And I think Benny Hill was the funniest man who ever lived. Now that we’ve gotten past all that, here’s a clip that should go directly into the “Public’s Right to Know Hall of Fame.”
This may not fit your narrative of death and despair, but it is good news regardless of how much you hate/hated George Bush.
“LOCAL elections can often pass unnoticed by the world beyond. But Iraq’s provincial elections on Saturday January 31st are of greater importance than most. The polls are a first test of strength for Iraq’s political factions since a flawed vote in 2005 and should also give some guide to a general election that is due before the end of the year. If the polls on Saturday attract a decent turnout and pass off fairly and peacefully, Iraq will have taken a big step towards becoming a functioning democracy. But much could go badly.”
The major “flaw” in the 2005 elections, by the way, was not that the process was noticeably corrupt or incompetent but that Sunnis Arabs boycotted the balloting.
Daily Tech reports: Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years.
I’m confused. I had understood that global warming was recent and getting worse each and every year.
Now I’m given to understand that Alaskan glaciers have been receding since before the industrial revolution, except this year has been so cold that they’re expanding again.
Doesn’t that go against the irrefutable scientific consensus on man-made climate change? Yes, yes, I know: year-to-year variability will result in some anomalous situations and global warming doesn’t mean that every year is incrementally warmer than the previous year.
We’re not talking about a little more or a little less snowfall here. From the article:
One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay didn’t exist at all — only a solid wall of ice. From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.
It’s not just that this year was so very much colder than last year, it’s that this appears to demonstrate that the planet has been getting steadily warmer since before humans could possibly have been putting a significant amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Is it possible that global warming is a natural phenomenon that scarcely notices the contributions of humans?
Here’s a real debate for you, not that phoney baloney “presidential” stuff.
I’m a long time admirer of Christopher Hitchens despite the fact that I am on the opposite side of almost every position he takes (yes, I opposed the Iraq war and still believe it was a mistake). If you want to know why I find him so much more compelling than the average leftie — even when I disagree with him — this video provides an excellent example of what sheer intellectual heft can do.
As a conservative, I find this debate disturbing. To me, both appear to have usurped (or, more charitably, adopted) positions from traditional conservatism in their arguments.
I now seriously wonder if the old dichotomies of left/right, liberal/conservative have any meaning at all. Objectively, both Eric Alterman and Hitchens appears to be arguing from a point of view that would have been considered Reaganite 20 years ago. Hitchens comes across as Nixonian on foreign policy.
Equally unsettling is the moral platform from which each man appears to argue. Limp-wrist-liberal Alterman frames every one of his positions in pragmatism while hairy-chested-leftist Hitchens argues from the point of view that the Iraq war was justified because it was a stand against evil. Does it get any more right-wing than that?
So why do I find this so disturbing and unsettling? This debate could fairly be called conservatism versus conservatism, and not a conservative in sight.
This morning William F. Buckley, Jr. departed this world while at work in his study at his home in Stamford Connecticut. The man was a lion — no, The Lion — of conservatism in the United States. Buckley delineated a conservatism not of low taxes and muscular foreign policy, but of adherance to first principals beginning with the premise that Liberty is an inalienable right because it is bestowed by God, not man nor any agency of man. It mattered very much to Buckley that the founding documents of this country acknowledged Liberty is not the prerogative of government. I don’t think he ever said so, but he left — upon me, anyway — the indelible impression that the founding of this country was the second most perfect moment in recorded history. The most perfect moment, of course, disseminating from his devout Catholicism. Another absolute for Buckley was candor, and there is no evidence that he ever betrayed a deeply held conviction. This led to some embarrassing moments for the public persona of Buckley, but never for the intellectual edifice of his conservatism. As a high school student, Buckley vociferously opposed the entry of the United States into World War II, but then went on to serve as a second lieutenant in the Army near the end of the war. He publicly sided with segregationists in the 1950s, but just as publicly endorsed civil rights for blacks in the 1960s. The conversion to anti-racialism was not a posture or opportunistic change to suit the times. Buckley’s change of heart on segregation appears to have developed over time as he was exposed to more and more intellectuals who also happened to be black. Buckley’s “Firing Line” program was noticeably a platform for black thinkers, in particular James Baldwin. Buckley’s evolution on this issue was played out in public and appears to have been both difficult to obtain and sincere. It is worth noting that he had been stalwartly opposed to antisemitism for as long as he had been in the public eye. Buckley was also not a “knee-jerk” conservative. He alienated many prominent old school conservatives, and was no friend of either the John Birch Society or of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (often mistakenly confused with conservatism). He also broke ranks with many fellow conservatives over apartheid in South Africa. He was an iconoclast until the end of his life and influenced very much this blogger’s disdain for the war in Iraq. In the world of ideas, I can think of no prouder claim than: “I am a Buckley conservative!” And I hope to retain that status for the rest of my life. At 16 I committed my life to one day being worthy of a half hour in the second seat on “Firing Line.” That dream was dashed in 1999 as the show ended a phenomenal 33 year run. Truthfully that hope was dashed much earlier than that when I simply failed to achieve any distinction that would merit such an honor. Still, the Brandenburg Concerto no. 2 (in F major) plays in my mind whenever I argue with a liberal. |
Well, I think I am sufficiently through the grieving process…
Denial — B-b-but he was coming in third and fourth everywhereAcceptance — It’s not like we were going to win this year anyway!
Anger — Screw that evan-phoney-lib-Arkansan and the bass guitar he rode in on
Bargaining — Just one more primary…please…just Florida
Depression — Ehhh…what’s the use…Ronald Reagan is still dead
…to finally come to terms with the fact that Fred Thompson is no longer in the race — and probably not going to be the next President of the United States…unless, of course, the primaries prove undecisive and the convention, split among four phoney lib candidates turns to the one man who can save the republic and… Who am I kidding? The nominee is going to be Romney or McCain, and the only way either one of them will ever see the Oval Office will be on a guided tour.
So what’s a poor, conservative boy like myself to do? I’m not creating any more candidate websites (at least not this year). I’m not going third party again. And I’m not voting for Hillary no matter what. I voted for a Clinton once and haven’t been able to enjoy a cigar since. Actually I haven’t smoked in almost 40 years, but that’s not the point.
For the moment, I hate Hillary more than I like any candidate, so I’m going to take a look at Obama. Who knows? Maybe an Obama candidacy will so piss-off the Clinton wing of the Billocrats that they will deliberately throw the election to the Republicans in hopes that the peasants will pick up their pitchforks in 2012. They almost pulled it off in 2000.
Mollusc about town and the subject of much scientific scrutiny, Ming Quahog of the North Atlantic was found dead in what appears to have been a tragic dredging accident off the coast of Iceland. Ming is believed to have been 410 years old at the time of his death, although he sometimes gave his age as a more youthful 405.
Colleagues in the scientific community are quick to point out that Ming did not die in vain. “He was doing what he loved.” Noted an observer. “He was as happy as a…uh…well, he couldn’t have been happier”
Marine biologists around the world are lauding Ming’s sacrifice to the understanding of age and growth among invertebrates, but some gerontologists feel that his contribution is overrated.
Ming was alive in the time of William Shakespeare but, unlike other Shakespeare contemporaries, there has been little or no speculation about Ming having been a co-author of any of the bards works. Scholars are also pretty certain that Ming is not the bivalve referred to by Pistol in The Merry Wives of Windsor.
Ming is survived by the Quahogs of the North Atlantic as well as the extended Mollusc clan. Family has asked that gifts be made in Ming’s name to the Sushi Institute and, if possible specified for the promotion of non-Atlantic and non-molluscan seafoad entrees. Services will be held at Red Lobsters around the U.S. and Arthur Treacher’s Fish and Chips in the U.K. The Quahogs recommend the batter-dipped fried shrimp rather than steamed clams or chowder.
A moving tribute can be found on the BBC News Website: Ming the clam is ‘oldest animal’
I think there’s an allegory in this picture, but I’m not sure what it is.
Well, in the end, Condi did not meet with Mottaki who issued a tepid, and seemingly pro-forma, condemnation of the U.S. presence in Iraq. But Condi publicly said that she would have done so if the opportunity arose. Still, it ain’t over till it’s over — particularly when you’re talking about the Middle East.