June 28, 2006
READ
Christopher Hitchens:
Four Projects for Righteous Anti-War Types
Posted by: Sarah at
12:26 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.
1
1. Landmines suck. Obviously. Who's defending them anyway? Wait a minute - How is it a perogative for liberals to say this ??? What the Hell are you talking about?
2. Anti-war protesters can only try to be effective against actions by their own governments. Human shields don't work against people who's purpose it is to try to kill you. Ya know?
3. Ending sanctions is a good thing. But what does it matter if sanctions are removed after the country is destroyed and 100 000 civilians or more are dead? Do you think people there are better off now? How about not starving the people in the first place? Now there's a good course of action.
4. I think the republicans are responsible for making homosexual rights a poisonous political topic. Fuck you (Mr. Hitchens) for even suggesting that it's the democrat's reponsibility to increase the size of the army by recruiting more gays. In your world, gays are going to burn on a lake of fire forever after they die, so I don't know what I could possibly say to convince them to go to war.
In sum: You created this shit-hole. Live with it. Iraq is not a good testing ground for the relevance of progressive ideas. Progressive ideas have no relevance in a war zone. You've made the world into a war zone, so basically, progressive ideas have no relevance whatsoever anymore. So good. That's a weight off my shoulders. Bring on the fascism! We're all dead in 50 years anyway.
Posted by: Will at June 29, 2006 03:04 PM (eIQfa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 20, 2006
June 16, 2006
LINK
A
long article on the threat that is political correctness. The crowning example:
Political Correctness can reach absurd levels. Early in June 2006, Canadian police arrested a group of men suspected of planning terror attacks. The group was alleged to have been “well-advanced on its plan” to attack a number of Canadian institutions, among them the Parliament of Canada, including a possible beheading of the Prime Minister, and Toronto’s subway. However, the lead paragraph of newspaper Toronto Star’s story on the arrests was: “In investigators’ offices, an intricate graph plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator.” Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said that the suspects were all Canadian residents and the majority were citizens. “They represent the broad strata of our community. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed,” he said. However, there was one common denominator for the suspects that wasn’t mentioned: They were all Muslims. The front page article in the New York Times (June 4), too, was a study in how to avoid using the dreaded “M” word. The terrorist suspects were referred to as “Ontario residents,” “Canadian residents,” “the group,” “mainly of South Asian descent” or “good people.” Everything conceivable, just not as “Muslims.”
Posted by: Sarah at
10:54 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You might be interested in this later story, in which the Star examines its own coverage of the arrests.
**I had to delete the link to the story. I guess the board thinks it is spam.**
They make the point that during the first day over coverage, they had not yet been able to confirm that all of the suspects were Muslims.
I was actually in Toronto when this story broke, by the way. I read some of the Star coverage in my hotel room.
Posted by: Pericles at June 17, 2006 01:14 PM (eKf5G)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 13, 2006
NO, PLEASE NO
Oh no...
Bryan Singer, the film's gay director and responsible for The Usual Suspects and the first two X-Men movies, compounded the anxiety last week by describing Superman Returns as a "chick flick about a superhero seen from a woman's perspective, with qualities you'd want in a husband". The woman is Lois Lane, played by Kate Bosworth.
I've avoided commercials and previews for Superman Returns because I want to go in fresh. But this article about how metrosexual Superman is certainly has me nervous. They better not have messed with my Man of Steel.
And look at all the money wasted! Man. Nicolas Cage got $27 million for nothing? Ugh.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:25 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The actor who plays the new Superman was a presenter on the MTV movie awards this year and I hope his acting is better than his teleprompter reading. Scary, scary, scary!
Posted by: Vonn at June 13, 2006 03:27 PM (DJLx2)
2
I saw a couple of clips from the new movie as part of a program that was on the other day about the history of Superman on radio and television and in the movies. It was kind of hard for me to judge, though. I've never really gotten into Superman; I always thought that Marvel comics kicked the butt of anything by D.C.
Posted by: Pericles at June 14, 2006 01:01 AM (eKf5G)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HMM
This is a very touchy subject right now, but Big Lizards has a lengthy post on
the Ann Coulter deal. Ann Coulter is always good for a guffaw, and I'm often shocked at the things she's comfortable saying, but I agree with Dafydd when he lays out his argument as this:
Ask yourself this question: what reason is offered for us to accept the analysis of the Jersey Girls about what's wrong with our response to 9/11? Why listen to them, instead of (for a wild example) Big Lizards?
The only reason put forward is that 9/11 "tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives."
I recommend reading the whole post to understand Dafydd's argument.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:19 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
June 12, 2006
GOOD
And I hope every second of
those 52 minutes was agony...
Posted by: Sarah at
09:48 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I also loved the media uproar about allegations that US soldiers beat him up afterwards. Yes, I understand the Geneva Conventions, but it irks me that some people seem to get more upset about allegations of soldiers punching Saddam Hussein as his crawls out of his hole in the ground, and punching Zarqawi after dropping two 500 pound bombs on him, than getting upset at all the cruelties those two have perpetrated. Oh, the irony. (I think in both cases it didn't happen, with Saddam it was their Iraqi translator who went ape-sh*t on Saddam when he crawled out of the hole, and I doubt that soldiers were beating Zarqawi up, or let me just say I don't exactly trust the testimony of the neighbor, who after days and possibly weeks of living next to a safe-house, suddenly became oh-so-observant and objective.)
Posted by: calivalleygirl at June 12, 2006 11:19 PM (smSgk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
51kb generated in CPU 0.0118, elapsed 0.0658 seconds.
50 queries taking 0.0583 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.