Kirk in question had nothing to do with the nascent Civil Rights movement of the day, had nothing to do with race relations in any fashion-it was simply a matter of limiting the growth of the federal government, and keeping it in check. Mr. Niehbuhr might well have fathered the tactic of conflating the conservative philosophy of low taxes and small government to racism and bigotry, and all of its later and equally foul brethren, such as accusatory slurs as to sexism and homophobia.
In other words, such charges, whether leveled yesterday or today, are not reasoned responses based on science or empirical observation towards a coherent understanding of ones ideological opponents. They are, at best, emotional excrement, based on attachments to the ideals and theories of a Christian philosopher who adapted his philosophy, along with his strategies, to suit the times or the situation.
It takes the following formula-
A. The Antebellum South owned slaves and fought to defend its rights to keep them
and to expand those rights into other territories.
B. Modern conservatives believe in states rights against encroachments by an ever growing and expanding federal government
Therefore-
C. Modern conservatives are racists and bigots. They are also sexists and homophobes.
And thus turns logic completely on its head.
This then is the natural outgrowth of the Christian Realism movement.
In his own day, Reinhold was criticized for such rhetoric, as well as for his liberal progressive views, with much the same tenor that an Anne Coulter or Glenn Beck today might tear into a Keith Olbermann, and for much the same reasons. His is a philosophy based on a religious principle, but with political applications. Not unlike Nietzche in many ways, it is indeed a kind of "Realism" in approach, yet seasoned with a dash of ethics and morals, at least on the surface. Simmering at the bottom of the stew, however, is the same kind of moralizing prejudice-Judgementality, if you will-modern progressives so readily decry in their opponents. It doesn't take a lot to bring it erupting to the surface, as we have seen innumerable times. It also doesn't take long to reveal a liberal progressive who proclaims his love for democracy, tolerance, and free speech, for the unmitigated hypocrite he truly is.
When it comes to politics, at least and especially as it involves foreign affairs, an extra dose of Nietzche might be the more appropriate formula. As for domestic situations, there again, a greater emphasis on pragmatic approaches with less emphasis on high-minded idealism is more in-line with the attainment of realistic goals.
But how exactly has he influenced Obama? Though some might proclaim it to be a positive influence, might there be other, less beneficent aspects, at least when applied to the political realm?
Niebuhr believed in international cooperation as the best means of attaining national goals and in the spreading and furtherance of American and Western ideals. He disavowed the idealism of most church philosophies of his day, which he charged took man's divine rights and inherent goodness too much for granted. However, he also loathed the inclination of many demagogues who would pursue a might makes right policy. He believed in cooperation, and a kind of carrot-and-stick approach, seemingly with an emphasis on the carrot. Democracy and social justice, he claimed, could be fostered and encouraged, and rewarded, but they could never be forced. Nor did he deem it accurate to suppose that because we believe our way was the best way, that everyone else would necessarily follow suit and adopt Western-American values. That might happen over time, with the proper encouragement and patience. It might never happen.
Many see this philosophy expressed in Obama's recent trip to Cairo and his address from there to the Arab world. America is not always right, nor are her enemies always evil. Almost every word from the speech could have been written by Reinhold Niebuhr. Frankly, there is much to Niebuhrs approach to foreign affairs I can concur with, up to a point, but in this case, it seems odd to spell out such a philosophy openly in an address to such a large segment of the world population, many of with whom we are, like it or not, at war. It seems to reek of the kind of air-headed idealism, minus pragmatic considerations, which Niebuhr himself reportedly deplored.
Interestingly, much of Niebuhr's approach to domestic politics seems drawn from the same philosophy. He knew early on there was going to be increasing racial tensions. His prescribed method of dealing with the eventuality was to encourage the majority to reach out to the minority populations. I have found no indications as to his beliefs as to how minority peoples should respond. He seems to intimate that it will take time, in the form of successive generations, to heal the breach. Of course, we have seen this philosophy expressed multiple times through the filter of leftist progressive politics. While Obama, for perhaps self-conscious reasons, has refrained from this, we have still seen it expressed in other ways, like for example AG Eric Holders denunciation of the self-segregation that envelops society on so many levels and his expressed call for a national dialogue on race in order to deal with it.
Earlier in his career, Niebuhr was a staunch supporter of the union movement, and a harsh critic of Henry Ford, disparaging Ford's assembly line method of automobile production and the loss of real income to Ford's workers, due to inflation and to reduced work hours.
Niebuhr has followers among all branches of politics-liberal, radical, conservative, and even among the neocons. He himself was unabashedly political, yet he was, again, a "Christian Realist" in his approach to problems and policies. Nevertheless, he was unquestioningly liberal in almost all of his incarnations. The following snippet of a critique leveled at a conservative foe of the "Welfare State", during the nineteen fifties, says it all-
Mr. Russell Kirk in his Conservative Mind seems to assume that there is some authentic conservatism in the mere desire to preserve the status quo of the American paradise; and he rather uncritically seeks to relate this American conservatism with a British conservatism which is rooted in the aristocratic tradition and has none of Kirk’s prejudice against the Welfare State, and with the rather pathetic aristocratic tradition of our own Southland, as expounded by Randolph and Calhoun. This Southern tradition was pathetic because it was but a remnant of an old aristocratic society in a nation which had no conscious relations with the European feudal past, and because it was a form of aristocracy based upon chattel slavery and was naturally destroyed with the institution of slavery.
Note that the policy of the Mr. Kirk in question had nothing to do with the nascent Civil Rights movement of the day, had nothing to do with race relations in any fashion-it was simply a matter of limiting the growth of the federal government, and keeping it in check. Mr. Niehbuhr might well have fathered the tactic of conflating the conservative philosophy of low taxes and small government to racism and bigotry, and all of its later and equally foul brethren, such as accusatory slurs as to sexism and homophobia.
In other words, such charges, whether leveled yesterday or today, are not reasoned responses based on science or empirical observation towards a coherent understanding of ones ideological opponents. They are, at best, emotional excrement, based on attachments to the ideals and theories of a Christian philosopher who adapted his philosophy, along with his strategies, to suit the times or the situation.
It takes the following formula-
A. The Antebellum South owned slaves and fought to defend its rights to keep them
and to expand those rights into other territories.
B. Modern conservatives believe in states rights against encroachments by an ever growing and expanding federal government
Therefore-
C. Modern conservatives are racists and bigots. They are also sexists and homophobes.
And thus turns logic completely on its head.
This then is the natural outgrowth of the Christian Realism movement.
In his own day, Reinhold was criticized for such rhetoric, as well as for his liberal progressive views, with much the same tenor that an Anne Coulter or Glenn Beck today might tear into a Keith Olbermann, and for much the same reasons. His is a philosophy based on a religious principle, but with political applications. Not unlike Nietzche in many ways, it is indeed a kind of "Realism" in approach, yet seasoned with a dash of ethics and morals, at least on the surface. Simmering at the bottom of the stew, however, is the same kind of moralizing prejudice-Judgementality, if you will-modern progressives so readily decry in their opponents. It doesn't take a lot to bring it erupting to the surface, as we have seen innumerable times. It also doesn't take long to reveal a liberal progressive who proclaims his love for democracy, tolerance, and free speech, for the unmitigated hypocrite he truly is.
When it comes to politics, at least and especially as it involves foreign affairs, an extra dose of Nietzche might be the more appropriate formula. As for domestic situations, there again, a greater emphasis on pragmatic approaches with less emphasis on high-minded idealism is more in-line with the attainment of realistic goals.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Tiger Woods And The Road To Nirvana-Are We There Yet?
Now that Tiger Woods has humbled himself and offered what seems to be a very sincere and Con-Trite apology to his remaining sponsors (while doing so in the course of an event sponsored by one of those who abandoned ship on their association with Woods), what have we learned?
Well, we have learned that Woods is one tone-deaf individual. There are ways in which this is good, however. For one thing, it lends itself to sincerity. Tiger has personally vowed to return to the practice of his Buddhist faith, claiming he has over the years fallen away from it.
In true Buddhist terms, of course, Woods did not commit a sin, he merely allowed himself to be swept away by his attachments, which led to a form of delusion, and in the meantime, he acted not only against his own best interests, but he acted unethically towards his wife and children. And of course, Nike.
However, while being tone deaf does have it's advantages, it also has its drawbacks. In his case, he actually wanted his wife to stand by his side at this presser-the penultimate "The Good Wife". Thankfully, Elan was having none of that, and refused to appear at his side. In fact, she refused to be seen in public that day.
This shows that, if anything, Woods is still somewhat delusional. Having been made the butt of jokes over a period of three months time on all the late night talk shows and Comedy Central, how does he propose to shore up his tarnished image? By having he, with wife obediently and faithfully at his side, join the ranks of Bill Clinton, basketball great Kobe Bryant, disgraced former governors Elliot Spitzer and Jim MacGreevy, and disgraced former televangelists Ted Haggarty, Jimmy Swaggert, and Jim Baker.
Elan might well decide to stand by her man like Hillary, will probably get a hell of a lot more than a diamond ring like Kobe Bryant's wife if she does so, and might even honestly forgive him like many of these women seem to have done. But she made the right decision here to spare herself the ordeal of presenting herself as a public spectacle inviting yet more ridicule and abuse.
For one thing, even though Woods denied that she attacked him the night of Thanksgiving with one of his own golf clubs, there will always be questions as to whether he is being completely honest about that. His exact statement in addressing the matter is vague at best. He insists that she never attacked him with the golf club. Of course, technically, she is said to have attacked the car he was driving, properly speaking, not him. He did say there had never been any domestic violence between them, but what does that really mean, and even if you take it at face value, what is it worth? What about mental, emotional, verbal, or for that matter sexual abuse?
The last thing Elan Woods wants is to publicly be put in the situation of being questioned about her own actions, or the nature of her overall relationship with Woods, as she sees it. As Woods said, correctly, he and his wife's relationship was strictly between she and him.
Some people never learn. Woods has barely begin this journey of convenience, while others want to latch onto the gravy train of opportunity. One of these is the abominable Gloria Alred, the inside out watermelon woman-red on the outside, green on the inside, the green in her case standing for money.
She has presented herself now as the attorney, not for one, but for two of Woods's former mistresses, the latest being a former porn star who claims to have been made pregnant by Woods twice, the first time resulting in a miscarriage, the second one in an abortion.
These women too want apologies, and here Woods might be tone deaf, but he at least demonstrated that he isn't a complete ignoramus. The proffering of an apology to these deadbeat whores would only serve as an admission that Woods wronged them as much as he wronged his wife and children, a laughable proposition on the face of it. Such an apology would only encourage what Allred doubtless wants, a lawsuit. In her depraved mind, she probably fantasizes here about the potential for a class action, with her representing all nineteen (or is it more now) or the "wronged women".
I hate to break it to them, but they knew Woods was a married man. A married man with two children. Young children. In some cases, they carried on these affairs with Woods for multiple years. They had no realistic expectation that he was going to leave his wife and children, for any of them. But that is irrelevant to the likes of Gloria Allred. She wants you to see these skanks as wronged women, women who were emotionally abused and deserted by Woods, women who deserve compensation. It's nothing but a game to her, a game with a big payday in the end should she be successful. She would probably prefer to bully Woods into making a settlement, along with a public apology, but she would be more than content to take the matter into civil court, and she has the resources to do so.
This by the way is not a defense of Woods, whose behavior was reprehensible, nor do I necessarily believe he sincerely intends to change. Maybe he sincerely wants to change, for now, but wishing and doing what it takes despite the temptations that present themselves might well be two different things. But for Gloria Allred, or anybody else, to try to paint these women as wronged, duped victims who were emotionally deceived by Woods, whom they loved, is beyond the pale. They deserve nothing more than public scorn and derision, exactly the same as Woods.
Some people might say that Elan, Woods's wife, is really no better, because she is a gold-digger who only married Woods for his money and fame. And that might well be true.
It is also beside the point, from any legal standpoint of which I am aware. Admittedly, I am an amateur when it comes to legal matters, and not even a well-versed amateur at that. But I think I can state with pretty reasonable assurance that Woods's children and wife would receive, and deserve to get, the lions share if not all of any court settlement that might arise from Woods flagrant infidelities.
All of these other bimbos deserve nothing more than exactly what they have already got. Fucked.
Well, we have learned that Woods is one tone-deaf individual. There are ways in which this is good, however. For one thing, it lends itself to sincerity. Tiger has personally vowed to return to the practice of his Buddhist faith, claiming he has over the years fallen away from it.
In true Buddhist terms, of course, Woods did not commit a sin, he merely allowed himself to be swept away by his attachments, which led to a form of delusion, and in the meantime, he acted not only against his own best interests, but he acted unethically towards his wife and children. And of course, Nike.
However, while being tone deaf does have it's advantages, it also has its drawbacks. In his case, he actually wanted his wife to stand by his side at this presser-the penultimate "The Good Wife". Thankfully, Elan was having none of that, and refused to appear at his side. In fact, she refused to be seen in public that day.
This shows that, if anything, Woods is still somewhat delusional. Having been made the butt of jokes over a period of three months time on all the late night talk shows and Comedy Central, how does he propose to shore up his tarnished image? By having he, with wife obediently and faithfully at his side, join the ranks of Bill Clinton, basketball great Kobe Bryant, disgraced former governors Elliot Spitzer and Jim MacGreevy, and disgraced former televangelists Ted Haggarty, Jimmy Swaggert, and Jim Baker.
Elan might well decide to stand by her man like Hillary, will probably get a hell of a lot more than a diamond ring like Kobe Bryant's wife if she does so, and might even honestly forgive him like many of these women seem to have done. But she made the right decision here to spare herself the ordeal of presenting herself as a public spectacle inviting yet more ridicule and abuse.
For one thing, even though Woods denied that she attacked him the night of Thanksgiving with one of his own golf clubs, there will always be questions as to whether he is being completely honest about that. His exact statement in addressing the matter is vague at best. He insists that she never attacked him with the golf club. Of course, technically, she is said to have attacked the car he was driving, properly speaking, not him. He did say there had never been any domestic violence between them, but what does that really mean, and even if you take it at face value, what is it worth? What about mental, emotional, verbal, or for that matter sexual abuse?
The last thing Elan Woods wants is to publicly be put in the situation of being questioned about her own actions, or the nature of her overall relationship with Woods, as she sees it. As Woods said, correctly, he and his wife's relationship was strictly between she and him.
Some people never learn. Woods has barely begin this journey of convenience, while others want to latch onto the gravy train of opportunity. One of these is the abominable Gloria Alred, the inside out watermelon woman-red on the outside, green on the inside, the green in her case standing for money.
She has presented herself now as the attorney, not for one, but for two of Woods's former mistresses, the latest being a former porn star who claims to have been made pregnant by Woods twice, the first time resulting in a miscarriage, the second one in an abortion.
These women too want apologies, and here Woods might be tone deaf, but he at least demonstrated that he isn't a complete ignoramus. The proffering of an apology to these deadbeat whores would only serve as an admission that Woods wronged them as much as he wronged his wife and children, a laughable proposition on the face of it. Such an apology would only encourage what Allred doubtless wants, a lawsuit. In her depraved mind, she probably fantasizes here about the potential for a class action, with her representing all nineteen (or is it more now) or the "wronged women".
I hate to break it to them, but they knew Woods was a married man. A married man with two children. Young children. In some cases, they carried on these affairs with Woods for multiple years. They had no realistic expectation that he was going to leave his wife and children, for any of them. But that is irrelevant to the likes of Gloria Allred. She wants you to see these skanks as wronged women, women who were emotionally abused and deserted by Woods, women who deserve compensation. It's nothing but a game to her, a game with a big payday in the end should she be successful. She would probably prefer to bully Woods into making a settlement, along with a public apology, but she would be more than content to take the matter into civil court, and she has the resources to do so.
This by the way is not a defense of Woods, whose behavior was reprehensible, nor do I necessarily believe he sincerely intends to change. Maybe he sincerely wants to change, for now, but wishing and doing what it takes despite the temptations that present themselves might well be two different things. But for Gloria Allred, or anybody else, to try to paint these women as wronged, duped victims who were emotionally deceived by Woods, whom they loved, is beyond the pale. They deserve nothing more than public scorn and derision, exactly the same as Woods.
Some people might say that Elan, Woods's wife, is really no better, because she is a gold-digger who only married Woods for his money and fame. And that might well be true.
It is also beside the point, from any legal standpoint of which I am aware. Admittedly, I am an amateur when it comes to legal matters, and not even a well-versed amateur at that. But I think I can state with pretty reasonable assurance that Woods's children and wife would receive, and deserve to get, the lions share if not all of any court settlement that might arise from Woods flagrant infidelities.
All of these other bimbos deserve nothing more than exactly what they have already got. Fucked.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Elton John Really, REALLY Loves Jesus Christ
Elton John has lately bemoaned the fact that he is famous, because bad things happen to famous people, such as John Lennon, Gianni Versace, and Princess Di. If Elton John had his way about it, he would not be famous at all, you see, because famous people, well, they just draw the nuts and lunatics, which is precisely why he hired a bodyguard.
In conclusion, he then added that Jesus Christ was a compassionate homosexual.
Elton John-just another one of these dull, boring artistic types you would probably never notice, what with this tendency he has to just kind of blend into the woodwork, and the knack for avoiding making outrageous statements of opinion presented as fact. Who could possibly pick him out in a crowd? Not a drama queen at all.
In conclusion, he then added that Jesus Christ was a compassionate homosexual.
Elton John-just another one of these dull, boring artistic types you would probably never notice, what with this tendency he has to just kind of blend into the woodwork, and the knack for avoiding making outrageous statements of opinion presented as fact. Who could possibly pick him out in a crowd? Not a drama queen at all.
Look At This Fucking Hipster
When people devote their time to giving folks reason to laugh at them, people should kindly and politely oblige them. That is the whole purpose of Look At This Fucking Hipster.
I'm going to be looking for my own contributions for the site, complete with obligatory caption.
HaHaHaHa Look at this old ass leftist hipster phony trying to hit that ass. Worse, look at this stupid hipster bitch actually thinking about it.
Hat Tip to Rob at Red Alerts
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Influence Of Nitrous Oxide On Free Radicals
When I first heard of the shooting deaths of three people, two of them faculty members and one staff member, and the wounding of three others at the University of Alabama Huntsville at the hands of neurobiology professor Amy Bishop, I had a visceral reaction which amounted pretty much to, "well, if I shot some street thug who tried to rip me off for fifty or sixty dollars, I can imagine what I might do to somebody that tried to rip me off of rights to a patent from research that might make me hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars". And, bluntly, speaking, by denying her tenure, whatever other reasons they might have had for doing so, it pretty much amounted to property theft. Which, I have to admit I considered ironic, seeing as how Bishop has been described as a fairly obnoxious Obama supporter, in addition to being, according to at least one of her students, a socialist (though the student insists she kept this out of the classroom).
The more time dragged on, the more came out. Now, it seems Bishop might have been involved in a plot to kill a professor at Harvard, where she was a student, with a pipe bomb sent by mail to the house of the professor, who was in a position to decide favorably or unfavorably on her work, and with whom she had a history or disputes. Yet, it should always be noted that Bishop was never charged, and in point of fact, though this is seldom pointed out, she went on to become an instructor of medicine at Harvard for a brief period of time.
Nevertheless, she and her husband was investigated thoroughly, which led to a compelling discovery-
During a search of Bishop's computer, authorities found a draft of a novel that Bishop was writing about a female scientist who had killed her brother and was hoping to make amends by becoming a great scientist, according to a person who was briefed on the investigation and spoke to the Globe on the condition of anonymity.
Which serves as a segue to a political angle, lately revealed, involving Massachusetts Representative William Delahunt, who in 1986 was the prosecutor in Quincy Massachusetts, when Bishop, then nineteen, was charged with killing her eighteen year old brother Seth, with whom she had also, according to some sources, had an argument. Yet, the incident was labeled an accident, even though she shot at her brother three times with a shotgun she was, according to the official report, "learning how to load", hitting him one time in the left chest area and severing his aorta.
Most of the report vanished shortly after it was filed, so the nature of the argument, if there was one, remains a mystery, but it is fairly well established that she was released the same day she was taken into custody, and never charged, even though the day she left her house immediately following her brother's killing, she tried to rob an auto dealer with the same gun with which she shot her brother, demanding he supply her with a car, claiming that her husband was after her.
Delahunt, so the story goes, ordered her release, yet he claims to have no recollection of the incident. However, it seems that he might have been influenced by the fact that Bishop's mother was active in local politics, and perhaps more importantly set on the local police board.
By the time it's all over with, she might well turn out to be a Kennedy love child, for all we know, but whatever the case might be, there is no doubt that something is fishy, and by all rights this woman should never have been granted a position at the University of Alabama Huntsville.
Admittedly hearsay accounts describe the family life of the Bishops as dark and foreboding, with no open indications of love, or any kind of closeness.
In the meantime, I think overlooked in this controversy is the matter of university policy in deciding tenure, and also the matter of patents. Tenure is the Holy Grail of university professors, and once given, it is rarely taken away. It seems to be more about politics than actual merit in the majority of cases. I think the system is in dire need of reform. Tenure should perhaps be granted automatically when a professor is employed past a set period of time, maybe four years, and it should not be so difficult to revoke as it now is, though such an action should not be undertaken lightly. There is also the matter of patents. If a professor is denied tenure, he or she should be able to take his or her research wherever they go, or alternately, they should be able to retain the rights to their work, including royalties.
All that being said, Bishops denial of tenure might well have had some valid grounds. She had only published about one paper a year during her association with the university, whereas the average is something along the lines of at least three or four papers a year, if not more. She was a hard person to get to know, by most accounts, being very withdrawn and unsociable. Her class was, according to many of her students, much too hard, and in fact she did not so much teach as read out of the book. Following is statements taken from the first of five pages of the website Rate My Professor:
Dr. Bishop does not put what she says will be on the test on the test!!!!! If you study what she tells you to study, you will fail, simple as that. From experience I'm a 4.0 student with a 100 in lab, and a C in her lectures class, if that doesn't tell you that somethings up, I don't know what will!! Take Dr. Adcock, she help you learn the material
Dr Bishop is an excellent teacher! She is very helpful and nice. She does everything to help students do well. She even offers extra classes! The students who show up and work think she is a good teacher.
Hard class to pass.. Requires a GREAT deal of studying!
Professor is helpful but the class is super hard! She has classes for extra help since there are so many students in the class.
This class was great. Bishop makes the class interesting by talking about her research and her friends research. That speaker she had for class was hard to understand but smart. She expects alot and you need to come to every class and study. She is hot but she tries to hide it.And she is a socalist but she only talks about it after class.
By and large, the reviews seem to run at least two-to-one positive. She was not without her accomplishments, having procured funding for the study of Nitrous Oxide on cells, and inventing the neurister, or neuristor, along with something that has been described as a portable petrie dish for the study of germs and bacteria. Following is an explanation of her work from her University Profile page, now deleted but thankfully archived.
1. Induced Adaptive Resistance to NO in the CNS.
Neurons release and utilize low levels of the free radical, nitric oxide (NO), for cellular signaling and neurotransmission. At high levels (can be >1mM), typically released during CNS injury and disease, NO is toxic. We have found that when motor neurons, both the NSC34 motor neuron cell line and primary motor neurons, are exposed to low doses of NO (~25nM) they become resistant (as assayed by significantly decreased DNA damage and apoptosis) to normally toxic levels of NO (~300nM-1mM). We have dubbed this phenomenon, induced adaptive resistance (IAR). IAR is dependent on the heme metabolizing enzyme, heme oxygenase 1 (HO1), as demonstrated by the loss of resistance upon the incubation of motor neurons with an HO1 inhibitor, and by the absence of resistance in motor neurons isolated from HO1 null mice. IAR extends to peroxide which is a product of the metabolism of superoxide, a free radical also released during CNS disease and injury. One proposed cause of NO-mediated cell death is extensive protein nitration by peroxynitrite, a molecule formed by the combination of superoxide with NO. IAR cells have significantly decreased levels of protein nitration in response to toxic levels of NO as compared to non adapted cells. In addition, motor neurons isolated from HO1 null mice have elevated levels of nitrated proteins in response to toxic levels of NO as compared to cells isolated from wildtype animals. Taken together this data indicates that, in an HO1-dependent manner, IAR protects cell from free radical damage. Elucidation of the mechanisms IAR will allow us to mitigate free radical mediated damage seen in many CNS diseases and injury. The space flight environment (high radiation / low gravity) stresses cells and, in the case of high radiation, also leads to the production of free radicals, thereby underscoring the importance of understanding IAR.
She has typically been accompanied in her work by her husband, the Chief research scientist of Cherokee Lab Systems, who she has worked with on innumerable projects, and who has also been detained and questioned by police, though not yet charged with any crime, nor is he speaking about events of the last few weeks, on advice of attorney.
Following are pdfs of two of her papers, here and here.
From the looks of things, she was urging her daughters to follow in her footsteps-though hopefully unarmed.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Faith Can Keep You In Chains
The pseudo-science that is the religion of man-made Global Climate Change has been dealt yet another severe blow, this time by one of its major proponents-Phil Jones, former director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Among his most damning statements-*There has been no significant warming over the last fifteen years.
Actually, if you take everything he says at face value, there has been absolutely no warming over the last fifteen years. He goes on to state that-
*There were two other recent periods of warming. One of these occurred from 1910 until 1940. The other was from 1975 until 1998.
That is an overlap of three years. What it amounts to is, the "no significant warming over the last fifteen years", what did occur, actually lasted only from three years, from 1995 until 1998. It stands to reason, therefore, that there has actually been no warming for the last twelve years, and in point of fact, there may have been some slight cooling.
But that's far from all of it. He goes on to state that there may have been a period of warming that occurred during Medieval times, from roughly 800 until 1300 AD. This is astonishing, as Jones with this statement has actually broke ranks with the stated position of Global Climate Change proponents, who state that this period of warming was confined to the northernmost countries, such as Scandinavia. According to Jones, this is in fact far from settled, and there is some evidence to suggest that it might have indeed been a global phenomenon.
Why is this significant? Because of the now notorious hockey stick graphs which have been used to measure the rate of alleged climate change over the centuries. Following is how this has been represented.
Following is how the trend actually looks when the totality of warming patterns is taken into account, including the Medieval period.
(Thanks for the graphs goes to Bluegrass Pundit.)
Note how the graph at the bottom stays relatively flat near the right end in comparison with the snake oil piece at the top the Climate Change proponents have been trying to sell us. In fact, it shows evidence of a cooling trend.
Ann Althouse perhaps says it best. This movement is not a science, it is a religion, one in which there is no room or tolerance for such heresies as skepticism and-well, science.
Amazingly, Jones, now feeling the heat, has veered from declaring that he never had any intention of sharing his research with skeptics in compliance with Freedom of Information requests, to excusing his laxity in this matter due to shoddy record keeping.
Meanwhile, the United Nations IPCC is now under the gun, again, this time for exaggerating the rate of the rise of ocean level in the Netherlands, including in their estimates areas that are in fact not under sea level, but instead are merely prone to flooding.
Since all this has come out, other, more independent minded scientists are speaking out, no longer evidently in such grave fear that their funding will be cut off due to political pressure from the Left, among other worries. Some have noted that many of the stations constructed to measure temperatures in pursuit of this fiasco seem to have purposely been built in places best suited to elicit the highest temperature readings possible. Such as, for example, next to airports, which are subject to the influence of jet heat exhaust. In at least one case, a station was constructed next to a waste incinerator.
This be, ironically, the tip of the iceberg. This might well turn out to be one of the greatest hoaxes, one of the greatest scams, ever perpetrated on the public at large by political elites mainly of the Left. If that does turn out to be the case, heads should roll.
Literally.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Death Of A Titan
World famous fashion designer Alexander McQueen is dead, and although there has been no official statement as of yet, he apparently committed suicide by hanging himself in his London flat. At first glance, it is difficult to believe, as this was a man who over the last few years had established himself as a titan of the fashion industry.
The fact that he killed himself is not what is so remarkable. People of wealth and renown are as susceptible to deep dark periods of depression as the rest of us. His mother had just recently died, and his former patron and discoverer had herself committed suicide three years previously. Like they say, it's lonely at the top, and maybe the man just felt like he had no one or nothing left to live for. Grief and despair will put that kind of head trip on you, particularly if you are suffering from some form of clinical depression, which is still a greatly misunderstood but very real illness.
Still, his chosen method of self-execution is jaw dropping for a man of his stature. This is admittedly my own opinion, but the way in which a person kills himself tells a lot about him, or her as the case may be.
People who die by way of ingestion or injection of drugs, perhaps in combination with alcohol, or who die by cutting their wrists, are basically longing for a kind of peace they feel will never come their way.
Those who jump from a large edifice or engage in some other form of suicide are obviously, to me, wanting to make a statement. They perhaps have an exaggerated flair for the dramatic, as do those who simply put a gun to their head, though in that later case they are desirous of a quick and relatively painless solution to whatever problem vexes them.
But hanging? That is some intense self-loathing at work. This is a person who feels he has brought all his problems on himself, and is so burdened with guilt and despair over the idea, solving the problems are irrelevant. Such a person probably feels they do not deserve anything better than a macabre end.
Assuming this is really how Alexander McQueen died, and that he was not murdered, or the victim of some form of auto-erotic asphyxiation sex game gone horribly wrong, what could possibly have driven him to this point?
Perhaps it is not for us to say, but his death has taken the industry by total surprise. This would seem to suggest that if he had any such problems or hang-ups, he did a pretty good job of keeping it to himself. On the other hand, this was a man who had a client list that included such notables as Lady Gaga, Matthew Lambert, Beyonce Knowles, and other high-list members of the entertainment world who are so self-obsessed, they wouldn't have noticed if McQueen was bleeding out of his eyes so long as he didn't bleed on them.
He was a visionary, as seen in the following photos from the March 2010 issue of Vogue Magazine which envisioned a potential fashion of the future, from the website Million Looks and featuring model Freja Beha Erichsen.
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but it looks to me like the world lost an artist. Artists share their gift with the world, and in some cases, that is all they are able to give of themselves. Perhaps McQueen, following the death of his mother and feeling all alone in the world, felt he had nothing left to offer and nothing left to achieve. That can be a hard, bitter pill to swallow in its own right.
The fact that he killed himself is not what is so remarkable. People of wealth and renown are as susceptible to deep dark periods of depression as the rest of us. His mother had just recently died, and his former patron and discoverer had herself committed suicide three years previously. Like they say, it's lonely at the top, and maybe the man just felt like he had no one or nothing left to live for. Grief and despair will put that kind of head trip on you, particularly if you are suffering from some form of clinical depression, which is still a greatly misunderstood but very real illness.
Still, his chosen method of self-execution is jaw dropping for a man of his stature. This is admittedly my own opinion, but the way in which a person kills himself tells a lot about him, or her as the case may be.
People who die by way of ingestion or injection of drugs, perhaps in combination with alcohol, or who die by cutting their wrists, are basically longing for a kind of peace they feel will never come their way.
Those who jump from a large edifice or engage in some other form of suicide are obviously, to me, wanting to make a statement. They perhaps have an exaggerated flair for the dramatic, as do those who simply put a gun to their head, though in that later case they are desirous of a quick and relatively painless solution to whatever problem vexes them.
But hanging? That is some intense self-loathing at work. This is a person who feels he has brought all his problems on himself, and is so burdened with guilt and despair over the idea, solving the problems are irrelevant. Such a person probably feels they do not deserve anything better than a macabre end.
Assuming this is really how Alexander McQueen died, and that he was not murdered, or the victim of some form of auto-erotic asphyxiation sex game gone horribly wrong, what could possibly have driven him to this point?
Perhaps it is not for us to say, but his death has taken the industry by total surprise. This would seem to suggest that if he had any such problems or hang-ups, he did a pretty good job of keeping it to himself. On the other hand, this was a man who had a client list that included such notables as Lady Gaga, Matthew Lambert, Beyonce Knowles, and other high-list members of the entertainment world who are so self-obsessed, they wouldn't have noticed if McQueen was bleeding out of his eyes so long as he didn't bleed on them.
He was a visionary, as seen in the following photos from the March 2010 issue of Vogue Magazine which envisioned a potential fashion of the future, from the website Million Looks and featuring model Freja Beha Erichsen.
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but it looks to me like the world lost an artist. Artists share their gift with the world, and in some cases, that is all they are able to give of themselves. Perhaps McQueen, following the death of his mother and feeling all alone in the world, felt he had nothing left to offer and nothing left to achieve. That can be a hard, bitter pill to swallow in its own right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)