I know that the West’s struggle against communism in the twentieth century was merely a blip on the historical radar, whereas the struggle of Islam against all other cultures has been a constant of human history for almost 1400 years.
|
|||||
|
I dislike ‘push’ advertising, no, I hate ‘push’ advertising and go out of my way to avoid products advertised in ways that annoy me, the sort that tries to shove what you are doing aside and force their goddamn product in your face… and a prime example is those web banners advertising animated ‘similes’ that play audible intensely annoying sounds as you are browsing, shouting “Say something! What?” at you. My usual response is to rather pointlessly yell “Piss off!” at my monitor. I regularly and quixotically write to websites running these accursed advertisements and tell them I will never return as long as they run audible advertisements. One site did agree they were unacceptably intrusive but sadly a couple weeks on they are still running the damn things. Does anyone know of some way to turn off unsolicited sounds in Internet Explorer so I do not have these moronic things inflicted on me when I arrive on some site?    September 20th, 2006 | 54 comments - (Comments are closed)
 There is an interesting post on ‘Classical Values’ that people who share my view that we are indeed in a war of civilisations might want to see. I may not be a Christian or a Jew but I do know who my enemies are… and are not. Sign me up for the Oriana Fallaci Society. September 17th, 2006 | 37 comments - (Comments are closed)
I quite like iTunes, finding the ‘look and feel’ better than any other music players for both my Mac and PC… however I made the mistake of upgrading to iTunes 7 the other day and found its ugly, laggy and above all the sound quality was dire with crackling and buzzing sounds clearly audible. Looking on the internet I see I am far from the only person this has happened to. How Apple could release such a pox ridden piece of software is a marvel. Avoid at all costs until it is well and truly patched. I have gone back to the previous version with which I am entirely happy and will probably stick with it for some time now unless I can find an alternative player that I like. September 16th, 2006 | 30 comments - (Comments are closed)
Not much time to blog today… blame AnorakLight, Lynch Rider Lulu and Victoria Hume live at the Troubadour. Well recommended.  September 7th, 2006 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
A British evangelical Christian, Stephen Green, has been charged with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour’ after he handed out leaflet contained Biblical quotes critical of homosexuality at a homosexual event in Wales. The article indicates neither he nor his leaflets were abusive or threatening, just that they pointed out that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so it urged homosexuals to ‘repent’ and stop sinning. What caught my eye about this case was…
So as Rodney Berman is such a strong supporter of tolerance, presumably he will soon also be arguing for Mr. Green’s right to be tolerated for his views and behaviour. After all, tolerance does not imply acceptance or approval and so even if Mr. Green calls for gays to stop being gay (i.e. he does not approve of their sexual behaviour and wishes to convince them to act differently), unless there is more to this story unreported, there seems no evidence Mr. Green does not tolerate gays. Yet some homosexuals who disapprove of Mr. Green’s views of their behaviour are clearly unwilling to return the favour and tolerate him. They called for the law (i.e. force) to be used to prevent him peaceably expressing himself. As the LibDems pride themselves on supporting (non-economic) liberty, will they come to Mr. Green’s defence and demand tolerance for everyone? I wonder what Mr. Berman has to say on this matter. September 6th, 2006 | 35 comments - (Comments are closed)
There is an article in the Independent called Another fatal day in the ‘war on terror’ in which Patrick Cockburn, the “award-winning journalist and author” states:
It seems to me that “the real reason for the increasing violence in the Middle East” is a bunch of Saudi Arabian Muslims hijacked several aircraft flying over the United States and used to to commit mass murder in 2001 and thereby caused the US to defend itself. Forget that and nothing makes sense. The Taliban, the government who sponsored and facilitated Al Qaeda’s attacks on the USA, did not take control of Afghanistan because of a “return to imperial control and foreign occupation”, except in the sense that foreign Arabs did indeed occupy parts of Afghanistan. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and the Taliban all pre-dated the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Pretending they were caused by unwise actions of western governments rather than by the development of anti-modern Islamist ideology centred on Iran and Saudi Arabia, puts the blame in the wrong place. If the US and UK have made any major strategic mistakes, they were not intervening in more force in Iraq and to have not started working to encourage ‘robust’ opposition to Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia and Shi’ite fascism in Iran decades ago. September 5th, 2006 | 42 comments - (Comments are closed)
A driver gets arrested for dangerous driving whilst… blind… and his lawyer, Timothy Gascoyne, argues that he should be acquitted because “the question is not whether his driving was dangerous, but whether being blind makes it dangerous”. I am curious how many people in court were struggling to keep a straight face. Clearly Timothy Gascoyne missed his calling as a comedian! September 5th, 2006 | 52 comments - (Comments are closed)
The creation of a super-democratic body created by central government called the Standards Board for England, which can exclude members of a local council who were elected on a specific issue platform because ‘their minds are already made up’ has been described in the Telegraph as ‘hampering democracy’. This is rather like saying having your head cut off ‘hampers thinking’… true but more than a tad misleading. British understatement is alive and well it seems. The Standards Board’s function is to prevent single issue politics by simply disallowing a ‘difficult’ elected councillor from doing what they were elected to do so ‘hampering’ democracy is not an unintended consequence, it is what the Standards Board for England does. Face it, the whole point of the Standards Board of England is to prevent councillors who are elected on the basis of views unpopular with the establishment from being allowed to disrupt business as usual by asking difficult questions and proving resistant to being pressured by established political groupings. So let us call the Standard Board for England and their network of ‘ethical standards officers’ what they actually are: Commissars. September 4th, 2006 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
Yours truly got a mention in a whimsical New York Times article by William Safire in which he makes the point that “coiners can’t be choosers”… once an epithet, in this case Moonbat, escapes into the general meme-pool, the coiner has no control over how it actually gets used. September 3rd, 2006 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
Robert Bidinotto has an interesting article up discussing the admission in the Washington Post that their reporting on the matter of former CIA agent Valerie Plame and former US ambassador Joe Wilson was completely wrong.
I must confess when I quickly zipped through the specific WaPo article mentioned earlier today, I paid more attention to the Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson aspects of this saga and not really pick up on what I now realise was the ‘bombshell’ aspect to all of this: it seems that Saddam really was shopping for uranium in Niger. Interesting. September 1st, 2006 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
The ‘Conservative’ party in Britain continues to provide evidence for my theory that a vote for Dave Cameron is a vote for 99% continuity with the policies of New Labour. All they do is argue over which party is better at managing the introduction of new regulations and deciding which form confiscatory taxes should take. One party says “What about the environment?” and the other party replies “What about the poor?” Which party takes which position at any given time is an entirely cyclical rather than intellectual matter. So if you like what Britain is today, why not stick with New Labour? But if you hate the extraordinary erosion of civil liberties, the arrogant yet ignorant statism, the pandering populism… why vote for a different party which is in overwhelming ideological agreement with New Labour and even apes them stylistically? At least voting LibDem would be a vote for people who have some truly different policies regarding non-economic civil liberties… and a vote for the UKIP really is a vote for throwing a large spanner into the machinery of state (although I am not an uncritical fan of UKIP, they are the only party I would even consider voting for with any pleasure). If the Tory party wins the next election, I think that is it for the UK for many years to come. If Dave Cameron gets into Downing Street that will have proven that the radical centre which constitutes ‘Blairism’, a populist authoritarianism which is starting to adopt totalitarian positions, is the only viable politics in Britain. That would validate Dave Cameron’s decision to jettison every last vestige of Thatcher’s pro-capitalist legacy and unless the Tory Party as it currently exist is destroyed by yet another election loss, we will see the move towards what might as well be a one party state become an entrenched reality. Cameron delendus est. September 1st, 2006 | 34 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||