Saturday, February 08, 2003

'We've all been Bash-eared' - I can't help but wonder if this Martin Bashir is an ancestor of Julian's...

Honestly, I'm not sure I get why people suddenly feel semi-sorry for Michael Jackson--obviously it can't be pleasant to be such a big freak, and all that "money don't buy you happiness my son" business, but I have no sympathy for someone who names his kids Prince, Paris, and Prince II, and calls himself a good father. Forget the allegations of whatever horrible things he's accused of (I can't keep track of them all), the names alone indicate that something's wrong upstairs. They're not dogs, Michael. Don't (1) name them stupid things, and (2) name the third child after the first one. That's just confusing. [Yes, Vincent Van Gogh's mother did this, but only after the first Vincent died.]

As for everything else, Michael Jackson ought to have realised by now that (whether or not he agrees) the general public thinks he's a crazy moonbat pedophile. He gave the interview, knowing that, and knowing that journalists are really not people you should trust. It's not in a writer's nature to keep secrets, or to phrase things diplomatically when there's a sensational story to be told.

I mean, come on, Michael! They call you Wacko Jacko! When you have this kind of reputation, you want to be really, really, really, really careful about putting any of these words or phrases together:
-boys
-bed
-Peter Pan
-"I love children"

I know you're not exactly Mr. Emotional Maturity here, but have some common sense. And now you're mad because the interview made you look like a depressingly psycho nutcase, which you are, and which you should have expected. Grow up, or at least pretend to.

Friday, February 07, 2003

Jeebus, he's like a battered woman defending her drunken husband: Blix says Iraq appears to be 'making an effort'.
Stephen Green rips into the cultural conservatives:

Americans are, in aggregate and per capita, the hardest-working, most efficient people on earth. And what makes us so? With all due reverence to Virginia Postrel, it is our dynamism. An inextricable part of a dynamic culture is one that endlessly recreates, reforms, and re-molds how we amuse ourselves. When you re-invent business, as Bill Gates and Michael Dell have done, and as almost no European or Japanese company has managed to do, entertainment is sure to follow – or perhaps even help lead the way. Porn helped bring us the cheap and fast internet, after all.
[...]
Is most of our culture crap? You bet it is. But 90% of everything is crap; at least our crap has a fresh stink, instead of the stink of ages.
Russell Wardlow at Mean Mr. Mustard isn't having it:

Even if you brush off the dozens of items of solid evidence detailing Saddam's links to Al Qeada, even if you decide to live in a magical fantasy land where fairies and elves lurk behind every corner and the notion that Saddam isn't any longer trying to build a nuclear weapon to accompany his vast stores of chemical and bio devices is credible, even if you're sufficiently stupid to hold the crank idea that Saddam is not a dangerously increasing threat to the United States or the rest of the world, you still cannot deny that he has systematically, with every resource at his disposal, violated every one of the requirements laid down by the United Nations, requirements that were wedded to a specific and mandatory schedule of military action that would be taken against him should he not enthusiastically follow through with the UN's demands.
Nice war argument at Captain Scott's Electric Love Bunker, as Scott gives one LaToya Baldwin a remarkably civil fisking:

It's sad to see the old, rotten chestnut of war begetting more war. Thankfully, Miss Baldwin can sit at her home or office and write this, free from fear of renewed war with Imperial Japan, the Nazis, the Confederate States of America, and the British Empire. You've heard it before, but it still isn't enough. Conflicts go on until they end or fade away. Keeping a conflict alive by non-commital acts of violence begets reprisals. Winning a conflict by utterly defeating an enemy ends it. That's it. No more violence. You win. Now, since Militant Islam isn't going to simmer and sputter and leave us alone unless we act, our only choice is to act, and act decisively before they get the chance to do the same to us.
Fantastic article from Andrew Sullivan about gay groups doing shit that has nothing to do with gay civil rights. You would think it was obvious that such a thing is Not Cool, but no.

"The salient question is: regardless of what you think about the coming war, why on earth should a gay group take this issue on? The answer lies, I think, in a simple but often overlooked fact. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is not essentially a gay rights organization. It's a far-left organization with emphasis on gay rights. Its main goal is building a "movement" dedicated to the overhaul of American society on anti-capitalist, anti-male, and anti-white grounds."

I would submit that it's nowhere near as anti-male as it was in the seventies, and that there's always a rush to judgement whenever men or anti-feminists think (for example) that schools are trying to crush boys and their intrepid masculine spirits by making them sit still in class, the way they've been doing in schools for over a thousand years. Grow up. The left certainly does privilege non-white over white, and female over male, but I've yet to see very much outright hostility against men coming from mainstream leftist feminism. Subdued hostility, yes. (Exhibit A: mediocre female writers being required reading in basic English literature survey courses, and the "discussions" of the works, which always amount to discussing how much the author and/or female character was oppressed by inconsiderate men. Your humble blogger would say that this is fine in a social history class or the equivalent, but not in an English class, where Margaret Cavendish is being taught at the expense of Spenser and Milton. Oy.)

Yeah, I'm kind of all over the place tonight (this morning). I don't care.

Thursday, February 06, 2003

Mark Steyn wants us (meaning America) to quit the U.N. I wish, but it's not going to happen. It doesn't matter how useless, corrupt, and potentially dangerous (albeit through sins of omission) the U.N. gets, the vast majority of the public sees criticism/bashing of the U.N. as tantamount to saying things like, "Man, that Jesus was a real fucktard" or "You know what tastes good? Fluffy kittens, braised in a light cream sauce, with diced baby and fresh vegetables."

But after a successful war in Iraq, that might change, or at least there might be more reservations about the U.N.'s use among the general public. Pacifism is a luxury of wealthy, developed nations, though, and like a lot of luxuries, it's very popular.

Wednesday, February 05, 2003

Rachel likes Tony! Rachel likes Tony!
Donate the Power of Your PC to Fight Smallpox - if you're not already hooked up with United Devices (a SETI@home-like system that processes research data), think about it now.
Reprinted from last week's Golden Words (humour newspaper here at Kweenz), because the jerks still haven't got the issue online:
--------------------------------------------------
An Argument for ending the sanctions against Iraq
Typed on a keyboard where the "E" is broken
Nowadays, all kinds of folks is talking about Iraq and how us ought to bomb it. Saddam is bad, folks say, and him ought to pay for his bad things against his own nation and against folks from additional nations too. But by punishing folks from Iraq and saying it's about punishing Saddam, folks from our nation would do a thing that is also bad.

Now, I'm not saying that Saddam is good. Far from it, in fact. But Washington's war on Iraq is not a war for, um...autonomy. Bush's campaign is not about our morals or political philosophy, nor is Saddam an actual guy who might ruin any of that. This campaign is actually a part of an ongoing war against Iraq that's, uh...it's continuing from that Gulf War.

From that war to now, sanctions against folks of Iraq by Bush's nation is producing all kinds of poor living conditions, contamination, poor folks, and pain. Not-guilty adults and kids is all dying, many from ills that folks could totally start curing if not for Washington's sanctions. Bush says it's about saving Iraq's adults and kids from Saddam, but in actuality, Washington's sanctions do all kinds of bad to such folks, and Saddam is not all that hurt by that.

So why a war? Various folks say that it's about oil. Many, for 1, say that it's about $ and not about what's right for all folks of Iraq. A group of folks say that Iraq's now a symbol to various oil nations, and Washington's sanctions is about showing folks what Washington can do if such nations go in opposition to Washington, which Iraq did. Or is it that war is just good for Bush's looks as "big guy" in Washington?

Who knows why with this war? But in any such justification, what's important is that not-guilty folks is dying, as Washington insists that it must fight Saddam to aid such folks. This is lying, and us folks must fight it.

Folks in our part of this world all has known horrors of bombing and killing. With 9/11 still in our minds, us all know pain of war. So how can us allow such pain to hurt folks in Iraq, or in any nation, in light of that? Uh-huh, Saddam is bad. But if a non-war solution is in sight, us cannot allow Washington to hurry to war.

Simply put, us is all humans.
With faith,
Miss Kingston Pn 1993
---------------------------------------------
This world is now a...um, it was okay but now it is good. Geez, that's hard.
Australian PM loses no-confidence vote-- just when you thought some countries were going to behave sensibly...
John Howard and his Conservative-Liberal coalition were censured for deploying troops to the Gulf ahead of a possible war against Iraq.

Okay, sign of the times, whatever.
Mr Howard - a staunch US ally - has said the deployment of troops does not mean that Australia has decided to support any war with Iraq.

Well, what's this? Is he an American ally or not? Is he supporting the war or not? Does he care about what this says about his integrity or not?

Fortunately, like most parliamentary motions, a no-confidence vote doesn't make much difference in a long run. Labour may as well have called up Howard and said, "Hello, Mr. Howard? You're a stupidhead!"
The finalists have been announced for the WTC replacement(s). And, uh, they both suck. You got your gigantic radio antenna, or your gigantic electrical pylon. Neither one is exactly the Parthenon.
This blog is here until I figure out what's wrong with my hosting company for Marybones.com. Blogging is not an option. It is a necessity. Food, water, shelter, and blogging. Well, electricity, computer, internet, and blogging. I mean, that only makes sense.