Compulsory reading:
Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?
... or were we all scared over something that would never have worked? Then, for a laugh, read the Terror-Junkies getting worked up in Reg hacks eat babies' souls.
And if that got you wondering how about Amazing terror weapons: the imaginary suitcase nuke?
On a lighter note, read this story about famed spoon-molester Uri Geller. Then ask yourself this: if he's a frigging psychic shouldn't he have seen this coming? Yeah. Case goddamn closed.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Bob Clarkson is a fat fucking fascist pig
Bugger, I managed to prove Godwin's Law in my title, but good god the man is a complete tosser. Anyway, NRT puts it more eloguently than me, and Bomber says it as offensively as he possibly can, although I'm sure he could have slipped a reference to beastiality in there somewhere, but I'd like to add a few points:
1. There seems to be a pervasive, Protocols of the Elders of Zion-like myth that right-wing shit-monkeys like to promulgate: to wit, that gay people want to turn us all into homerseck-shuls by the cunning and yet inscrutible method of existing, and calling attention to themselves by holding hands in public and having parades. You know, just like St Patrick Day parades try to make us all into Irishmen. It's a fucking lie Clarky, and either you're too stupid to know it or you're a gutter pig. Or both, I'm a liberal man after all.
2. Any attempt to disagree with a RW shit-monkey is instantly branded an attack on their freedom of speech. Bullshit. You have a right to say what you like. I have a right to say what I like and even disagree with your position. It's called dia-logue. There are two sides, although I'll understand if you can't count beyond 'one'. You keep spouting shit Clarky, we'll keep digging ditches.
3. There's a popular view that we need to make Muslims respect our culture of freedom and tolerance .... by telling them what they can and can't wear. Hmm. Perhaps we should get them all to wear a symbol so we know they are Muslim and therefore possibly dangerous? But what could we use? I know, how about a yellow crescent? Yes that should work.
I'm sure followers of Islam come to New Zealand for a variety of reasons, just like any other immigrant. Heck, 9 times out of 10 if it is a voluntary decision (i.e. not a refugee matter) then I betcha most people look at New Zealand like most present residents do - a good place to raise kids. Job prospects, quality of life, money will motivate others. But what I'd really like to think was a good motivating factor is New Zealand is a free country. We aren't Singapore, or Saudia Arabia, or China. We don't have restrictive cultural or religious laws (or at least we don't use them often). There's a reasonable sense of live-and-let-live. You want people to shuck off their old medieval customs and prejudices - then lead by example. We just a short step away from the Enlightenment ourselves, and neanderthals like Bob Clarkson seem all to keen to snuff out even that brief candle. Mandating what people can, and can't wear in public is one small step down the dark pathway.
Why large databases on private citizens are a bad idea:
Oz ID card database racked by identity fraud claims. Or, yet another reason not to move to Australia.
All we need is a Miracle:
Littlewood's Law
Edit: Why yes, Mr Stupid cannot spell fascist on his first attempt. Screw you too, hippy.
1. There seems to be a pervasive, Protocols of the Elders of Zion-like myth that right-wing shit-monkeys like to promulgate: to wit, that gay people want to turn us all into homerseck-shuls by the cunning and yet inscrutible method of existing, and calling attention to themselves by holding hands in public and having parades. You know, just like St Patrick Day parades try to make us all into Irishmen. It's a fucking lie Clarky, and either you're too stupid to know it or you're a gutter pig. Or both, I'm a liberal man after all.
2. Any attempt to disagree with a RW shit-monkey is instantly branded an attack on their freedom of speech. Bullshit. You have a right to say what you like. I have a right to say what I like and even disagree with your position. It's called dia-logue. There are two sides, although I'll understand if you can't count beyond 'one'. You keep spouting shit Clarky, we'll keep digging ditches.
3. There's a popular view that we need to make Muslims respect our culture of freedom and tolerance .... by telling them what they can and can't wear. Hmm. Perhaps we should get them all to wear a symbol so we know they are Muslim and therefore possibly dangerous? But what could we use? I know, how about a yellow crescent? Yes that should work.
I'm sure followers of Islam come to New Zealand for a variety of reasons, just like any other immigrant. Heck, 9 times out of 10 if it is a voluntary decision (i.e. not a refugee matter) then I betcha most people look at New Zealand like most present residents do - a good place to raise kids. Job prospects, quality of life, money will motivate others. But what I'd really like to think was a good motivating factor is New Zealand is a free country. We aren't Singapore, or Saudia Arabia, or China. We don't have restrictive cultural or religious laws (or at least we don't use them often). There's a reasonable sense of live-and-let-live. You want people to shuck off their old medieval customs and prejudices - then lead by example. We just a short step away from the Enlightenment ourselves, and neanderthals like Bob Clarkson seem all to keen to snuff out even that brief candle. Mandating what people can, and can't wear in public is one small step down the dark pathway.
Why large databases on private citizens are a bad idea:
Oz ID card database racked by identity fraud claims. Or, yet another reason not to move to Australia.
All we need is a Miracle:
Littlewood's Law
Edit: Why yes, Mr Stupid cannot spell fascist on his first attempt. Screw you too, hippy.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Mama always told my not to look into the eyes of the sun ...
Well, Monkey Fluids linked to me, so I guess I have to write something ... but what? I know, I'll break my blasted habit of writing half a post, getting tired or distracted, promising to post the rest of it tomorrow (or next week) and then never mentioning it again.
Just to confound you all.
Does it matter whether the United States saved our bacon in WWII?
So let's ignore the preceeding post and take it as read that the US were the good guys who saved our pasty white asses from the [insert suitably jingoistic description of the Japanese] hordes. Does that mean we automatically have a reciprocal duty to support them in their future military endeavors? In my opinion the answer is an unequivocal "it depends".
Now my approach to the question is moral; there is of course a whole other argument based on realpolitik which basically says do whatever is in your best interests - and whatever you can get away with - and to the casual observer that is how international politics seems to work 99% of the time. But that's not today's discussion. Today we are asking, "what is the morally correct path when deciding whether or not to support the US, given that the US supported us in WWII?"
To answer the question, let's start with an tree analogy (the analogy isn't about trees, but I'm going to add some branches, hence ...):
You are walking along a dark alley on your way home from a long bout drinking with your buddy Winston. You are approached by several gentlemen of unpleasant countenance and an ugly disposition, who suggest to you that a failure to hand over your wallet would lead to an unfortunate accident with a broken bottle. You, being drunk and a 98-pound weakling, decide to give up without a fight - when, Praise The Lord!, your neighbour Bob rushes into the alley with his .45 and shows those ruffians that a large handgun, a twitchy eye and a lifetime membership of the NRA trumps a broken bottle in 9 out of 10 dark alleyway confrontations. You, of course, are extremely grateful for Bob's timely intervention and swear undying friendship to him.
Next week, Bob comes over to your house and suggests one of the following:
Now if the US was to ask us to do the geopolitical equivalent of helping to build their BBQ pit and maybe join the neighbourhood watch group ... maybe the argument from obligation is more persuasive.
Golly, all this seriousness is getting me down.
I fricking knew it! Those bastards!
America's plan to invade NZ - courtesy of Anth.
You always wanted to know, but were afraid to ask:
Would Vietnam war money have been better spent bribing the enemy to stop fighting?
How do Porcupines mate? Oh come on, like you never wondered.
Why the goddamn hell have I never heard of this before?
The USS Liberty Incident
Guardian.co.uk pick (courtesy of Span):
Harry Potter and the mystery of an academic obsession. Two words: Potter Porn. Best quote - "the speaker does a quick poll to see who present writes narratives involving bestiality. Hands shoot up."
The full lyrics to the Best. Song. Ever:
Blinded by the light. It would have been by popular request but you bastards are all cultural philistines so I'll just have to ram it down your throat for your own good.
The full lyrics to the Other. Best. Song. Ever:
Lawyers, guns and money. Warren Zevon is my hero.
Just to confound you all.
Does it matter whether the United States saved our bacon in WWII?
So let's ignore the preceeding post and take it as read that the US were the good guys who saved our pasty white asses from the [insert suitably jingoistic description of the Japanese] hordes. Does that mean we automatically have a reciprocal duty to support them in their future military endeavors? In my opinion the answer is an unequivocal "it depends".
Now my approach to the question is moral; there is of course a whole other argument based on realpolitik which basically says do whatever is in your best interests - and whatever you can get away with - and to the casual observer that is how international politics seems to work 99% of the time. But that's not today's discussion. Today we are asking, "what is the morally correct path when deciding whether or not to support the US, given that the US supported us in WWII?"
To answer the question, let's start with an tree analogy (the analogy isn't about trees, but I'm going to add some branches, hence ...):
You are walking along a dark alley on your way home from a long bout drinking with your buddy Winston. You are approached by several gentlemen of unpleasant countenance and an ugly disposition, who suggest to you that a failure to hand over your wallet would lead to an unfortunate accident with a broken bottle. You, being drunk and a 98-pound weakling, decide to give up without a fight - when, Praise The Lord!, your neighbour Bob rushes into the alley with his .45 and shows those ruffians that a large handgun, a twitchy eye and a lifetime membership of the NRA trumps a broken bottle in 9 out of 10 dark alleyway confrontations. You, of course, are extremely grateful for Bob's timely intervention and swear undying friendship to him.
Next week, Bob comes over to your house and suggests one of the following:
- That you both go out to the dark alley and mug the next drunken, 98-pound weakling that passes. After all, he saved your ass last week, so you owe him.
- That you both go out to the dark alley and lie in wait for more muggers who might be preying on drunken, 98-pound weaklings. After all, he saved your ass last week, so you owe him.
- That you go over to the next street where Bob believes the muggers live in their crack house, so you can indulge in some vigilante justice by torching the place, thereby killing the muggers, their families, and burning down the house next door when the fire gets out of control. After all, he saved your ass last week, so you owe him.
Now if the US was to ask us to do the geopolitical equivalent of helping to build their BBQ pit and maybe join the neighbourhood watch group ... maybe the argument from obligation is more persuasive.
Golly, all this seriousness is getting me down.
I fricking knew it! Those bastards!
America's plan to invade NZ - courtesy of Anth.
You always wanted to know, but were afraid to ask:
Would Vietnam war money have been better spent bribing the enemy to stop fighting?
How do Porcupines mate? Oh come on, like you never wondered.
Why the goddamn hell have I never heard of this before?
The USS Liberty Incident
Guardian.co.uk pick (courtesy of Span):
Harry Potter and the mystery of an academic obsession. Two words: Potter Porn. Best quote - "the speaker does a quick poll to see who present writes narratives involving bestiality. Hands shoot up."
The full lyrics to the Best. Song. Ever:
Blinded by the light. It would have been by popular request but you bastards are all cultural philistines so I'll just have to ram it down your throat for your own good.
The full lyrics to the Other. Best. Song. Ever:
Lawyers, guns and money. Warren Zevon is my hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
