In the post Recommending fiction by Norm. I mean, nothing Norm writes is simple. If one doesn't succeed to read between the lines, one is left, as usual, feeling that his foot is either in a trap or in one's own mouth. So how do I answer these two questions:
First, are readers of fiction, in fact and in general, better people than non-readers of fiction? Has anyone ever done research on or produced evidence of that? Those are not rhetorical questions.
As a person that shuns biographies, is scared by books titled "How to..." and is suspicious of the "General knowledge" section in a bookshop and, of course, counts self as a better type of people, how should I answer that?
Second, there's something horribly narrowing about recommending the reading of fiction because it's useful or improving. It's far more valuable and enjoyable than that.
At least that one was easy. Not only all of the above, but you can also read fiction while you smoke. In the bathroom, of course, where one is allowed to smoke.
Still I have a feeling of my own unwashed toes being too close to my face for comfort...
For an AP article:
Elena Basescu, the youngest daughter of Romania's President Traian Basescu, poses in Bucharest, Romania, in May 2006. Romanians are now riveted, some even revolted, by President Traian Basescu's 28-year-old younger daughter's decision to run for a seat in the European Parliament. Many cry nepotism, say she lacks political experience, stumbles in public speaking.
I say, let Elena win! It will not be the first time in history when a horse (Equus ferus caballus) is introduced into a legislative body. Besides, this specific legislative body can do with some lightening up.
Update: oops, it's about the one on top... OK, let them both go to that parliament, no worries.
Again a easy (cowardly?) paraphrase of Seth's piece in CiF Opening eyes in Israel. No, it's not going to be a strictly confrontational response. After all, it could be a matter of some pride that, as Seth reports, there are Jewish youngsters that are ready to give a hand to Jewish and Arab poor, the downtrodden, the immigrants of all kinds, colors and origins. Good.
I, on the other hand, have a few questions to ask Seth about some points he makes.
- The marvelous Sadaka-Reut site - is it intentional or just an omission that words like "Sderot", "Qassam", "rockets" don't appear there or are hidden in some sophisticated way?
- While there is a Coalition against the Siege - why isn't there a coalition against the attacks on border crossings? And a coalition against persecution of Christians in Gaza? And...
Then there is (as it frequently happens in Seth's articles) a multitude of references to Judaism. Usually these leave me confused.
- The "core Jewish values" and "the true teachings of our religion": what exactly is meant by these: "an eye for an eye" or "love thy neighbor" - to take two examples. (Anyway, turning the other cheek will be rather New Testament and not exactly "core")?
- How does the total reliance on religious "core values" square with the knowledge that the majority of religious Jews support the Greater Israel pipe dream?
- Wouldn't the ideology of Hadash (the Israeli communist party) go against the grain of Judaism in a few aspects?
And, of course, there is a big question mark regarding the "dominant strand of Zionism" and the "old guard" with the "sixty years of acquiescence" to it. It is really a one-eyed convenience to present these bad ole Jooz as a monstrous "Zionist juggernaut" in whose headlights the poor Arab rabbits, deer and other miscellaneous game are patiently waiting for the last shot. I can only laud the poetic license. But should I take it for a correct reading of the last 60 years of history as Seth insists? Hardly.
A presentation of the Zionism as a monolithic hateful unity, of Judaism as a monolithic love an sunshine alternative, of Palestinians as a helpless downtrodden minority under the wheels of the Israeli juggernaut is good for one thing only - to widen the gap between the two one-eyed people and to promote exactly the opposite of what Seth, in his charming naivety, is trying to promote.
There must be another way, innit?
At least in Turkey:
The main Turkish government agency responsible for funding science has provoked outrage by apparently censoring a magazine article on the life and work of Charles Darwin.The article was stripped from the March issue of the widely read popular-science magazine Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology) just before it went to press.
And what served as a replacement for Darwin's face?
The magazine, which is published by Turkey's research funding and science management organization, TÜBİTAK, also switched a planned cover picture of Darwin for an illustration relating to global warming.
Hmm... at least it's not an illustration of the intelligent design committee in situ. And another consolation: global warming seems to be a matter of consensus with Islamists. Good.
And why is it important enough to lose sleep over it?
Click on the above, watch it for five minutes. Breath shallowly and slowly. Relax.
Doesn't life look better now?
He he. You can hardly be cooler that Judeopundit.
Of course, it's just a sequel to this post.
I have a question for the nice hell-wishing folks of Bedfordshire: are you afraid that there are problems with the supply of virgins in paradise? Is this the chief reason for rerouting British soldiers to hell?
More here.
Hat tip: David All.
I have intended to write another post - on another religion, however this is so much more important: behold The "Saw" of Islam by Nizo (a rather old one I got to read today). The clarity and the truth of this post are not to be argued with, as is the conclusion:
Unfortunately, Islam is indeed the Solution in the Arab world at the moment, as there's no other viable choice. No alternative ideology has the energy, the weight, or the unifying potential of Islam. The question is, which of the many, many versions of Islam will prevail. Will there be a regressive Caliphate or a new brew of Islamic democracies that draw from the positive and inclusive elements of the the Quran and the Hadeeth?
Again - not to argue with what seems to be inescapable, just to add my two cents: in any conflict between different factions of a specific religion my bet will be on the fundamentalist extremist wing. This is simply the way it goes - unfortunately for all of us, for the whole world.
There is nothing more misleading than a pack of media hounds getting the wrong scent, as the brouhaha surrounding the mishap between USNS Impeccable and a few Chinese boats clearly demonstrates.
Washington had lodged a formal complaint with Beijing yesterday alleging that five Chinese ships, including a naval vessel, harassed the USNS Impeccable in international waters on Sunday. The Pentagon alleged it followed other "aggressive" incidents and urged China to observe international maritime rules.
Of course, the journos have seen only the military stand-off point, disregarding the essence of the issue. Which is stated quite unequivocally:
US crew members sprayed the smaller vessels with fire hoses, hoping to keep them away."[But] the Chinese crew members disrobed to their underwear and continued closing to within 25 feet," the statement added, in what the Pentagon has described, with some understatement, as a "bizarre" incident.
I would say that this is a singular most important attempt of rapprochement since Nixon's ping-pong diplomacy. Of course, being communists, Chinese folks may have interpreted the "wet t-shirt term" erroneously, but one should make allowances for lack of experience, translation problems and remember that it was just a first for everyone concerned.
As for the next try: aside of hiring some more suitable team players, Chinese navy should consider getting closer than 25 feet: not every sailor in US Navy owns binoculars.
Update: this post is based on a misinformation, see more here.
I have chosen this headline, since I have already posted on one such moderate in Hashemi Rafsanjani - a moderate murderer.
The man who is much on the agenda these days, mainly as a moderate alternative to Mahmoud the Mad is Mohammad Khatami:
Khatami had run on a platform of liberalization and reform. During his two terms as president, Khatami advocated freedom of expression, tolerance and civil society, constructive diplomatic relations with other states including those in the European Union and Asia, and an economic policy that supported a free market and foreign investment.
Pure angel. Anyway, here he appears again:
Notice - he is the one not smiling. Must be a moderate then...
Cross-posted on
Yourish.com.
Click to enlarge and read this amazing document.
Hat tip - Theo.
Barclays declines to take the lead set by the Wall Street Journal (Europe) and the Television Tennis Channel, both of which pulled out of the tournament. The Tennis Channel put out the following statement: "Preventing an otherwise qualified athlete from competing on the basis of anything other than merit has no place in tennis or any other sport, and has the unfortunate result of undermining the credibility of the very nature of competition itself." The Wall Street Journal noted: "The Wall Street Journal's editorial philosophy is free markets and free people, and this action runs counter to the Journal's editorial direction."
While these here bloggers are not into sport in any significant way and could care less about tennis, a bit of boycotting could go a long way toward persuading Barclays Bank to be more careful with its PR in the future. Which is a good thing, you will agree.
More
here.
Just let's not shout "Antisemitism!", OK? Dubai's act was purely anti-Israeli - it is dirty politics at its best.
In the moral equivalence twilight of British press, where the use of the charged word "terrorist" is a big no-no, Guardian still makes an exception in one case: when the person(s) killed or maimed is (are) of British persuasion:
Sinn Fein condemns terrorist attack
It's as good time as any to use this revolting moral equivalence maxim: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Especially when the attacked were British soldiers in the occupied Northern Ireland.
Eat your own excrement, folks. Until you grok that a fucking terrorist is a fucking terrorist.
That for sure.
Gloss over dross, this is what PC has become.
Now let's see how it goes: A Joo, a duck and and Irishman enter a pub in Mecca...
Hey, don't take away my key...
CNN surely gets the scoop when it sees one:
And San Francisco has surely grown summat since last time I've seen it. Wow...
