Have you, by any chance, been as fascinated as I have by the doings up North in lovely Canada where people like Ezra Levant are being prosecuted/persecuted for "hate crimes" or violations of Canada's revolting human rights statutes? Mark Steyn is also victim of a complaint brought by some jerk in front of one of the human rights commissions. Ezra's website is a damn good place to go to get some background. He's defending himself from some Islamic organization's complaint that he hurt their feelings by publishing the dreaded Danish Cartoons of Blasphemy.

Anyway, I have been following this, with a sick fascination, for months. I mean, Canadians are so very much like us, we think, only kind of cleaner and nicer and a bit more polite. Toronto v. New York. Mounties v. NYC Cops. You get it, right? So, when I read that they are prepared to accept all sorts of governmental interference with freedom of expression, I am dumbfounded. It is absolutely absurd. I just have not been able to wrap my mind around the concept.

Until now. Now, I get it. I was reading Mark Steyn's recent piece in Macleans when it suddenly clicked for me. Here's the excerpt that brought it together for me:

Last week's letters page included a missive from Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., chief commissioner of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, defending her employees from the accusation of "improper investigative techniques" by yours truly. Steyn, she writes, "provides no substantiation for these claims," and then concludes:

"Why is this all important? Because words are important. Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred."

It is the bit in bold that triggered it for me. The need for HRC's (human rights commissions) is because the liberal, at his/her base, cannot and will not trust to the fundemental decency of the Canadian. In older times, and perhaps still, at least where I am, I believe that you would see people stand up for victims of hatred at an individual level. I believe that people, individually and en masse, would stand together and say: "No, your behavior is not acceptable when you called that other person a ______". I believe that we, as a people, individually and collectively, would not put up with witnessing blatantly racist behavior and not try to intervene on behalf of the victim.

The people who put the HRCs in place do not share my faith. They think that the only way to protect people from hurtful speech is to proscribe the speech and for the Government to take the place of the People (in loco populi?). They think that no one will protect anyone but them. In consecrating to themselves the rights of a free people to. . . No, the obligations of a free people to stand for themselves and to defend the limits of socially acceptable speech by engaging in spirited debate and in more speech, by saying, "no, no, no, dear people, don't bother, let us, the helpful anti-racist professionals do it", what you do is kill the spirit of the body politic. It is not necessary any more for Canadians to stand themselves and be counted in the face of anti-Canadian behavior. It is only necessary that they pick up the phone and ask the HRC to do it for them. Perhaps anonymously. Can you see how this is practically an invitation to abdicate your responsibilities as a citizen and an individual?

You may hate the image of the cowboy. Chances are, if you are European, you certainly do. But can you imagine a cowboy picking up the phone and not solving his community's problems himself?

To sum up, I hate the HRC because they are animated by the belief that the individual will not protect the weak. I disagree. That is not how I was raised. It is un-American. I bet it is also un-Canadian. But, who can say, maybe the welfare state and the multi-culti types have successfully whittled away at the concept of individual responsibility so well and replaced it with an over-reliance on the State as the beginning and the end of everything that the HRC's and the beliefs they represent will never go away.

I just hope it won't happen here.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 02:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 769 words, total size 5 kb.

Breaking news (not that this is the first place I would suggest coming for breaking news, but, just the same): Gov. Elliot Spitzer, Democrat of New York, has been caught up in a high-priced prostitution scandal and will be taking some time to deal with the personal issues (you know, the ones where his wife kills him?). He was found on a Federal wire tap placing an order for a call girl while in Washington D.C. That explains why, when the prostitution ring indictments were handed down in Federal Court here in New York, the Assistant United States Attorneys were all from the Public Integrity Unit and not from the regular Criminal Division.

Next step? Resignation from office?

Bye, Gov!

Posted by: Random Penseur at 02:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess I have always had some kind of faith in the medical advice doctors have dispensed to me over the years. I have assumed that the advice I have been given has been truthful, that it is the distillation of years of rigorous study, of carefully monitored tests, of repeatedly observed phenomena, that it has all the indicia of truth gleaned from years of practice. I have thought that medicine is truth and that it is derived from good science.

I forgot that medicine, while it may be applied truth, is applied by human beings. Medical professionals bring to the scientific process of dispensing medical advice all of their own biases and preconceptions, all of their own political and social world views, all of their own narrow prisms. These people are just as imprisoned by their tunnel vision as the rest of us.

Scary, isn't it?

What do I mean, you may be wondering at this point?

I have just finished a very short, very compelling, terribly frightening book: Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student .

Go forth, buy it, read it, and give it to your daughters. I am completely serious.

But back to my topic. The book brought me to this realization because it makes terribly clear how ideology guides and informs mental health treatment and risk education for college age, and younger, women.

The bias is this: women are just the same as men. The translation of the bias into action is social activism and is praised by mental health counselors who are hoping to help break gender constructs in an effort to achieve a more just and equitable society. How? By telling girls that having any kind of sexual relationship they want, no matter how casual, is just fine. It is risk free and without consequence, so long as "safer sex" is practiced.

The author of the book makes clear that is ideologically driven and contradicted by medical fact. How? First, venereal disease is not so easily cured by a one day treatment of some wonder drug, as the ideologues would have you believe. There can be grave physical consequences to a woman's ability to conceive later in life. Second, there are serious mental health consequences which appear to be neurologically driven. Oxytocin is a chemical released during breast feeding to promote the bonding between woman and child. It also is released during sex. It means, to boil it down very much, a woman is more likely to bond with a man during sex and thus, when the man blows her off because they were just hooking up for a no strings attached thing, she is more prone to become depressed. These consequences are not shared with women because they might blow away the political agenda -- female equality. Women, as a result of the agenda applied, are not being told that maybe it would be better to wait until they have fallen in love to have sex and then to have sex within a monogamous relationship. It conflicts with the agenda.

Read the book. I could go on. Instead, I am putting it on the shelf until my daughter just about hits puberty, and then I am going to make her read it and discuss it with her. Just so that she can make informed decisions about her own life in the context of knowing that all the facts and further knowing that the advice she may be getting about a healthy lifestyle is coming from a place more concerned about the end result of a political agenda than about keeping her safe.

By the way, the author originally wrote this as "anonymous" out of the fear she had for the consequences for her own career. She has since come out: Miriam Grossman, M.D., psychiatrist in the UCLA health services.

Here's an interesting piece about her and the book.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Very interesting, RP, thank you so much for posting about this. I'm not surprised, though. Sad, but not surprised. This explains why so many young women come out of college so confused and conflicted about their romantic feelings. Like they are embarrassed by them, like they are not supposed to have them, like it's anti-feminism. They think something is wrong with *them* when they want to be "in love". Like they've failed in some way. It makes me so sad. And yes, I'm not surprised they are not making it clearer about the medical risks, which are greater for us than for men. It's harder to get rid of VD and the consequences for us are far more serious, too. This used to be taught to women in college as a matter of course 50, 40 years ago; to be MORE careful than men are, not to try and copy men, not be more promiscuous, but that's been swept away in this new rush for absolute "equality". I am an ardent feminist, despite my own sexual preferences; Dan and I both are. I think women have just as much potential as men have and women should have equal freedom to men. But teaching women they should be promiscuous "just like men are" is an insult to women AND men. We are still different, biologically, physically and we still need to stop and recognize that fact and act accordingly. Besides, men shouldn't be running around fucking everything they get their hands on like rabbits either. Just because some men might do so doesn't mean we women should *copy* that behavior. I know SO MANY WOMEN who are completely militant feminists, just ANGRY feminists in college, no room at all for anything other than what they've been taught. Then they reach their late 20's/early 30's and they start to re-think the type of feminism they were taught in college. They get knocked around in life emotionally, things didn't work out quite the way they were told it was going to be when they were in college, and maybe they've had to raise a baby alone and slowly they start to realize they've been *had*. It's become almost a cliche for a LOT of women I've talked to. I'm glad to see them finally wake up but damn! It's hard watching them suffer before then. Thank you again for the thoughtful piece! Hope everything is marvelous with you and your family! {{hugs to all of you}}}

Posted by: Amber at March 30, 2007 07:53 PM (zQE5D)

2 Sometimes I hate that you literally have to take everything with a grain of salt. Even from people you should be able to trust. I think the Girl Child is going to be one very smart, snappy, down to earth, brave young woman. I also thing she'll grasp these concepts well, which I'm afraid not every woman can.

Posted by: Hannah at April 23, 2007 08:48 AM (5w+E2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I assume you missed the obituary pages this weekend and thus might not have noticed that George A. Smathers, former Senator from the State of Florida has died. Smathers took a lot of very conservative positions regarding Civil Rights and in noting his passing I am in no way endorsing his positions. But he did do two things we should note.

First, we should all be thankful that he insisted that all federal holidays be moved to Mondays. He created the modern three day weekend! Thanks, George!

Second, he said the funniest thing I have ever seen in politics and I reproduce it here. He denied saying it by the way. But, it was reported that in the middle of a contentious race for the Senate, he used to say of his opponent, Claude Pepper, to some not terribly well educated audiences, the following:

Do you know that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy.

Politicians were so much more clever in the really not too distant past.

I had trouble not laughing I was re-typing the quote, by the way.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 1 kb.

The following may not be exactly an original thought, but then how many really original thoughts exist?

I was musing on the train this morning about the concept of Jihad, which many Islamic advocacy groups have tried to define in the context of a personal battle, a personal struggle to, say, quit smoking or lose weight. This personal struggle meaning of the term appears to be offered to soften the more widely accepted meaning of holy war.

I will note this. I am not fooled. To define Jihad as personal struggle simply brings to mind another personal struggle that came to be written about in a well known book. Perhaps you've heard of it? It was called Mein Kampf, or my struggle.

To me, there appears to be little difference in whether you call a Jihad a holy war or a kampf, the end result is not good for anyone.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

This is just plain weird. Madrid, in conjunction with the fashion shows, has taken it upon itself to ban models who have a body mass below 18. The Wall Street Journal notes that would mean that poor Kate Moss couldn't work these shows. The problem is that the State thinks that employing such models constitutes a terrible influence on women who then, after seeing the spindly legged creatures, develop horrible eating disorders.

Please. As if.

This is the nanny state reductio ad absurdum. The thought that the State is basing permission to work on a person's appearance, all for the greater good, strikes me as so ridiculous, so controlling, so totalitarian, that I could scream.

Madrid's regional government introduced the prohibition on the premise that the fashion industry has a responsibility to promote healthy body images. A Spanish organization that helps anorexics and bulimics had campaigned for the ban, based on the assumption that girls are inspired to starve themselves by what they see on the catwalk.

* * *

The doctor-enforcers who will be on site next week to boot the underweight won't make fashion a kinder, gentler business. Organizers are rejecting models with a body mass index of less than 18, meaning that, for instance, über-waif Kate Moss would not be welcome.

Here's the link to the article, although you may not be able to bring it up.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 03:56 PM | Comments (95) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

1 On the one hand, I can understand your comments. But when I read the article myself (different source), I remember thinking that in some ways, it's a good initiative. I'm usually against additional government control but in this case I think there's no other real way to stop the models getting thinner and thinner and thus the fashion industry becoming more and more unhealthy. There have certainly been worse bans. On the other hand, what do you do with the women who hoestly look like that? Make them eat more to be able to do their job? It annoys me as much as the fact that I'm not allowed to work at some places because at 5'0", I'm too short. It goes both ways but I still think this weighs in as a generally positive initiative.

Posted by: Hannah at September 15, 2006 04:19 PM (ImQx2)

2 So should we also ban plus-size models, who've become more popular modeling the sorts of clothes that real people wear? Seems like the same issue. If you don't see the larger ladies in the ads, maybe you'll turn down the next Big Mac. . .

Posted by: John Bruce at September 16, 2006 12:08 PM (SN1g5)

3 Actually, the problem is that we don't ever see normal-sized women in ads or on catwalks. Whereas an adult woman may understand the difference between a normal female body and a walking clothes hanger, younger women/girls may not. I would love to see more normal-looking women showing fashion. One Norwegian woman's magazine (KK) does strive to avoid the ones where you see all their bones sticking out. The fashion world will not run out of models; instead, all the girls who are not shaped like sticks will have a chance (and some will even get to eat normally to keep their figure).

Posted by: Keera at September 16, 2006 01:00 PM (UZLHu)

4 I humbly think the term of nanny state is applied where intrusion by state destabilises the "state" of anything to ridiculous inefficiencies. Can it indeed be applied to Spain banning sick models? Mortality due to weight reasons is higher between underweight than in overweight people. In that sense, this looks similar to warnings on cigarette packs. Other than that, I bet that plus-sized models are not overweight, yet they most likely are at the top rage of healthy BMI (just below 25). Which is considered the healthiest in some lately performed studies. Why not to look at Greek ideal, both men and women? Proportional, muscular bodies? The saddest thing in fashion industry is probably the fact that most models do not even workout.

Posted by: Jurate at September 16, 2006 04:33 PM (gN5ED)

5 The reason that those models emaciate themselves isn't because they think they look better that way, but because the designers want them to look that way. They want their clothes to look on a model the way they look on a hanger. That and the fact that many designers seem to have weird ideas about female beauty. By banning frightfully underweight models from the runways, Madrid is really rescuing those models from the abuse of the fashion industry. Seems to me that it's not meant to deny a naturally skinny woman from earning a living, but to prevent healthy women from sacrificing their health in order to satisfy the potato sack cabal.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 16, 2006 06:55 PM (qILsw)

6 Interesting comments. I think, however, you may be missing my point. It isn't whether fashion models are ill, or whether unhealthy messages are being sent by the industry, it is entirely whether it is appropriate for a government to decide who gets to work based on their appearance. Can you imagine the outrage if the govt. said only people who have a particular appearance should be permitted to work at hotel reception desks? The govt. should not be in the habit or business of discriminating in the first place. This kind of interference is ridiculous and does start you down the garden path to destabliization, I think. Really, the Spaniards don't have anything more important to do with their govt.?

Posted by: rp at September 17, 2006 06:25 AM (fWrQ6)

7 But it isn't about appearance, but weight. Big difference.

Posted by: Keera at September 17, 2006 12:11 PM (UZLHu)

8 London and Italy are considering implementing the guidelines too. The fashion world has caved in with barely a whimper. Oh and RP, I know I'm late acknowledging your late anniversary wishes so we're even, but thank you so much. *G*

Posted by: Jocelyn at September 17, 2006 01:07 PM (jkRb/)

9 I don't know if you can draw a clear distinction between the "appearance" issue and the "weight-health" issue. I've seen several discussions of the medical history on how good-bad it is to be of a certain size relative to height or whatever it is, and the medical opinion tracks quite closely to the fashion trends of the period. (For that matter, I've known people who explained that "my doctor told me" I needed to have my chin shortened, or my nose straightened, or my cheekbones raised.) These things aren't that simple. It's a little like the McMansion question. Would you rather have tacky overbuilt houses all over your neighborhood, or would you rather have some Board of Good Taste rule on the house you want to build? I'd rather have McMansions, but it's a close call. I'd rather not have the state meddling in whether the media enables certain eating disorders, but it's a close call.

Posted by: John Bruce at September 17, 2006 06:19 PM (nOahp)

10 I take your point, and I agree with you, but as a clothes lover, well, I applaud ANYTHING that forces designers to work with womens' bodies as they are, rather than as they would wish them to be. I don't know where I read this, but the average American woman wears a size fourteen and is 5'3". The average model is, at minimum, 5'9" and wears a size zero. Designers create clothes for their models---not for the people who buy them, and if one wanted to look at it through the lens of capitalism, well, how much money are they losing out on because they're alienating a potential market? If this gets designers to open their eyes and to use their talents to create clothes for regular women, well, that's a good thing, because I have to tell you, this skinny pant craze is driving me, of the childbirthin' hips, INSANE! Too many designers treat fashion as a way to dress Barbie dolls for a living and it's very frustrating when you don't have Barbie's proportions. And even Barbie has bigger breasts than some designers think she does! I wouldn't feel too sorry for the models, though. Once upon a time, in a parallel universe, I was a model. They told me flat out that I couldn't do any runway shows (not like there are a lot of them in Omaha, but there were a few )because at 5'6" I was too short. (They kept hoping I would grow and were mightily disappointed when I didn't.) Also, I was told that I should lose some weight---and I was 110lbs at that point in time! These models know what they're getting into. The talk about your body in that business is impersonal, at best, and downright cruel at worst, and models know this. It's a cutthroat business to be in and they're well aware of it. If this brings about a trend in the way designers work, there will be a whole new slew of models who get work.

Posted by: Kathy at September 18, 2006 01:10 PM (8UK8L)

11 While I think it's the government's role to look out for the public health, I don't think this issue qualifies as such. How many runway models are there who would be affected by this ban? 50? I have no idea, but I don't see how it will be a significant enough number to warrant the government's intrusion into the work place in this manner.

Posted by: grammarqueen at September 19, 2006 12:19 PM (rnk/Z)

12 Devil's advocate: If it is considered a matter of health and safety, why can't the government regulate the issue? How is this different than having a height/weight requirement for a firefighter? They need to be at least 150 lbs. to the job - and models need a BMI of at least 18 to do their job. No problem!

Posted by: Monica C. at September 19, 2006 01:12 PM (gkN3L)

13 My modest proposal: Treat models like thoroughbred race horses and jockeys and implement a handicap weight. Set a race-weight minimum for each runway event, say 120lbs. If a model comes in at 105 - strap 15lb belts around their ankles. Heck, if if they want to get 'fancy' make them strap molded weights to their busts or behinds. Pretty soon you will see Dolce & Grabana molded butt weights on sale at Macy*s. Makes about as much sense as regulating the weight of a model in the first place. :-)

Posted by: Ivan at September 21, 2006 08:48 AM (F6kzN)

14 The whole industry is absurd. Once upon a time, I, too, was a model. I am 5'7" and, at the time, I was 135 pounds. I was a "plus size" model. I agree with you in that I feel it's a silly, slippery slope. But c'mon. The whole industry needs to get real.

Posted by: Margi at September 22, 2006 12:31 AM (L3+dr)

15 8fe0b9f6 6a8b68f7 3fa adobe photoshop cs3 key free adobe photoshop cs3 key free information where get office 2003 vs office9 7 info office 2003 vs office9 7 info ? how much to contribute to 2007 roth ira how much to contribute to 2007 roth ira about I browse and saw you website and I found it very interesting.Thank you for the good work, greetings

Posted by: Bertha at August 09, 2008 05:46 PM (Ak5dz)

16 8fe0b9f6 6a8b68f7 3fa about swksnolg8 swksnolg8 about thkucok4 thkucok4 about gtgbpiumriu0 gtgbpiumriu0 Excelent information. Best wishes.

Posted by: Leslie at August 16, 2008 06:40 AM (Fmspj)

17 knoqih kqmcgz itwyl scmtowhqu yviwrxfoh pfzjrqym opltdj

Posted by: edgyjr kyanc at December 18, 2008 08:35 AM (aei+a)

18 cmrbkd jbuhvny uhvbx

Posted by: x at December 18, 2008 10:08 AM (sXlJp)

19 radq qwobsx mxqz erpo

Posted by: s at December 18, 2008 12:07 PM (A5Ka7)

20 wmltuiy howg yfzj

Posted by: x at December 18, 2008 12:50 PM (kb72U)

21 bvnr

Posted by: silk at December 18, 2008 05:07 PM (LP0V4)

22 kjfsx rpdy gfshoz

Posted by: gift at December 18, 2008 08:46 PM (ikoo7)

23 zjbdk dyut kaeqbvl

Posted by: christmas at December 18, 2008 11:36 PM (OV+hS)

24 urfp

Posted by: gift at December 19, 2008 01:11 AM (zGJh7)

25 dpmqacx

Posted by: gift at December 19, 2008 02:10 AM (hHxQn)

26 iftjy goawq ncgy

Posted by: mix at December 19, 2008 02:14 AM (phrJU)

27 ehjt sgnw nimloz dpgrm

Posted by: mix at December 19, 2008 02:41 AM (z7gLV)

28 ksuwrm entlrs

Posted by: mix at December 19, 2008 07:03 AM (e/ODV)

29 yksjgue tzqhnxi

Posted by: remix at December 19, 2008 09:13 AM (jA9qO)

30 eidg akhul bconl mix

Posted by: mix at December 19, 2008 10:20 AM (pnht5)

31 tudmph dlwmft vcftzh uikj

Posted by: mix at December 19, 2008 08:21 PM (QyMG7)

32 jxemqpy udloipa gvhx qlrxwb

Posted by: mix at December 19, 2008 09:05 PM (x5w4X)

33 jhxyzb

Posted by: board at December 20, 2008 04:07 AM (2lBjM)

34 pmcdoye ubesxgn yzmhkbe

Posted by: board at December 20, 2008 04:49 AM (2lBjM)

35 mcvnurx board

Posted by: board at December 20, 2008 06:57 AM (XKIYL)

36 ajpht hbqoj ubgtxdq

Posted by: board at December 20, 2008 07:07 AM (mov9p)

37 xbtr hfdi iqzt nuier

Posted by: board at December 20, 2008 07:37 AM (9Hw4Z)

38 ujok anwb tremz hrod board

Posted by: board at December 20, 2008 11:02 AM (x5w4X)

39 zwdhseu

Posted by: s at December 21, 2008 10:20 AM (3oL9j)

40 crpi s

Posted by: s at December 21, 2008 02:14 PM (HyBJV)

41 mflpw pqwyk s

Posted by: s at December 21, 2008 03:26 PM (YIWbi)

42 rbgxyi iygomk

Posted by: lyrics at December 21, 2008 07:41 PM (1MxKw)

43 bure

Posted by: sony at December 21, 2008 08:00 PM (JN5Rl)

44 lybu oexvlmr hsrleu plmzdu

Posted by: gift at December 22, 2008 03:02 AM (/8Tcy)

45 dmzgwo wlvkota sony

Posted by: sony at December 22, 2008 05:51 AM (mmV5m)

46 rntq ezqh

Posted by: sony at December 22, 2008 06:29 AM (SqXPL)

47 dstyb christmas

Posted by: christmas at December 22, 2008 08:29 AM (IfpTz)

48 xytgbd sony

Posted by: sony at December 22, 2008 08:48 AM (IfpTz)

49 oqbtiz cxzv mski sony

Posted by: sony at December 22, 2008 10:29 AM (k5PKL)

50 xnwrlqf

Posted by: girl at December 22, 2008 04:46 PM (zGJh7)

51 ubhzqn sjaptlc xkuzdhy qjciazt

Posted by: st at December 22, 2008 05:47 PM (oFADp)

52 vmbagz zxygbj asgh girl

Posted by: girl at December 22, 2008 07:03 PM (r2MJa)

53 gocab cgmsv ynkeczp

Posted by: girl at December 22, 2008 07:58 PM (gM/Eu)

54 jsbwcva ayqshmw tqau uldjw

Posted by: girls at December 22, 2008 09:36 PM (u/Mem)

55 cierwma mociw

Posted by: st at December 23, 2008 06:03 AM (JZMhS)

56 yrebzpw hdzmtn st

Posted by: st at December 23, 2008 06:28 AM (qbjJK)

57 owlvu xfcb omdzgqw st

Posted by: st at December 23, 2008 07:09 AM (G003A)

58 hurako ymrtbgk hfpaqcn st

Posted by: st at December 23, 2008 09:02 AM (2tbGq)

59 mrvoat sxomd

Posted by: hotel at December 23, 2008 01:42 PM (g/NU3)

60 kpcqydl zretv qlaw

Posted by: of at December 23, 2008 03:05 PM (wcq/+)

61 viohqlx oepnm cejawvg vymiadn hotel

Posted by: hotel at December 23, 2008 06:36 PM (OV+hS)

62 zwqfu qiav xbgp njaysol of

Posted by: of at December 23, 2008 07:04 PM (2tbGq)

63 drlp wrjvl ysiln sqabtin david

Posted by: david at December 23, 2008 07:45 PM (nwCJE)

64 tgdxi dyhrwjc xtopqse of

Posted by: of at December 23, 2008 08:17 PM (iggEl)

65 xctg

Posted by: of at December 23, 2008 09:10 PM (zj93E)

66 kzvx czogvjf

Posted by: christmas at December 24, 2008 05:34 PM (dg09j)

67 mhykz

Posted by: christmas at December 24, 2008 08:11 PM (Hus2E)

68 lvemhkt grbvt mwzt dzsakne

Posted by: gift at December 24, 2008 10:34 PM (6qM/n)

69 ndgh ekftu ednq gjeybuh gift

Posted by: gift at December 24, 2008 10:47 PM (6kjYz)

70 kiewtmq ecuzgq yclj snqeft

Posted by: christmas at December 24, 2008 10:59 PM (0gBbN)

71 nrsd bimyf

Posted by: gift at December 25, 2008 12:42 AM (s0ibA)

72 xkln exwpycs jeqoivz jiphrx

Posted by: christmas at December 25, 2008 02:18 AM (i8xgC)

73 jtcvol spuoflz dogfk christmas

Posted by: christmas at December 25, 2008 03:49 AM (nRuGp)

74 xczot

Posted by: hp at December 25, 2008 07:36 AM (6kjYz)

75 xmzrpnf rdykm hp

Posted by: hp at December 25, 2008 10:48 AM (6kjYz)

76 ixgqvo frkdzj

Posted by: hotel at December 25, 2008 04:13 PM (JHXvp)

77 akqz jlrby pisjnev tqxlk

Posted by: for at December 25, 2008 05:35 PM (bAGSN)

78 hwptlig kzwr hotel

Posted by: hotel at December 25, 2008 06:44 PM (p1E/e)

79 hlwa

Posted by: of at December 25, 2008 07:27 PM (JHXvp)

80 easzt

Posted by: of at December 25, 2008 10:34 PM (6kjYz)

81 sjdcmh bgaczs

Posted by: storm at December 25, 2008 10:41 PM (0gBbN)

82 rwcyx ywgm fwjtrdq nscak

Posted by: of at December 26, 2008 12:57 AM (f/Qcs)

83 cfvhuox of

Posted by: of at December 26, 2008 03:20 AM (7fxea)

84 ucemrjn esfydhn lisrvm of

Posted by: of at December 26, 2008 05:05 AM (Qo029)

85 ecij ybxg of

Posted by: of at December 26, 2008 05:56 AM (P4CwB)

86 hrwyle cymepk of

Posted by: of at December 26, 2008 07:35 AM (8n/ih)

87 apiev lumtcv subzero

Posted by: subzero at December 26, 2008 08:06 AM (nwnOL)

88 kljwi lzkmfie gift

Posted by: gift at December 26, 2008 01:49 PM (Wu1Xb)

89 evgrfl jvdotn

Posted by: gift at December 26, 2008 04:31 PM (OJNXE)

90 ubhg efsz veyuxmw wzmhc super

Posted by: super at December 26, 2008 09:08 PM (kAX2r)

91 iygko bzlje vefd super

Posted by: super at December 26, 2008 09:08 PM (0YQe0)

92 wvtbuy zagnqo aqhlybg zauxwk

Posted by: super at December 26, 2008 09:22 PM (+3Szi)

93 miphtw

Posted by: super at December 27, 2008 01:10 AM (8n/ih)

94 eysal

Posted by: super at December 27, 2008 02:04 AM (8n/ih)

95 unaoqck

Posted by: and at December 27, 2008 05:40 AM (976W9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The West Point Combatting Terrorism Center has a fascinating publication out on the web: The Islamic Imagery Project: Visual Motifs in Jihadi Internet Propaganda. It is an analysis of over one hundred of the images the terrorists use to make their case and build support. It is an important and fascinating study.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

At least two days have passed and there has been no news from the Vice-President's office. Not one word. No interviews, no statements, nothing. And you know what really bothers me? The media is totally complacent and not calling him on it.

Vivi escaped from her cage at the airport two days ago. Despite a massive search, no one can find her.

It was all over CNN this morning like it was an issue of critical national importance.

And yet the Vice-President still hasn't spoken.

And the media still hasn't asked him to.

What is happening to this country?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:35 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Unless you've been living in a cave, you are aware of the current debate that the media in the United States does not present an unbiased view point when covering, well, just about everything. This is not a secret and should not come as an earth shaking revelation. But whatever. You kind of note it and file it away and move on, most of the time. But sometimes, just sometimes, it jumps off the page at you, or off of the television, and you just stand there, gobsmacked, like I was this morning.

I was watching CNN during my morning perspiration at the gym today and the talking heads were discussing the whole Cindy Sheehan thing -- you know, she got tossed from the chamber before the State of the Union speech, right? Now, I had to go to CNN to get the name of the talking head who said this, because they are kind of all interchangeable for me, but it was Miles O'Brien talking to Soledad O'Brien and here's what happened. Soledad said that Cindy was asked to cover up her shirt and refused and that's why she was escorted out. Miles expressed confusion when Soledad said that and referred to some papers in front of him, saying, "that's not what it says happened on her blog or on the letter she wrote to the Michael Moore website". Excuse me, Miles, Cindy's blog and Moore's webpage are supposed to qualify as authoritative news sources? Are you kidding me?

Who says that the media ain't biased? I'd rather believe that they were biased than that they were just this fuc*ing stupid, ok?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:43 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Amen. Unfortunately, they generally are that f@#$ng stupid. And lazy.

Posted by: Kathy at February 01, 2006 09:55 AM (JeBdM)

2 I read it on Al Gore's interweb so it MUST BE TRUE.

Posted by: phin at February 01, 2006 11:00 AM (Xvpen)

3 Hey I read it on Phin's blog so it must be true!

Posted by: Oorgo at February 01, 2006 07:42 PM (lM0qs)

4 I'll take RP's word anyday!

Posted by: Mark at February 06, 2006 08:09 AM (RB3/n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Am I the only one who, upon hearing that the US Government has been engaging in surreptitious listening in on our conversations, immediately started singing: "They're tapping phone lines, you know that that ain't allowed"?

The Talking Heads, ahead of their time.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 02:31 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Of late, I have stopped reading the NY Times in the morning. That may have something to do with my reduced output here, no doubt. But, as a result, I have begun to wonder if I am somewhat less informed than I used to be. I read the Times with catholic interest, reading just about everything, or at least the beginnings of everything, and, thus, was probably broadly well informed. I stopped reading it when I stopped my weekday subscription. They just couldn't get it to my house early enough for me to read on my usual 5:27 a.m. train into the city.

I read it this morning, though. Happily, I see I have not changed and they have not changed. My little epiphany came during the reading of an article concerning a $100 million gift to the Yale School of Music which will result in free tuition for all graduate students. Evidently, the scale of the gift bothered those with more delicate social conscious who felt, inter alia, that $20 million would have done the trick just fine and the rest could have gone to a greater social good somewhere else, to alleviate pain or suffering, or just to provide someone in the less developed world with soft serve ice cream. Ok, I made that last bit up. Sue me.

In any event, as I settled back to read the music critic's chipper and spirited (sort of) defense of this gift, both as a music critic and as a self-identified proud Yalie, I read the following little passage:

Those raising ethical questions about the gift to the Yale School of Music should first put the dollar amount in perspective. Private and corporate donors in America have to compensate for the government's negligible support of the fine arts.

And I thought, gee, no, not really. You see, Yale-boy, the government is under no real obligation so far as I can tell to provide any support for the fine arts. It, uh, ain't in the Constitution, as best as I can recall. The government isn't supposed to be in the business of supporting art, of picking some art that it likes better than other art, of allowing some art to thrive while other art withers on the vine for lack of a governmental purse. I know that the government does provide subsidies to the arts, but my view is totally opposed to our friend from Yale, the critic.

I don't think that the government should provide any support to the arts, other than allowing taxable deductions to be written off against income tax. I don't accept the premise that the arts require support.

I certainly don't think that any private corporation has the obligation to support the arts. The corporation has, primarily, an obligation to its shareholders, not to the starving artist, unless the business of the corporation is art.

I think that to permit strong funding of the arts leads to bad art, if not corrupt art or lazy art. I think that artists, if they wish to be artists, either need to be possessed of independent means or be good enough to be self-supporting. If the artist receives support no matter how jejune the art, well, you see where I'm going with this.

Once again, I disagree with the NY Times. Quelle surprise.

I await your dissent with great interest. Assuming you have some.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 04:16 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 3 kb.

I was reading the NY Times this morning on the train on the way into the City, not an unusual activity for me, and I was happily browsing through one of the weekend sections and skimmed an article on Montgomery, NY. The article was about how Montgomery is a good place for a weekend home. I am not, emphatically not, in the market for a weekend home but, having never heard of Montgomery, read the article anyway. The following sentence, appearing in the "cons" section of the article, practically jumped off the page at me:

The community lacks diversity; according to the 2000 United States Census, the village of Montgomery was more than 90 percent white.

According to Wikpedia, "Diversity is the presence of a wide range of variation in the qualities or attributes under discussion". I thought that was pretty well put actually.

Although, from the NY Times perspective, diversity as a word has bit the dust and no longer means anything close to that. In the new lexicon, diversity means non-white. Diversity, the word, has been reduced to a rather simple concept meaning any person or culture not white.

Pardon me while I retch or mourn, I'm not sure which. Either way, I think the Times was insulting.

Why? Well, it seems to me that the assumption implicit in the Times' use of the word diversity in this fashion is that the 90% white residents of Montgomery present a united and homogeneous front, allowing for no divergence of thought, experience, education, viewpoint, national origin, religion, social class or you name it, all the things that contribute to a rich and vibrant community tapestry. I bet if you picked five random Montgomery residents, they wouldn't necessarily agree on anything. Indeed, that's what makes a horse race.

Under the Times' use of the word, you can only have a horse race if the horses are all different colors. I cry foul.

Mind you, I don't really blame the Times for this (for once). I think that the Times is merely reflecting a broader cultural elite sense here. And so, another good word bites the dust.

Except for here, because I am not bending on this one. Diversity means more than race. At least, it ought to, anyway.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:27 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 2 kb.

The Rule of Law, that which has elevated out of the Hobbesian version of life being nasty, short, and brutish, has collapsed in England. I base this on anecdotal evidence, the best kind really. I find this truly shocking when you realize that England is the home to what we consider the start of real civil liberties.

So, before we dive in, let's consider for a moment what is meant by the Rule of Law ("RoL") and the role of the Government in that scheme. At its base, the RoL will preserve the security of private property, both from invasion from abroad and from invasion from within. The RoL will make sure that you are safe in your property -- safe from intruders, perhaps from fire, safe in your title to it as you are protected from false and adverse claims to your ownership, and safe and secure in your castle, as the old saying goes. At its base, without that assurance of security, your willingness to participate in society, and perhaps your ability to do so, is fatally compromised. How do I support that? Easy. If your overriding concern is protecting your property from threats, you have no time to do anything else -- to grow food, to vote, to travel to local markets, to worship with your neighbors, to do practically anything except stand guard. You pay for this protection through taxes levied on your property and that is a rather acceptable convention and compromise. The RoL is not free but you can expect, most of the time, it will work and it will work to preserve property and thus preserve the social order.

But what if it stops working? Let me posit the following scenario. You own a second home, a vacation home. You own it free and clear, no cloud on your title, no mortgage, no adverse claims to possession. You can do with it as you please, assuming no wet lands or town ordinances restricting you. It is walled completely by a 10 foot high brick wall. One weekend, going out to the place for a little relaxation, you discover that your house has been broken into to and taken over by a group of squatters who proclaim their intention to live there.

What do you do and what do you expect to be done?

* * * *

Didn't have to think for long, did you?

You'd invoke the basic protections of the RoL and call the police and tell them to get out here and expel the intruders, right? Of course you would.

And you'd expect the police to go ahead and do just that, right? Again, basically yes. It might be more complicated than that but somebody would get arrested and rehoused in jail and someone else might be handed off to social services and rehoused in a shelter, but you'd probably get your house back. The RoL would have been vindicated.

Anything shocking about this scenario to anyone?

Yes? Well, then, my guess is that you must live in England where a person's home is no longer a person's castle.

I just read a little piece in the property section of the Telegraph that impels the conclusion that England has withdrawn the forces of the Government from supporting the RoL. Apparently, in a factual situation practically identical to the one I posited, a family has been forced to rent the vacation house to the squatters at a rent of £1 a week and an agreement to vacate the premises on three months notice. No word on how or who can enforce the agreement to vacate.

But what prompted my little tirade here was the statement put out by the police, and it is no exaggeration to say I found it shocking (“travellers”, below, are basically squatters):

Inspector Martin Elliott, chairman of Thames Valley Police Federation, (0845 8505 505), comments: "The whole subject of travellers and the law in the UK is a complete mess. Legally, trespass is not a criminal offence but a civil tort. All of the public signs that herald that 'trespassers will be prosecuted' are therefore inaccurate, and should read 'trespassers may be subject to civil litigation'. Obviously, this does not carry the same punch and would probably deter no one.

"The Government attempted to strengthen the law in relation to invasions of land a number of years ago, and created legislation that basically required there to be more than 12 vehicles and the land-owner to demand that they quit within a reasonable time.

"Then, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intervened and issued guidance to police forces and councils, which laid the grounds for a 'holistic' approach. This guidance suggests that a problem-solving approach is taken, with councils, police and land-owners working together to encourage travellers to either settle in a locality, or act more responsibly when moving around the UK.

"This is fine for large invasions of land, but what about when three or four vehicles turn up, as in this story? I would suggest that, in these circumstances, there is very little that the police can do."

Did you get that? Very little the police can do to enforce your right to occupy your property without interference.

As I started this post, I end it: The Rule of Law in England appears to be dead.

And by the way, I would think, as an aside, that this kind of thing should well and truly kill the secondary property market in England. After all, would you go to the trouble of buying a second house only to house some stranger? Not me, mate.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:26 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 956 words, total size 6 kb.

Color photographs exist from World War I. The French took many of them and I came across this link to a small collection. They are spell binding. Especially, to me, the scenes of the semi-destroyed buildings.

Hat tip: Secular Blasphemy

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:11 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

I dislike riding the bicycle at the gym. It is boring, it never feels like a workout, and did I mention its boring? The only good thing about riding the bike is that you can do it in place of a real workout if you have a cold (guilty) and if you are too tired to run (again, guilty). Besides, you can read on the bike. That is another grand redeeming virtue. So, I was pedaling away yesterday morning on the recumbent bicycle at the gym and catching up on last week's issue of the Economist when a particular sentence in an otherwise forgettable article on British educational reforms captured my attention so completely that a friend had to touch me on the shoulder to bring me out of my reverie long enough to acknowledge his hello.

Context: Certain people want higher standards , more choice and more competition in the British educational system (hereinafter "BES"). The offending sentence:

That sort of thinking is anathema to people who think the country's main educational task is to use taxpayers' money to eradicate class privilege.

At first, I thought if that is what the BES is concentrating on, no one should invest in the British economy because it will lack trained and educated workers. But that seemed like a very short sighted response on my part and I blame that on the fact that I was reading the Economist at the time and that may have colored my reaction.

But I moved beyond it and, after my first blush reaction that the BES is beyond help, wondered, what is the purpose generally of an educational system?

Is it really to create a class less society and break down class barriers? I'm doubtful.

I think, and here is where I step gingerly out onto the limb, that very broadly the purpose of an educational system is to generally equip a person with: the skills they need to navigate the working world after they are on their own (Commerce); the ability to enrich their own lives after school through the appreciation of literature, music, art, etc. (Art); the tools required to take an active part in the body politic, even if that only means voting (Polis); and, the ability to conduct and participate in civilized discourse with their neighbors (Discourse). Please note the absence of the need to teach children to pull down the structure of beliefs their parents may have. Let me expand on my thinking about the need for education to be about Commerce, Art, Polis and Discourse and what I mean by that.

First, Commerce. You need to live after school is over. You need to be able to pay your bills and earn money, inherited wealth to one side. You need enough education to figure out who to, hopefully, invest what remains after youÂ’ve paid your bills. You need skills and I donÂ’t mean technical skills. I mean analytical skills. An education ought to equip you with the analytical skills to get a job, hold a job, and perform to the best of your abilities in the world of Commerce.

Art. You need not only to feed your body by the money you earn, you need to feed your soul. You need to be educated enough to appreciate art and music, etc. You need this for a lot of reasons, actually, more than I could possibly come up with in the short amount of time I am stealing from my Commerce. So, letÂ’s take it as a given, ok? If not, you know where the comment board is.

Polis. You need to be equipped with the skills and education necessary to be involved in the life of the body politic, to participate in making informed decisions in your community, your state, and your country. You need an education to do that. You donÂ’t need to be taught how to eradicate class differences to get there. Again, a given, in my book.

Discourse. You need to be able to speak to others, to build relationships, to interact. Freedom is constructed from a web of interlocking relationships formed by people sharing a similar commitment to upholding certain traditions and values. I know values is a loaded word, but IÂ’m using it anyway, even though I hesitated. But, if you have not been educated so that you share these common values (e.g., freedom of expression), you canÂ’t have discourse, you just have screaming. Some of this, by the way, is where Art comes in.

Indeed, all of my distinctions are artificial constructs created for my own purposes. In the end, all of these things are interrelated.

Part of me can see why the Brits, or some of them, may feel the need to eradicate their class system. It has been much more static and resistant to change than ours. In our system, people can rise, or fall, on their own merits and the country is full of self made men and women. After all, where you start from in the United States is not guarantee of where you are going to end up. In England, I'm not so sure that is true. Social mobility is still higher in the United States than in England, I think.

The part of me that wanted to laugh at this sentence was quickly sobered when I remembered that we have the same problem in the United States under the name of diversity. King Banion (a great read, by the way) found the following job posting. Tell me this doesnÂ’t smack of the same thing as the British one:

The Campus Climate Coordinator is responsible for facilitating programs that will improve the campus climate and diversity awareness. The candidate will be required to communicate and provide education programs for multiple constituencies. ...The Campus Climate Coordinator will:
* Conduct needs assessments and make programmatic recommendations to the University units for campus climate improvements;
* Coordinate ongoing diversity efforts generated by the comprehensive plan for faculty, staff, and students in the area of cultural competency and nondiscrimination;
* Assist in the creation and development of a Diversity Resource & Curriculum Infusion Center which will focus on diversity training and research for the UW-La Crosse campus;
* Develop, promote, and deliver educational programs and training in areas related to diversity awareness (race, gender, disability, homophobia, sexual harassment, etc.) for an increasingly diverse workforce (building individual and team skills)

Once again, not education. Instead, it strikes me as re-education. Welcome to the re-education camp where we eradicate class distinction, which will be important later in life when you are homeless because you have no skills. None at all.

In the end, it strikes me that if you really want to eradicate class distinctions, give somebody the best education you can and watch them ascend to the heights of success so rapidly that it will make class distinctions relevant only to those who canÂ’t profit from their education.

Teach someone to read, write, and think analytically. That is the ultimate in subversion.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:26 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1179 words, total size 7 kb.

1 I think, and here is where I step gingerly out onto the limb, that very broadly the purpose of an educational system is to generally equip a person with: the skills they need to navigate the working world after they are on their own I agree with your basic assesments, but had the feeling that is what the author meant. Not that we would live in a classless society, but class wouldn't affect the ability to become an independent, self-sufficeint, educated human. That class would not be inherited, but a result of effort. (leaving out those who, because of health issues-retardation etc., are not able to compete). My take from the reading at least. I could bery well be wrong. However, I think you are right in terms of the purpose of education.

Posted by: Rachel Ann at March 04, 2005 02:01 AM (tqjrf)

2 Thanks for your comment, Rachel. I was beginning to wonder if anyone managed to get to the end of this long post! I'm not at all sure that the writer meant what you think. I'll try, later today if I get the time, to cut the article out, scan it, and email it to you so you can see for yourself in full context.

Posted by: RP at March 04, 2005 08:53 AM (LlPKh)

3 I posted my overly long and rampling reply at Zero Intelligence.

Posted by: Jim at March 04, 2005 08:09 PM (MDLz3)

4 I found this post from a link on Zero Intelligence and agree with you. I look at myself and see someone who I think is objectively not highly educated, and then I look at my peers from the "AES" and generally get this sick feeling. There's too much of a focus on building up self-esteem in America, and not enough on building up an education. No one ever seemed to figure that if students got well educated that they'd have a real sense of self-confidence, I guess. What is funny IMO to do is watch American teachers who try to pull the same reeducation crap in our schools. I have never met a one who'd be even a successful guard at a Soviet Gulag. They're so fun to tweak because they get so mad, especially when they see that you genuinely don't care about their "lofty ideals." Nothing sends them up the wall faster in my experience than periodically quoting Nietzsche

Posted by: MikeF at March 06, 2005 04:42 PM (dHZUR)

5 I'm another random person from Zero Intelligence. *waves* Mike, they don't like you quoting Nietzsche because he isn't one of the approved philosphers for that set. I mean, you're not supposed to get an education outside of the classroom! That would imply that you know how to do their job better than they do (which may or may not be true, but still).

Posted by: Allanque at March 07, 2005 02:14 PM (32a1G)

6 Thanks R.P....I would love to see the whole thing. I did perhaps misunderstand the intent.

Posted by: Rachel Ann at March 08, 2005 10:38 AM (tqjrf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Also posted over at Muniviana:

I read this weekend in the NY Times that Qatar may put up for sale its wholly owned television news network, Al-Jazeera. For sale. The whole network which is internationally known for anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.

Who's up for pitching in with me, forming an investment syndicate, and buying the whole thing? Can't you just see it: Al-Munuvia. Forget Google news, we'd be our own news channel. I bet we could get some kind of government loan, too.

How cool would that be? Who's in?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Today, I am shaking my head over the decision in Rhode Island to cancel the spelling bee because it would violate the spirit, I gather, of the No Child Left Behind Act. What, are they kidding me? They actually said:

"No Child Left Behind says all kids must reach high standards," [Assistant Superintendent of Schools Linda] Newman said. "ItÂ’s our responsibility to find as many ways as possible to accomplish this."

The administrators agreed, Newman said, that a spelling bee doesnÂ’t meet the criteria of all children reaching high standards -- because there can only be one winner, leaving all other students behind.

"ItÂ’s about one kid winning, several making it to the top and leaving all others behind. ThatÂ’s contrary to No Child Left Behind," Newman said.

A spelling bee, she continued, is about "some kids being winners, some kids being losers."

As a result, the spelling bee "sends a message that this isnÂ’t an all-kids movement," Newman said.

Furthermore, professional organizations now frown on competition at the elementary school level and are urging participation in activities that avoid winners, Newman said. ThatÂ’s why there are no sports teams at the elementary level, she said as an example.

The emphasis today, she said, is on building self-esteem in all students.

"You have to build positive self-esteem for all kids, so they believe theyÂ’re all winners," she said. "You want to build positive self-esteem so that all kids can get to where they want to go."

A spelling bee only benefits a few, not all, students, the elementary principals and Newman agreed, so it was canceled.

What a big, steaming pile of horse shit. Self esteem is built by accomplishment, by failure and success, by trying and winning, not by only being told you should have it. "Sends a message". I hate that phrase. The only thing missing here is that Ms. Newman doesn't claim to be "speaking truth to power" by her actions.

Do we need to say, by the way, that she's flat out wrong? NCLB addresses schools, not events like this. Don't cancel the event, make your damn school better.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 11:52 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

The Dutch kind of crack me up. My dad sent me this article about a bank robber in Holland who was permitted by the Court, with the encouragement of the prosecution, to deduct from the amount of restitution he had to pay to the vicitm of his crime, the cost of the handgun used in the commission of that crime because it was a "legitimate business expense". Ok, sit back down now. Really, its true.

And the prosecution had this to say:

"You can compare criminal acts to normal business activities, where you must invest to make profits, and thus you have costs," explained Leendert de Lange, a spokesman for the national prosecutor's office.

De Lange went further to state that drug dealers could also deduct the cost of vehicles used to make deliveries of illicit substances — within reason.

Asked whether a very successful drug kingpin could cite the cost of a Ferrari, de Lange replied: "No, he would have to prove that he needed the car to transport the drugs around, and I hardly think he would transport them in a Ferrari."

No word on the logical question of whether the gun was deducted at full cost or whether the bank robber had to eat the depreciation. Also, how did he treat it on his tax return?

Seriously, can you believe this?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 03:41 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 1 kb.

I have been too busy today to pay any attention to the swearing in down in D.C. Fortunately, Mark, over at Irish Elk, has put together a great re-cap with a look back at some memorable and some not-so-memorable Presidential speeches. Go check out the Mencken quote. Hilarious.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 06:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Mugabe is in the process of running out of Zimbabwe all foreign aid organizations. We have discussed previously how it has become a criminal offense to accept foreign money in connection with any electoral monitoring and we have also commented on the exclusion of the foreign press and the enhanced criminal penalties authorized for those who "tell falsehoods" about government. So I should not be astonished to learn that a charity responsible for giving 90,000 the only hot meal that they eat in a day has been kicked out of the country. Medair, a Swiss organization devoted to food distribution, had this to say:

It is with real sadness that after 2 years Medair has this week left Zimbabwe. The final move which forced the decision was the refusal by the Zimbabwean government to issue work permits for our 2 remaining senior expatriate staff members.

This follows months in which we had seen our temporary registration to continue our school feeding programmes in Gokwe North and Mudzi districts expire and not be renewed despite our best efforts, and all remaining expatriate staff refused work permits. Unable to work and consequently to fund our continued presence, we were left with no choice but to finally withdraw from the country.

The timing of this decision is all the more significant because of the deteriorating economic and humanitarian situation within the country. On the 15th of November the Famine Early Warning System Network for Zimbabwe (FEWS) reasserted their prediction that 2.2 million rural households would require food aid before the end of the year. Indeed, earlier this month World Food Programme (WFP) reported falling school attendances in Mudzi district as parents took their children out of school to work in the fields or find food. This was highlighted as a direct result of the halting of the Medair school feeding programme in August after our registration renewal was refused by the government.

‘We’d really hoped to continue the school feeding programme in partnership with WFP, but instead we found ourselves prevented from distributing, and so the food has sat deteriorating in the warehouses since August. It’s been so frustrating not being free to work and now we leave knowing the increasing food insecurity that faces those primary school children and their families’, said Mark Screeton, Medair Desk Officer for Zimbabwe.

At this time of great need our thoughts remain with the beneficiaries we have tried to serve in Zimbabwe over the last 2 years, and with our great local staff who have worked tirelessly, and who now find themselves unemployed at a time of national economic crisis.

Mugabe is a terrifying dictator in the worst of the authoritarian tradition. Children will starve as a result of his personally wrecking his country's economy.

I wonder if it will end in some form of armed uprising.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:17 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.