Well, it's Saint Andrew's Day and I am going to eat Haggis, Tatties n neeps, and boiled cabbage. Maybe I'll watch Andrew Marr's The Making of Modern Britain, Since I am alone in the city place, not to mention that I am south of the border--my wife asked if Andrew Marr is Scottish.
What a stupid question!
I didn't really think about it, but Andrew is Scottish! What a way to celebrate St. Andrew's Day. Eating haggis, drinking whisky, and watching The Making of Modern Britain on DVD.
Personally, it would be more fun to have him and his family around to drink some Scotch than watch him on the the tube, but.
I'll just have to make do. But it would be fun to have him come around wearing a Cameron of Lochiel kilt and 1972-era stripy Man at C&A tank-top.
Sorry, but you'll have to imagine Andrew in a kilt.
30 November 2009
Women and guns
Meet the ladies of Little Stempington. They'll really kill you!
Ah, an Armed society is a polite society!
29 November 2009
For the Man with the Muckrake
I hope you missed the pornstar goof up (see Bad seasonal joke as the picture of Christy Canyon and Victoria Paris "caroling" ended up here instead of Noah's Ark - According to Richard Herring)
British Christmas Songs
OK, after that nasty joke...
For my fans in the Service: Stop the Cavalry!
We have to think of friends no longer with US: John Peel (AKA John Ravenscroft) and Steven Wells. Wow, that probably made their day (at least Steve's). Anyway, John's in this vid.
I like Noel Gallagher's cover of Merry Xmas Everybody
And Wizzard, of course.
For my fans in the Service: Stop the Cavalry!
We have to think of friends no longer with US: John Peel (AKA John Ravenscroft) and Steven Wells. Wow, that probably made their day (at least Steve's). Anyway, John's in this vid.
I like Noel Gallagher's cover of Merry Xmas Everybody
And Wizzard, of course.
Bad seasonal joke
What's the Pornstar's Christmas Carol?
Oh, cum me a faceful.
Now, give them a donation for singing that at your door! They love spreading joy during the holiday season.
Oh, cum me a faceful.
Now, give them a donation for singing that at your door! They love spreading joy during the holiday season.
More US Christmas
Did you know that Christmas wasn't a federal holiday in the US until 1870? Yes, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution!
Strange as this may sound, Protestant Christians such as the Pilgrims, Puritans, Congregationalists, Quakers, Baptists, and Presbyterians did not celebrate Christmas. Some Christian sects still do not recognise Christmas as being Christian, such as Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. Protestant Christians in New England during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries knew that the festivities, traditions, and trappings of Christmas were simply pagan celebrations covered with a Christian veneer. In addition, they were all too familiar with the Saturnalian misrule, disorder, and revelry associated with the mid-winter festivities and wanted to suppress it.
The problem is that Christians have been trying to co-opt the holiday since the Christmas was established early in the fourth century. This was done to Christianise pagan mid-winter celebrations associated with the Saturnalia and birthday of Sol Invictus – the Sun god. But it didn’t end there! As Christianity spread into northern Europe, elements of the twelve day Scandinavian Yule festival to the god Thor and various other practices of the Germanic pagans were also incorporated into Christmas-time celebrations by the Roman Church.
"All of the incorporation of pagan traditions was done contrary to God’s clear instructions in Deuteronomy 12: 28-32, Jeremiah 10: 1-3, and Matthew 15: 3, 8-9."
Some people forget that the First Amendment states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So, it seems a bit silly that Christmas was made a holiday, but I have said before that Christmas has 12 days and Hanukkah has 8 days--Why not combine the holidays and take the entire month of December off?
That's the American way!
Strange as this may sound, Protestant Christians such as the Pilgrims, Puritans, Congregationalists, Quakers, Baptists, and Presbyterians did not celebrate Christmas. Some Christian sects still do not recognise Christmas as being Christian, such as Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. Protestant Christians in New England during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries knew that the festivities, traditions, and trappings of Christmas were simply pagan celebrations covered with a Christian veneer. In addition, they were all too familiar with the Saturnalian misrule, disorder, and revelry associated with the mid-winter festivities and wanted to suppress it.
The problem is that Christians have been trying to co-opt the holiday since the Christmas was established early in the fourth century. This was done to Christianise pagan mid-winter celebrations associated with the Saturnalia and birthday of Sol Invictus – the Sun god. But it didn’t end there! As Christianity spread into northern Europe, elements of the twelve day Scandinavian Yule festival to the god Thor and various other practices of the Germanic pagans were also incorporated into Christmas-time celebrations by the Roman Church.
"All of the incorporation of pagan traditions was done contrary to God’s clear instructions in Deuteronomy 12: 28-32, Jeremiah 10: 1-3, and Matthew 15: 3, 8-9."
Some people forget that the First Amendment states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So, it seems a bit silly that Christmas was made a holiday, but I have said before that Christmas has 12 days and Hanukkah has 8 days--Why not combine the holidays and take the entire month of December off?
That's the American way!
28 November 2009
Why do you defend Michael Bellesiles?
Uh, it's a tough job but someone out there needs to?
I met Michael when Arming America was still pretty hot stuff. I had read it and though it was an interesting read. I had heard the criticism about the probate records, but that is a very small part of Michael's book.
Anyway, it seems that my posts on Bellesiles are the most visited of all my posts.
In 2002, Michael Zuckerman, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania and a prominent Americanist, summed up the argument about Arming America this way: "The critics' stuff on the probate inventories is bad news for Michael, but the book in no way depends on that. He's got myriad arguments. If people are so crazy about guns, why are there so few gun sellers? So few gun manufacturers? Why do they need a government subsidy? The critics are casting about for a way to discredit him, and they have fixated on the probate inventories, which is crackpot. They have refused to confront the cumulative force and extent of the argument. In fact, the argument is splendid."
Or to quote George M. Dennison
As every American historian knows (and knew), no guns were made in the colonies, and relatively few in the United States until well into the 19th century.
Quite frankly, I trust a University of Pennsylvania professor and head of a History department along with my own experience a whole lot more than some blowhard. Especially a blowhard who is guilty of the same crimes he attributes to Bellesiles.
Maybe it took a blowhard to spot the fraud that the blowhard is familiar from his own practise of historiography.
Anyway, just use the label Michael Bellesiles
I met Michael when Arming America was still pretty hot stuff. I had read it and though it was an interesting read. I had heard the criticism about the probate records, but that is a very small part of Michael's book.
Anyway, it seems that my posts on Bellesiles are the most visited of all my posts.
In 2002, Michael Zuckerman, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania and a prominent Americanist, summed up the argument about Arming America this way: "The critics' stuff on the probate inventories is bad news for Michael, but the book in no way depends on that. He's got myriad arguments. If people are so crazy about guns, why are there so few gun sellers? So few gun manufacturers? Why do they need a government subsidy? The critics are casting about for a way to discredit him, and they have fixated on the probate inventories, which is crackpot. They have refused to confront the cumulative force and extent of the argument. In fact, the argument is splendid."
Or to quote George M. Dennison
As every American historian knows (and knew), no guns were made in the colonies, and relatively few in the United States until well into the 19th century.
Quite frankly, I trust a University of Pennsylvania professor and head of a History department along with my own experience a whole lot more than some blowhard. Especially a blowhard who is guilty of the same crimes he attributes to Bellesiles.
Maybe it took a blowhard to spot the fraud that the blowhard is familiar from his own practise of historiography.
Anyway, just use the label Michael Bellesiles
Nanny State State indeed
I like to point out that the Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from Standing Armies by ensuring a Swiss Style military; however, it has been perverted beyond recognition.
How many Second Amendment advocates would be willing to give up their time for the required military drill...
And lifestyle! Somehow in amongst all the talk about the Swiss military and its guns, people seem to have missed that the Swiss military is under the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection, and Sport! As their website says: We provide security and physical activity!
It's not just about shooting guns! Federal Office of Sports (FOSPO), responsible for sport policy, the National Youth Sports Centre Tenero and the Youth and Sport organisation. This is from Federal Office of Sports (FOSPO)
And they talk about the Nanny State! What would these out of shape gun cretins do if they were told to exercise!?!?!?!? They bitch about national health care.
Ha!
How many Second Amendment advocates would be willing to give up their time for the required military drill...
And lifestyle! Somehow in amongst all the talk about the Swiss military and its guns, people seem to have missed that the Swiss military is under the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection, and Sport! As their website says: We provide security and physical activity!
It's not just about shooting guns! Federal Office of Sports (FOSPO), responsible for sport policy, the National Youth Sports Centre Tenero and the Youth and Sport organisation. This is from Federal Office of Sports (FOSPO)
The Federal Office of Sport FOSPO in Magglingen promotes sport and physical exercise in Switzerland and its positive, useful and necessary role in society. It is a centre for services, education and training for Swiss sport and a sport scientific centre of excellence. Furthermore it establishes optimum conditions for sports facilities of national importance.
And they talk about the Nanny State! What would these out of shape gun cretins do if they were told to exercise!?!?!?!? They bitch about national health care.
Ha!
The 12 Days of Christmas (not the Song)
Ever wonder what the Twelve Days of Christmas was about? Did you just think it was a very bizarre Christmas Carol?
Nope, it's a very real event and it takes place from Christmas Day to Epiphany (the 6th of January). The feast of Epiphany is also known as Twelfth Night. Twelfth Night also signified the end of the feasting season that began on Halloween in Tudor times. Twelfth Night was the time when the world was turned crazy. On this day the King and all those who were high would become the peasants and vice versa. This feast was governed by the Lord of Misrule. Epiphany is seeing a comeback in the US because of Latino culture where it is known as el Dia de los Reyes Magos or Three Kings Day.
There is a question as to whether the twelve days of Christmas has fallen victim to the secularisation of society or to the Puritans. Either way, it is a custom that is pretty much forgotten in the US. British culture celebrates Boxing Day (26 December or St. Stephen's Day) which is a national holiday in many Commonwealth nations. The Anglican Church and liturgical Calendar still has the verious feasts such as Childermas (the Feast of the Innocents) and Epiphany.
On the other hand, the traditions of the Twelve Days were adapted from the older pagan customs, in particular Saturnalia. The holiday falls firmly on the Winter Solstice in the Northern hemisphere. Many cultures in the Northern Hemisphere have performed solstice ceremonies since pre-historic times. At their root: an ancient fear that the failing light would never return unless humans intervened with anxious vigil or antic celebration. The Twelfth Night traditions of the Solstice also have an influence on modern day pantomime where traditional authority is mocked and the principal male lead is played by a woman, while the leading older female character, or 'Dame', is played by a man. It is this pagan influence and revelling that offended the puritans and led to them banning Christmas.
The Song "Carol of the Bells" is the Ukrainian carol called "Shchedryk". The word "Shchedryk" means the "Generous One". It refers to the god of generosity, the Dazh Boh - the Giver God, which is the sun. Dazh Boh's feast was on the winter solstice; after all, that is when he started his return. With the coming of Christianity to Ukraine in 988, the people did not forget their ancient customs; they incorporated them into their new beliefs. To this day Ukrainians sing the "Shchedryk" during Christmas season.
But the 12 Days of Christmas can be either sacred or profane depending on your outlook and personality. Does one choose the holiday of the Romans or that of the High Church Anglican? Either way, it is a holiday which is firmly engrained in the Northern Cultures. It is a holiday that does not stop the day after Christmas, but continues until the Sun is revived.
Nope, it's a very real event and it takes place from Christmas Day to Epiphany (the 6th of January). The feast of Epiphany is also known as Twelfth Night. Twelfth Night also signified the end of the feasting season that began on Halloween in Tudor times. Twelfth Night was the time when the world was turned crazy. On this day the King and all those who were high would become the peasants and vice versa. This feast was governed by the Lord of Misrule. Epiphany is seeing a comeback in the US because of Latino culture where it is known as el Dia de los Reyes Magos or Three Kings Day.
There is a question as to whether the twelve days of Christmas has fallen victim to the secularisation of society or to the Puritans. Either way, it is a custom that is pretty much forgotten in the US. British culture celebrates Boxing Day (26 December or St. Stephen's Day) which is a national holiday in many Commonwealth nations. The Anglican Church and liturgical Calendar still has the verious feasts such as Childermas (the Feast of the Innocents) and Epiphany.
On the other hand, the traditions of the Twelve Days were adapted from the older pagan customs, in particular Saturnalia. The holiday falls firmly on the Winter Solstice in the Northern hemisphere. Many cultures in the Northern Hemisphere have performed solstice ceremonies since pre-historic times. At their root: an ancient fear that the failing light would never return unless humans intervened with anxious vigil or antic celebration. The Twelfth Night traditions of the Solstice also have an influence on modern day pantomime where traditional authority is mocked and the principal male lead is played by a woman, while the leading older female character, or 'Dame', is played by a man. It is this pagan influence and revelling that offended the puritans and led to them banning Christmas.
The Song "Carol of the Bells" is the Ukrainian carol called "Shchedryk". The word "Shchedryk" means the "Generous One". It refers to the god of generosity, the Dazh Boh - the Giver God, which is the sun. Dazh Boh's feast was on the winter solstice; after all, that is when he started his return. With the coming of Christianity to Ukraine in 988, the people did not forget their ancient customs; they incorporated them into their new beliefs. To this day Ukrainians sing the "Shchedryk" during Christmas season.
But the 12 Days of Christmas can be either sacred or profane depending on your outlook and personality. Does one choose the holiday of the Romans or that of the High Church Anglican? Either way, it is a holiday which is firmly engrained in the Northern Cultures. It is a holiday that does not stop the day after Christmas, but continues until the Sun is revived.
26 November 2009
A couple of Days late
I've been trying to find the Cartoon from Private Eye of Charles Darwin circa 1985 (For stupid Septics--That's a British Satirical Magazine and has zip to do with the "true Crime" genre).
The Cartoon shows a man at the gates of heaven being greeted by a bearded figure and the Caption is something like "I have bad news for you, I'm Charles Darwin".
The Cartoon is somewhere is my archive and I will post it once I've found it.
Instead, we will welcome the Season with this Cartoon.
Party Hearty, It's CHRRRISSTMAS.
Who is this Christ person and what does he have to do with the holiday anyway? It's about reviving the Sun!
Dies natalis sol invictus
You Putzes! Jesus Celebrated Hanukkah!
I won't bang on the Roundheaded Motherfuckers who did a wonderful job of screwing up the US and Britain. They did a better job of fucking up the US more than Britain. So if you wonder where things like the war on drugs, prohibition, the War for American Independence, banning Christmas, and a whole lot of other pestilences originated, you may want to look there.
I would be a whole lot more thankful if the Native Americans slaughtered the Roundheaded Motherfuckers instead of the other way around. Especially since they wouldn't have been around to support Cromwell and generally bugger things up.
Anyway, Jesus was a Jew and he Celebrated Jewish holidays. That means he would have celebrated Hanukkah.
So, why put Christ in Christmas when he celebrated Hanukkah!?!?!?!?!
Now, isn't that a title for a Country and Western Song!
I would be a whole lot more thankful if the Native Americans slaughtered the Roundheaded Motherfuckers instead of the other way around. Especially since they wouldn't have been around to support Cromwell and generally bugger things up.
Anyway, Jesus was a Jew and he Celebrated Jewish holidays. That means he would have celebrated Hanukkah.
So, why put Christ in Christmas when he celebrated Hanukkah!?!?!?!?!
Now, isn't that a title for a Country and Western Song!
25 November 2009
Paradox review
Hey maybe you couldn't give a shit about this, but I did say I was interested in this show. So, here are my impressions of it.
The Telegraph started with this line in its review:
That pretty much says it all,although I wouldn't call Tamzin Outwaite's Character very clever. The Telegraph also pointed out that, despite having called the police with an urgent request for assistance, the Scientist ends up being more of an annoyance than a help. He did offer some suggestions, but mostly went about doing his own business. And he did this in a very broody manner.
In fact, the whole thing seemed rather contrived. For something that promised so much action, there really wasn't a whole heck of a lot happening. It was fast paced inaction. Not to ruin the suspense if you are masochistic enough to watch this, but it was a predictable and truly terminal act of stupidity that the crew was trying to avoid. It is so predictable, that if you do chance to see this, your guess as to what is going to happen is correct that you needn't bother watching after you figure out the plotline.
Tamzin Outhwaite was probably the reason most people watched the show. The Guardian's header on this: I'm a Celebrity gets double the audience of BBC drama Paradox. Tamzin seems to do bitchy cop very well and this is a reprise of her Jo McDonagh from Red Cap. In fact, they should have called her that, but that might have confused the storyline.
Tamzin is like watching the real girl in "Lars and the Real Girl" except that Tamzin is capable of movement. I have to go with the celeb factor for her pulling the 4.13m (16.3%) audience.
The Leicester Mercury had a pretty funny review:
If you don't mind spoilers, the Leicester Mercury review is worth a squiz. I mean anyone who can come up with this comment:
Has got to be worth reading.
But, Paradox is not a Life on Mars. Don't waste your time with it. I didn't need a critic to tell me it was crap, but it was worth it to read the Leicester Mercury review.
The Telegraph started with this line in its review:
Here’s a useful tip for you. The next time you have trouble getting the police to come round and investigate a crime, simply ring the station and explain that you’re a top scientist and that you want to see “a clever police officer” at once.
That pretty much says it all,although I wouldn't call Tamzin Outwaite's Character very clever. The Telegraph also pointed out that, despite having called the police with an urgent request for assistance, the Scientist ends up being more of an annoyance than a help. He did offer some suggestions, but mostly went about doing his own business. And he did this in a very broody manner.
In fact, the whole thing seemed rather contrived. For something that promised so much action, there really wasn't a whole heck of a lot happening. It was fast paced inaction. Not to ruin the suspense if you are masochistic enough to watch this, but it was a predictable and truly terminal act of stupidity that the crew was trying to avoid. It is so predictable, that if you do chance to see this, your guess as to what is going to happen is correct that you needn't bother watching after you figure out the plotline.
Tamzin Outhwaite was probably the reason most people watched the show. The Guardian's header on this: I'm a Celebrity gets double the audience of BBC drama Paradox. Tamzin seems to do bitchy cop very well and this is a reprise of her Jo McDonagh from Red Cap. In fact, they should have called her that, but that might have confused the storyline.
Tamzin is like watching the real girl in "Lars and the Real Girl" except that Tamzin is capable of movement. I have to go with the celeb factor for her pulling the 4.13m (16.3%) audience.
The Leicester Mercury had a pretty funny review:
The plot was like something you’d get if you tried to complete a jigsaw using discarded pieces of Minority Report, 24, Spooks and FlashForward.
And the script was awful. “Where are these photos coming from?” DI Flint asked. “Aliens? God?”
Um ... Derek Acorah?
If you saw this in a cinema, after coughing up cash to get in, you’d pelt the screen with popcorn.
But TV is a little more forgiving. So let’s be kind. Paradox has done the hard work: establishing that a Manchester rozzer probes tomorrow. Maybe it will get better now.
After all, who’d have thought there was hope for a series about a bloke spinning through space in a police box?
If you don't mind spoilers, the Leicester Mercury review is worth a squiz. I mean anyone who can come up with this comment:
Well, they’re (Manchester Police) used to unusual demands on their rota now.
In Life on Mars, they had a detective from the present, on secondment to the past.
Has got to be worth reading.
But, Paradox is not a Life on Mars. Don't waste your time with it. I didn't need a critic to tell me it was crap, but it was worth it to read the Leicester Mercury review.
Why do I call them gun cretins?
Not all gun owners are gun cretins.
Take Me, believe it or not, I own guns and believe they are dangerous items that need to be regulated and work toward that goal.
On the other hand, there is a small minority of irresponsible idiots out there who see a hint of regulation and do all sorts of stupid things. For some reason "gun rights" is the ultimate wedge issue that can get people to support positions which are a threat to their economic interests.
It seems that the group Gun Owners of America has been hunting for a way into the health care debate for three months.
I have been waiting for that shoe to fall.
My predicition is that people will eventually get sick of all this talk of gun rights and irresponsible gun owners. It would be nice if this blog were a wake up call to the gun cretins, but that's hoping for way too much.
More likely this would be a resource to counter the "bumper Sticker" arguments along with Doug Henigan's book Lethal Logic.
"Gun rights" do not trump people's rights to live healthy and safe lives. Guns do not make a society safe.
Take Me, believe it or not, I own guns and believe they are dangerous items that need to be regulated and work toward that goal.
On the other hand, there is a small minority of irresponsible idiots out there who see a hint of regulation and do all sorts of stupid things. For some reason "gun rights" is the ultimate wedge issue that can get people to support positions which are a threat to their economic interests.
It seems that the group Gun Owners of America has been hunting for a way into the health care debate for three months.
I have been waiting for that shoe to fall.
My predicition is that people will eventually get sick of all this talk of gun rights and irresponsible gun owners. It would be nice if this blog were a wake up call to the gun cretins, but that's hoping for way too much.
More likely this would be a resource to counter the "bumper Sticker" arguments along with Doug Henigan's book Lethal Logic.
"Gun rights" do not trump people's rights to live healthy and safe lives. Guns do not make a society safe.
A Purtian Christmas
Sure, I posted this at the bottom of the How the Puritans Stole Christmas poem and it's where the Writing a paragraph post had its "Genesis" (I Couldn't resist that).
But it deserves its very own post.
But it deserves its very own post.
A Puritan Christmas
View more presentations from DHUMPHREYS.
And you thought I had too much time on my hands...
Steve's Regional News Caps
You have to register to see the section of presenters in the "Back Room"!
is simply a place for those who appreciate the lovely ladies who report and present the news & weather on the U.K.'s regional news programmes. Most caps are of presenters in the West Midlands / Central region but there are also plenty more from other parts of the U.K. I post new caps most days, those posted here are just a small selection of those in the 'back room' - see the link top right. If you like what you see here you'll find there's so much more in the back!This bloke is really desperate! Hs most recent post was Marie Ashby, the BBC East Midlands Politics Show presenter.
You have to register to see the section of presenters in the "Back Room"!
Parsing error
Riz Lateef is a BBC London presenter.Ok, I think she's pretty hot, but...
I keep confusing her with Rizla.
Is that Rizla Tea?
Also, teef could be cockney for teeth (you'll have to take my word for that). Rizla Teeth?
More Andrew Marr!
THIS IS THE EVIL FACE OF SOCIALISM
How do you feel about cosmetic surgery? For me, no. For better or worse, and it's mostly worse, I am what I am. I don't have a face that's handmade for television, but I seem to have survived.
Oh, Andy, we love you for who you are!
24 November 2009
I know these blokes!
Red Andy, Andrew Marr or the evil face of Socialism, and Boo Hewerdine
I was trying to find the Bible on youtube
To the girl with the gun,
I leave my loneliness
Andrew, you've been called worse!
I was trying to find the Bible on youtube
To the girl with the gun,
I leave my loneliness
Andrew, you've been called worse!
Writing a paragraph
I learnt today about the Puritans and their beliefs. They believed that people had to suffer and be miserable because god didn't want them to be happy and have fun since that was a sin. The Puritans banned many things we take for granted, such as Christmas. I think this was because they were miserable people and they wanted others to suffer as well. I think that the puritans were very serious because anyone who was happy was tortured until they were miserable as well. Not everyone agreed with the Purtians because there were some people who were clandestinely happy.
How the Puritans Stole Christmas
http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2009/01/poem-for-twelfth-night-how-puritans.html
(I found this whilst doing research on "Keeping the Christ in Christmas") It was written by Jay Anderson. I have to admit that this is very humourous, but makes the point that Puitans hated Christmas. These people who wanted purity of the Christian religion banned Christmas.
A Poem for Twelfth Night - "How the Puritans Stole Christmas" ...
... with apologies to Dr. Seuss:
Every High-Church Anglican and Catholic
Living in Jolly Olde England
Liked Christmas a lot...
But the Puritans,
Who were infected with Calvinism,
Did NOT!
The Puritans hated Christmas!
The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that their round heads weren't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, their predestinarian arses were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all
Was a distaste for mince pies - shaped like a manger-bed in a stall.
But,
Whatever the reason,
Mince pies or their arses,
The Puritans saw the yuletide celebrations as farces,
Staring down on the festivities with sour, dour frowns
At the merriment and good will of those in the towns.
For they knew all the revelers were engaged in such vices
As eating tarts made of suet and spices.
"And they're eating plum pudding!" they snarled with a sneer.
"Tomorrow is Christmas! It's practically here!"
Then they growled, with their greedy fingers nervously drumming,
"We MUST find a way to keep Christmas from coming!"
For, tomorrow, they knew...
...That the Christmas events
Would involve the consumption of pies made of mince!
And then! Oh, the noise! Oh, the noise! Noise! Noise! Noise!
That's one thing they hated! The NOISE! NOISE! NOISE! NOISE!
Then the revelers, young and old, would sit down to a feast.
And they'd feast! And they'd feast!
And they'd FEAST! FEAST! FEAST! FEAST!
They would start on plum pudding, and rare roast-beef
Foods again giving Puritans nothing but grief!
And THEN
They'd do something Puritans liked least of all!
Every merry-maker in town, the tall and the small,
Would stand close together, with Christmas bells ringing.
They'd stand hand-in-hand. And they all would start singing!
They'd sing! And they'd sing!
AND they'd SING! SING! SING! SING!
And the more the Puritans thought of the whole Christmas-Sing
The more the Puritans thought, "We must stop this whole thing!
"Why for over sixteen hundred years we've put up with it now!
We MUST stop Christmas from coming!
...But HOW?"
Then they got an idea!
An awful idea!
THE PURITANS
GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!
"We know just what to do!" The Puritans began plot-ting.
And they made civil war against England's King.
And they built up an army, and the Puritans said,
"When we've won this war, we'll remove the King's head!"
"All we need is a ploy..."
To get the job done.
But since kings are kings,
It was difficult to come up with one.
Did that stop the Puritans...?
No! The Puritans said,
"Charges of treason and Romish sympathies will cost him his head!"
So they called a rump court; charges the King refused to refute.
And the court issued the sentence to execute.
THEN
They loaded poor Charles
Dressed in clothes resembling sacks
On a ramshakle scaffold
And severed his head with an ax.
Then the Puritans said, "Huzzah!"
For they had brought the King down
And they began to march
On all the churches in town.
All their stain-glassed windows were dark. Quiet filled the air.
All the vestrymen were all dreaming sweet dreams without care
When the Puritans came to the first church in the square.
"This is stop number one," The Puritans hissed
And each Puritan approached shaking his fist.
Then they broke all the stain-glass.
And smashed statues galore.
Their horses dishonored the graves in the floor.
Then they burned all the vestments,
And prayer books, too.
Then they said "Let's move on, we have much to do!"
Then they slithered and slunk, with dour looks most unpleasant,
Around the whole town, to despoil places where Christ was once present!
Stained glass! Statuary! Painted images! Candles!
All manner of popish influences that for years had caused scandals!
And they smashed them to pieces and threw them on piles
And set them ablaze, smiling devilish smiles!
Then they turned to the larders. They banned the Yule feast,
The plum pudding, the boar's head, and all toasts to that beast!
They forbade all the foods that had given offense.
And they succeeded in banning the pies made of mince!
Then the last thing they took
Was the yule log for the fire.
On the walls they left nothing but hooks, and some wire.
And the one little speck
Left in the church house
Was a crumb that was even too small for a mouse.
Then
They did the same thing
To the other church houses
Leaving crumbs
Much too small
For the other church mouses!
And what happened then...?
Well...in England they say
That the Lord Protector's round head
Grew three sizes that day!
And the minute that "defender of liberty" felt safe from the strife,
He became the Commonwealth's dictator for life!
And he enforced the outlawing of Christmas! And all the foods for that feast!
And he...
...HE HIMSELF...!
The Lord Protector ruled the realm like a tyrannical beast!
A Puritan Christmas
View more presentations from DHUMPHREYS.
NB: Christmas was not only outlawed in the British Isles but in parts of colonial America, as well. In 1659, a law was passed by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony requiring a five-shilling fine from anyone caught "observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way."
Don't look behind you--It's Panto Season!
Oh, no it isn't!
Oh, Yes it is!
In the United Kingdom, the word "Pantomime" means a form of entertainment, generally performed during the Christmas season. Most cities and towns throughout the UK have a form of Pantomime at this time of year. The origins of British Pantomime or "Panto" as it is known date back to the middle ages, taking on board the traditions of the Italian "Commedia dell’ Arte, the Italian night scenes and British Music hall to produce an intrinsic art form that constantly adapted to survive up to the present day.
It has nothing to do with mimes. Pantomime incorporates song, dance, buffoonery, slapstick, cross-dressing, in-jokes, audience participation, and mild sexual innuendo. There are a number of traditional story-lines, and there is also a fairly well-defined set of performance conventions (e.g. gender role reversal: 'principal boy' is played by a young woman). There is a 'guest celebrity' tradition, which emerged in the late 19th century. The gender role reversal resembles the old festival of Twelfth Night, a combination of Epiphany and midwinter feast, when it was customary for the natural order of things to be reversed. This tradition can be traced back to pre-Christian European festivals such as Samhain and Saturnalia.
.JPG)
Pantomime has been attempted abroad, usually with a small amount of success. Not surprisingly it has proved popular in countries such as Canada, Australia and South Africa- recently a production of "Babes in the wood" ran at the Rainbow Seven Arts Theatre in Harare, Zimbabwe! In America this very British art form has fared less favourably, although a production of "Humpty Dumpty" in 1868 ran for over 1,200 performances at the Olympic Theatre, New York, making it the most successful Pantomime in American history.
Well, we have tickets to Snow White this year.
John Barrowman (Captain Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and Torchwood) has been doing Panto for a while. This year he will play the role of Robin Hood at the New Theatre in Cardiff. He's also played Prince Charming in Cinderella (2005), Jack in Jack and the Beanstalk (2006), and Aladdin in (2007). I'd love to see him doing Panto, but imagine getting tickets is nigh impossible (well, not really as there are some seats available as of 24 Nov 09). Not to mention, he usually plays in places that are out of the way for us.
The Beeb has a gallery of Panto Stars.
My guess is that it is a bit too outrageous for puritanical US tastes with the cross dressing, innuendo, and so on. Although, I've heard that the US is rediscovering this tradition.
There's still hope yet!
Oh, Yes it is!
In the United Kingdom, the word "Pantomime" means a form of entertainment, generally performed during the Christmas season. Most cities and towns throughout the UK have a form of Pantomime at this time of year. The origins of British Pantomime or "Panto" as it is known date back to the middle ages, taking on board the traditions of the Italian "Commedia dell’ Arte, the Italian night scenes and British Music hall to produce an intrinsic art form that constantly adapted to survive up to the present day.
It has nothing to do with mimes. Pantomime incorporates song, dance, buffoonery, slapstick, cross-dressing, in-jokes, audience participation, and mild sexual innuendo. There are a number of traditional story-lines, and there is also a fairly well-defined set of performance conventions (e.g. gender role reversal: 'principal boy' is played by a young woman). There is a 'guest celebrity' tradition, which emerged in the late 19th century. The gender role reversal resembles the old festival of Twelfth Night, a combination of Epiphany and midwinter feast, when it was customary for the natural order of things to be reversed. This tradition can be traced back to pre-Christian European festivals such as Samhain and Saturnalia.
.JPG)
Pantomime has been attempted abroad, usually with a small amount of success. Not surprisingly it has proved popular in countries such as Canada, Australia and South Africa- recently a production of "Babes in the wood" ran at the Rainbow Seven Arts Theatre in Harare, Zimbabwe! In America this very British art form has fared less favourably, although a production of "Humpty Dumpty" in 1868 ran for over 1,200 performances at the Olympic Theatre, New York, making it the most successful Pantomime in American history.
Well, we have tickets to Snow White this year.
John Barrowman (Captain Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and Torchwood) has been doing Panto for a while. This year he will play the role of Robin Hood at the New Theatre in Cardiff. He's also played Prince Charming in Cinderella (2005), Jack in Jack and the Beanstalk (2006), and Aladdin in (2007). I'd love to see him doing Panto, but imagine getting tickets is nigh impossible (well, not really as there are some seats available as of 24 Nov 09). Not to mention, he usually plays in places that are out of the way for us.
The Beeb has a gallery of Panto Stars.
My guess is that it is a bit too outrageous for puritanical US tastes with the cross dressing, innuendo, and so on. Although, I've heard that the US is rediscovering this tradition.
There's still hope yet!
More right to life and gun control
It seems that right to lifers are claiming that their position is not inconsistant since they have a right to self-defence. The argument runs:
Unfortunately, this denies the possibility of non-lethal methods of self-defence or acknowledge their efficacy. If effective non-lethal forms of self-defence are aailable, then a person who believes in the right to life should be using those over deadly force.
How about, people have a right to life. All people have a right to life.
They have a right to self-defence, but deadly force is an extreme option. It is the ultimate last resort if you believe that life is sacred.
If one states that there is a right to life, which is more important life? Or the ability to use deadly force to defend your life? Is one person's life more valuable than anothers? Is the possibility that you could harm or kill an innnocent bystander outweigh your own life?
By arguing that deadly force is the first option, one removes the legitimacy of stating that one has a right to life.
I have a right to life, but you don't. Does this make sense?
In fact, the right to life position is totally anti-thetical to the current "no duty to retreat" theory of self-defence. Right to life is in accord to the "back to the wall" theory of self-defence, where every opportunity to avoid, deescalate, and/or withdraw from the situation has to be eliminated making deadly force the LAST option.
The right to life position means that a reasonable person would use reasonable force to end the threat; not deadly force. This means that non-lethal methods are the method of choice, not ones using deadly force. Especially if deadly force could result in harm to innocent bystanders.
If pepper spray is an option, then you must use that rather than deadly force. I find that pepper spray works quite effectively for ending threats. It allows for one to retreat to a point of safety and prevents the possibility of harm to innocent bystanders.
Likewise, everyone has a right to life, therefore, we should work to remove situations where violent confrontations arise. This means that social programs that work to reduce factors that would lead to crime are a priority as well to someone who claims that there is a "right to life".
By eliminated the possibility that non-lethal defence as an option, you have removed any legitimacy of your claim to being pro-life. Life is not sacred, you may kill. You do not believe that you need to first avoid conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using any kind of force: deadly or otherwise.
Sorry, but being pro-gun is totally antithetical to being "right to life" since that means you believe deadly force is an option. You cannot believe that life is sacred, yet be willing to take it.
If every human person has a natural right to life, then he has a right to defend his life against those who would seek to violate this right. This means that one has the right to an effective method of self-defence.
Unfortunately, this denies the possibility of non-lethal methods of self-defence or acknowledge their efficacy. If effective non-lethal forms of self-defence are aailable, then a person who believes in the right to life should be using those over deadly force.
How about, people have a right to life. All people have a right to life.
They have a right to self-defence, but deadly force is an extreme option. It is the ultimate last resort if you believe that life is sacred.
If one states that there is a right to life, which is more important life? Or the ability to use deadly force to defend your life? Is one person's life more valuable than anothers? Is the possibility that you could harm or kill an innnocent bystander outweigh your own life?
By arguing that deadly force is the first option, one removes the legitimacy of stating that one has a right to life.
I have a right to life, but you don't. Does this make sense?
In fact, the right to life position is totally anti-thetical to the current "no duty to retreat" theory of self-defence. Right to life is in accord to the "back to the wall" theory of self-defence, where every opportunity to avoid, deescalate, and/or withdraw from the situation has to be eliminated making deadly force the LAST option.
The right to life position means that a reasonable person would use reasonable force to end the threat; not deadly force. This means that non-lethal methods are the method of choice, not ones using deadly force. Especially if deadly force could result in harm to innocent bystanders.
If pepper spray is an option, then you must use that rather than deadly force. I find that pepper spray works quite effectively for ending threats. It allows for one to retreat to a point of safety and prevents the possibility of harm to innocent bystanders.
Likewise, everyone has a right to life, therefore, we should work to remove situations where violent confrontations arise. This means that social programs that work to reduce factors that would lead to crime are a priority as well to someone who claims that there is a "right to life".
By eliminated the possibility that non-lethal defence as an option, you have removed any legitimacy of your claim to being pro-life. Life is not sacred, you may kill. You do not believe that you need to first avoid conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using any kind of force: deadly or otherwise.
Sorry, but being pro-gun is totally antithetical to being "right to life" since that means you believe deadly force is an option. You cannot believe that life is sacred, yet be willing to take it.
Paradox on BBC One!
I am not sure how much hype is involved in BBC One's series Paradox, which is starting tonight at 21h00. It does star Tamzin Outhwaite which I am not sure how that bodes. I never saw her on EastEnders since she is best known as Melanie Owen. I saw Red Cap which I give a 6 out of 10, not sure how I managed to watch the entire series: perhaps due to Tamzin being the star of the show. Or perhaps due to masochism.
Oh, yeah, I can't forget that she was also in Hustle (A Touch of Class) and Hotel Babylon.
Anyway, Paradox has been compared to the Minority Report since both series deal with future crimes and stopping them. I like that Wikipedia describes the Minority Report as "The story mainly concerns the paradoxes and alternate realities that are created by the precognition of crimes when the chief of police intercepts a precognition that he is about to murder a man he has never met."
The Beeb writeup of Paradox is:
Well, one episode won't kill me!
Oh, yeah, I can't forget that she was also in Hustle (A Touch of Class) and Hotel Babylon.
Anyway, Paradox has been compared to the Minority Report since both series deal with future crimes and stopping them. I like that Wikipedia describes the Minority Report as "The story mainly concerns the paradoxes and alternate realities that are created by the precognition of crimes when the chief of police intercepts a precognition that he is about to murder a man he has never met."
The Beeb writeup of Paradox is:
Mysterious images that show incidents 18 hours before they happen are transmitted from space. As a space scientist attempts to explain their source, detectives race against time to change the future.
Well, one episode won't kill me!
23 November 2009
Remember You're a Womble!
More British Children's TV: The Wombles. Actually, they were a set of books by Elisabeth Beresford.
While the Wombles of this series of Books and TV were from Wimbledon, Wombles live in every country in the world! Wombles would be highly disliked by the US right wing since their communal work is clearing up and recycling human refuse. Their motto is "Make Good Use of Bad Rubbish."
You can be a womble and clean up after messy humans too!
BTW, you can see a Womble in the First Season of Little Britain standing outside BBC Television Centre.
While the Wombles of this series of Books and TV were from Wimbledon, Wombles live in every country in the world! Wombles would be highly disliked by the US right wing since their communal work is clearing up and recycling human refuse. Their motto is "Make Good Use of Bad Rubbish."
You can be a womble and clean up after messy humans too!
BTW, you can see a Womble in the First Season of Little Britain standing outside BBC Television Centre.
Jollity Farm
Feeling down about the State of the world? This should cheer you up!
This is fun too! From "Do Not Adjust Your Set" a pre-Monty Python venture by Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin with David Jason of Danger Mouse, Only Fools and Horses, and A Touch of Frost. Not sure about Denise Coffey.
I would love to have the Bonzos doing "Kama Sutra" from "Do Not Adjust Your Set" to post here. The amusing bit was that "Do Not Adjust Your Set" about that was DNAYS was a kid's show!
Mummy and Daddy, what's the Kama Sutra? Better yet, having the sprogs running around singing the song!
This is fun too! From "Do Not Adjust Your Set" a pre-Monty Python venture by Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin with David Jason of Danger Mouse, Only Fools and Horses, and A Touch of Frost. Not sure about Denise Coffey.
I would love to have the Bonzos doing "Kama Sutra" from "Do Not Adjust Your Set" to post here. The amusing bit was that "Do Not Adjust Your Set" about that was DNAYS was a kid's show!
Mummy and Daddy, what's the Kama Sutra? Better yet, having the sprogs running around singing the song!
Who is Paul Treanor anyway?
I found Paul Treanor while trying to find critiques of Libertarianism. This was at the time when Ron Paul's face was plastering the internet on both sides of the issue. That makes sense since Libertarians aren't sure either!
I liked it when one Ron Paul supporter decried his opponents as Libertarians!
Which leads to the fact that I have always had a dislike for Libertarianism which has been made stronger since there is no real definitiion of the idiology: it can range from minarchist to openly anarchist. Of course, this is a right wing anarchy where large corporations can dump toxins into the drinking water in order to sell bottled water. These are the folks who will keep you perpetually in debt in the name of a free market.
This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion about it, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types.
It is very hard to find any literature about libertarianism that was NOT written by its advocates. This isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most of us have time.
Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments: they depend upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not notice that they fail outside of that field. For example, fundamentalists like to restrict the argument to the bible. Libertarians like to restrict the argument to their notions of economics, justice, history, and rights and their misrepresentations of government and contracts.
Widen the scope, and their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that "right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only without safeguards?
Interesting that this subject is now turning toward rights, especially since Paul Treanor's comments on rights form a basis for my comments in my Rights post. Indeed, most of the libertarian concepts are bastard progeny of the arguments that led to the American War for Independence: in particular the concept of government by consent. Despite propaganda to the contrary, that is not a conservative idea, but a liberal one. Conservativism, by its nature believes in slow and calculated change rather than a radical shakeup of the system.
Anyway, I find Paul Treanor to be interesting from a myriad of reasons especially since we share an interest in Urban, environment, planning. Besides, I like the way the man thinks.
To bad he is next to impossible to locate!
I liked it when one Ron Paul supporter decried his opponents as Libertarians!
Which leads to the fact that I have always had a dislike for Libertarianism which has been made stronger since there is no real definitiion of the idiology: it can range from minarchist to openly anarchist. Of course, this is a right wing anarchy where large corporations can dump toxins into the drinking water in order to sell bottled water. These are the folks who will keep you perpetually in debt in the name of a free market.
This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion about it, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types.
It is very hard to find any literature about libertarianism that was NOT written by its advocates. This isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most of us have time.
Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments: they depend upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not notice that they fail outside of that field. For example, fundamentalists like to restrict the argument to the bible. Libertarians like to restrict the argument to their notions of economics, justice, history, and rights and their misrepresentations of government and contracts.
Widen the scope, and their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that "right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only without safeguards?
Interesting that this subject is now turning toward rights, especially since Paul Treanor's comments on rights form a basis for my comments in my Rights post. Indeed, most of the libertarian concepts are bastard progeny of the arguments that led to the American War for Independence: in particular the concept of government by consent. Despite propaganda to the contrary, that is not a conservative idea, but a liberal one. Conservativism, by its nature believes in slow and calculated change rather than a radical shakeup of the system.
Anyway, I find Paul Treanor to be interesting from a myriad of reasons especially since we share an interest in Urban, environment, planning. Besides, I like the way the man thinks.
To bad he is next to impossible to locate!
Rights?
I wanted to do this post after I found the copy of the Bulletin, an English language journal from Brussels, that had an article called "So you think you have rights". The basic gist of it was that Belgium had a very different take on rights compared to Anglo-American. I'll post a scan of that cover when I find it.
A personal example, which I have mentioned before, was of the Mormon Missionaries who were arrested by the Belgian police since the Police weren't sure what exactly Mormon missionaries did. Of course, this was well before the film "Orgazmo" was released (sorry, I had to put that in). Anyway, Belgian law allows for the police to arrest someone for 48 hours and hold them just to check them out. The Mormons were fed a baguette and a litre of coffee every 4 hours. Something which doesn't happen in the USA. These poor buggers are suffering since they can't drink coffee and don't understand why the police can just pull them off the street for no reason.
Pesonally, I thought it would be a good idea to use the Cinquantinare as a shortcut home from a meeting only to be accounsted by half the Brussels police. I stood still and answered their questions since I was only going home. I handed them my passport when they asked for my ID, which meant they had the only cop who spoke English tell me "it was very dangerous to be in the park at night". I was tempted to respond that there were enough cops there that the park should have been pretty safe. I was told to go back the way I came.
The gist of this is that I hear a lot of talk from Americans about rights of all kinds, civic, individual, collective, god given, pre-exisiting, natural, human, and so on, but what the fuck does that really mean in practise?
Rights are entitlements or permissions, usually of a legal or moral nature. Rights are of vital importance in the fields of law and ethics.
The declaration of a right is an act comparable to law-giving, in the way that kings gave law. It is essentially a command or decree: do this, don't do that. Implicitly, the law is intended for enforcement, and is assumed to create an entitlement to enforce it. So declarations of rights are 'rule', in the political science sense. Declarations of rights are therefore fundamentally political acts, acts of policy. Anyone who issues and enforces declarations of rights is exercising political power. As you would expect, it is normally governments, and inter-governmental organisations, which issue the declarations. It is not an activity of oppressed individuals, as suggested by the propaganda.
Some people in history have indeed claimed rights - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They are not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person must accept all rights declared for them, clearly contradicts the idea of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of consent. It is these aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for oppression. Generally, rights have the following characteristics:
* a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another person
* usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all human beings
* the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the right to be declared
* there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which constitute 'respect' of the right
* these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
* there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or restrain from certain action)
* the person with the 'right' has no moral grounds to oppose this action of respecting - even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
* therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a right, and these actions do not constitute a harm
* since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not wrong, even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person affected considers them a harm
Those are far-reaching claims by the rights theorists, and the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this summary, that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral autonomy.
Formally, what happens when a right is declared? The standard answer is: it creates a moral duty to respect it. But that is not all that happens. A right, once its existence is recognised, effectively divides all possible human actions into three categories: actions which respect that right, violations of the right, and actions which are neutral with respect to that right. Declaring a right is a declaration of a desired course of action, not necessarily action by the holders of the right. Implicitly, the declaration of a right promotes and legitimises actions to enforce that right.
Any harm to others can be justified by claiming that it is intended to respect certain 'rights', even if the victim does not know of their existence. Likewise, the right can be misinterpreted from what was originally intended to cause social harm. This is the case with the Second Amendment, which was originally intended to guarantee a Swiss style military to prevent a large standing army.
Somehow, that original intent has been perverted to prevent any regulation of firearms. A right to armed self-defence has been found where it is not explicitly present in the text. Thus a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment works against the original intent of the text, security of the free state.
Rights are not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'. Rights are clearly political in their nature. They are created by humans, not god, and specific humans for a specific reason. It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself subject to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a right, even a right that has been allegedly consented.
Even more interesting is the case when rights conflict: for example property rights and the current interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms". If a property owner disagrees with the use of firearms, say gun free zones in Universities or on Secure Installations, should the "right to keep and bear arms" trump the property owner's right to keep firearms from their property?
Likewise, if the current interpretation of the Second Amendment right leads to societal costs in the form of additional police hours at mass shooting sites, the cost of treating victims of mass shootings and so on, should that right be respected? Should those who claim that right be bear the societal costs in the form of increased taxation? Take Chris Rock's example
Would it make more sense to just tax the fuck out of bullets and reloading supplies while not bothering with firearms in "deference to the Second Amendment right"?
The basic point I am making is that the US tends to make a great deal of rights. These rights impose the value system where they originate: the European liberal tradition, in particular Anglo-American liberalism. One finds that rights are not as much of an issue in other countries as they are in the United States.
A personal example, which I have mentioned before, was of the Mormon Missionaries who were arrested by the Belgian police since the Police weren't sure what exactly Mormon missionaries did. Of course, this was well before the film "Orgazmo" was released (sorry, I had to put that in). Anyway, Belgian law allows for the police to arrest someone for 48 hours and hold them just to check them out. The Mormons were fed a baguette and a litre of coffee every 4 hours. Something which doesn't happen in the USA. These poor buggers are suffering since they can't drink coffee and don't understand why the police can just pull them off the street for no reason.
Pesonally, I thought it would be a good idea to use the Cinquantinare as a shortcut home from a meeting only to be accounsted by half the Brussels police. I stood still and answered their questions since I was only going home. I handed them my passport when they asked for my ID, which meant they had the only cop who spoke English tell me "it was very dangerous to be in the park at night". I was tempted to respond that there were enough cops there that the park should have been pretty safe. I was told to go back the way I came.
The gist of this is that I hear a lot of talk from Americans about rights of all kinds, civic, individual, collective, god given, pre-exisiting, natural, human, and so on, but what the fuck does that really mean in practise?
Rights are entitlements or permissions, usually of a legal or moral nature. Rights are of vital importance in the fields of law and ethics.
The declaration of a right is an act comparable to law-giving, in the way that kings gave law. It is essentially a command or decree: do this, don't do that. Implicitly, the law is intended for enforcement, and is assumed to create an entitlement to enforce it. So declarations of rights are 'rule', in the political science sense. Declarations of rights are therefore fundamentally political acts, acts of policy. Anyone who issues and enforces declarations of rights is exercising political power. As you would expect, it is normally governments, and inter-governmental organisations, which issue the declarations. It is not an activity of oppressed individuals, as suggested by the propaganda.
Some people in history have indeed claimed rights - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They are not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person must accept all rights declared for them, clearly contradicts the idea of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of consent. It is these aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for oppression. Generally, rights have the following characteristics:
* a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another person
* usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all human beings
* the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the right to be declared
* there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which constitute 'respect' of the right
* these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
* there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or restrain from certain action)
* the person with the 'right' has no moral grounds to oppose this action of respecting - even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
* therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a right, and these actions do not constitute a harm
* since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not wrong, even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person affected considers them a harm
Those are far-reaching claims by the rights theorists, and the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this summary, that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral autonomy.
Formally, what happens when a right is declared? The standard answer is: it creates a moral duty to respect it. But that is not all that happens. A right, once its existence is recognised, effectively divides all possible human actions into three categories: actions which respect that right, violations of the right, and actions which are neutral with respect to that right. Declaring a right is a declaration of a desired course of action, not necessarily action by the holders of the right. Implicitly, the declaration of a right promotes and legitimises actions to enforce that right.
Any harm to others can be justified by claiming that it is intended to respect certain 'rights', even if the victim does not know of their existence. Likewise, the right can be misinterpreted from what was originally intended to cause social harm. This is the case with the Second Amendment, which was originally intended to guarantee a Swiss style military to prevent a large standing army.
Somehow, that original intent has been perverted to prevent any regulation of firearms. A right to armed self-defence has been found where it is not explicitly present in the text. Thus a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment works against the original intent of the text, security of the free state.
Rights are not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'. Rights are clearly political in their nature. They are created by humans, not god, and specific humans for a specific reason. It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself subject to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a right, even a right that has been allegedly consented.
Even more interesting is the case when rights conflict: for example property rights and the current interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms". If a property owner disagrees with the use of firearms, say gun free zones in Universities or on Secure Installations, should the "right to keep and bear arms" trump the property owner's right to keep firearms from their property?
Likewise, if the current interpretation of the Second Amendment right leads to societal costs in the form of additional police hours at mass shooting sites, the cost of treating victims of mass shootings and so on, should that right be respected? Should those who claim that right be bear the societal costs in the form of increased taxation? Take Chris Rock's example
Would it make more sense to just tax the fuck out of bullets and reloading supplies while not bothering with firearms in "deference to the Second Amendment right"?
The basic point I am making is that the US tends to make a great deal of rights. These rights impose the value system where they originate: the European liberal tradition, in particular Anglo-American liberalism. One finds that rights are not as much of an issue in other countries as they are in the United States.
22 November 2009
Richard Nixon a liberal?
What is the US becoming? Somehow the topic of US health care came up at dinner last night. It seems that Richard Nixon proposed a comprehensive health care plan in 1974!:
I found it worrying when I watched a documentary and saw some of the programs Nixon brought about, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which would now be decried as socialist!
What is going on with United States Politics?
Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.
Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.
Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.
--Richard Nixon
I found it worrying when I watched a documentary and saw some of the programs Nixon brought about, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which would now be decried as socialist!
What is going on with United States Politics?
21 November 2009
Take My Freedom, Not My Gun?
Liberal Viewer has a really super video about gun control.
I don't think I need to add to what is said in this video.
One issue that needs to be raised is the disparity in funding between the "gun rights" organisations and gun control organisations. The "gun rights" organisations groups are spending in the millions whereas the gun control organisations are spending in the thousands. gun control organisations roughly spend about a tenth of what "gun rights" organisations spend.
Is that really grass roots and the will of the people or astroturf and spin?
Are we just dealing with Freedom Parrots?
I don't think I need to add to what is said in this video.
One issue that needs to be raised is the disparity in funding between the "gun rights" organisations and gun control organisations. The "gun rights" organisations groups are spending in the millions whereas the gun control organisations are spending in the thousands. gun control organisations roughly spend about a tenth of what "gun rights" organisations spend.
Is that really grass roots and the will of the people or astroturf and spin?
Are we just dealing with Freedom Parrots?
Freedom Parrot
Spiritual Story by Osho
A man, a great man, a fighter for freedom was traveling in the mountains. He stayed in a caravanserai for the night. He was amazed that in the caravanserai there was a beautiful parrot in a golden cage, continually repeating "Freedom! Freedom!" And it was such a place that when the parrot repeated the word "Freedom!" it would go on echoing in the valleys, in the mountains.
The man thought: "I have seen many parrots, and I have thought they must want to be free from those cages... but I have never seen such a parrot whose whole day, from the morning to the evening when he goes to sleep, is spent in calling out for freedom." He had an idea. In the middle of the night, when the owner was fast asleep, he got up and opened the door of the cage. He whispered to the parrot, "Now get out."
But he was very surprised that the parrot was clinging to the bars of the cage. He said to him again and again, "Have you forgotten about freedom? Just get out! The door is open and the owner is fast asleep; nobody will ever know. You just fly into the sky; the whole sky is yours."
But the parrot was clinging so deeply, so hard, that the man said, "What is the matter? Are you mad?" He tried to take the parrot out with his own hands, but the parrot started pecking at him, and at the same time he was shouting "Freedom! Freedom!" The valleys in the night echoed and re-echoed, but the man was also stubborn; he was a freedom fighter.
He pulled the parrot out and threw him into the sky; and he was very satisfied, although his hand was hurt. The parrot had attacked him as forcefully as he could, but the man was immensely satisfied that he had made a soul free. He went to sleep.
In the morning, as the man was waking up, he heart the parrot shouting, "Freedom! Freedom!" He thought perhaps the parrot must be sitting on a tree or on a rock. But when he came out, the parrot was sitting in the cage. The door was open.
More spiritual stories can be found at: http://www.spiritual-short-stories.com/
A man, a great man, a fighter for freedom was traveling in the mountains. He stayed in a caravanserai for the night. He was amazed that in the caravanserai there was a beautiful parrot in a golden cage, continually repeating "Freedom! Freedom!" And it was such a place that when the parrot repeated the word "Freedom!" it would go on echoing in the valleys, in the mountains.
The man thought: "I have seen many parrots, and I have thought they must want to be free from those cages... but I have never seen such a parrot whose whole day, from the morning to the evening when he goes to sleep, is spent in calling out for freedom." He had an idea. In the middle of the night, when the owner was fast asleep, he got up and opened the door of the cage. He whispered to the parrot, "Now get out."
But he was very surprised that the parrot was clinging to the bars of the cage. He said to him again and again, "Have you forgotten about freedom? Just get out! The door is open and the owner is fast asleep; nobody will ever know. You just fly into the sky; the whole sky is yours."
But the parrot was clinging so deeply, so hard, that the man said, "What is the matter? Are you mad?" He tried to take the parrot out with his own hands, but the parrot started pecking at him, and at the same time he was shouting "Freedom! Freedom!" The valleys in the night echoed and re-echoed, but the man was also stubborn; he was a freedom fighter.
He pulled the parrot out and threw him into the sky; and he was very satisfied, although his hand was hurt. The parrot had attacked him as forcefully as he could, but the man was immensely satisfied that he had made a soul free. He went to sleep.
In the morning, as the man was waking up, he heart the parrot shouting, "Freedom! Freedom!" He thought perhaps the parrot must be sitting on a tree or on a rock. But when he came out, the parrot was sitting in the cage. The door was open.
More spiritual stories can be found at: http://www.spiritual-short-stories.com/
19 November 2009
If you don't have a gun...
You will have assholes who drink beer in an underpass and let their dogs get off the lead. The assholes will have "terrier" dogs who attack blind people's guide dogs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8368548.stm
"What made this awful incident even more harrowing was the fact that the man made no effort to assist her or to check that she was all right once the attack was over.
The man was described by police as white, in his mid to late-20s, around 5ft 11ins and of slim build. He had a cropped beard and brownish to red hair which was cut short and was wearing black tracksuit bottoms and a grey top.
There is CCTV footage at the BBC site.
Actually, I know a lot of yanks that let their dogs run loose as well so this is serious sarcasm. I should make that clear since some people are too stupid to catch that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8368548.stm
"What made this awful incident even more harrowing was the fact that the man made no effort to assist her or to check that she was all right once the attack was over.
The man was described by police as white, in his mid to late-20s, around 5ft 11ins and of slim build. He had a cropped beard and brownish to red hair which was cut short and was wearing black tracksuit bottoms and a grey top.
There is CCTV footage at the BBC site.
Actually, I know a lot of yanks that let their dogs run loose as well so this is serious sarcasm. I should make that clear since some people are too stupid to catch that.
Am I writing propaganda?
Reading this definition:
"Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. This is contrasted to impartially providing information."
Am I trying to influence people? Not really. I do this for myself. I don't care if people read this, although I do have fans. In fact, I am very pleased with who my fans are! That's part of the reason I blow off the booboisie.
I don't worry about blog ranking, prizes, or any of that guff.
I am doing this to let off steam.
The other point is that I can't persuade some people no matter how cogent my arguments. I could come up with the most definitive analysis of why the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment is bullshit, yet these people won't accept it.
It's the Michael Bellesiles/John Lott syndrome: Bellesiles is "all lies", yet Lott is "gospel".
Yeah, yeah, I still have more Michael Bellesiles apologia, but not here. The point I am making is that Bellesiles Arming America was trashed with a broad brush.
Somehow, I think reading Arming America is akin to having read The Satanic Verses. For those not in the know, The Satanic Verses was so hard to get through there was something called the "Page 19 Club" for anyone who could get past Page 19!
I am proud to say that I a member of that organisation!
On the other hand, I think a lot of people who trashed Arming America withouth having held a copy, let alone having read it.
And you are totally insane if you read all this post (not really)! But, it's not propaganda!
"Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. This is contrasted to impartially providing information."
Am I trying to influence people? Not really. I do this for myself. I don't care if people read this, although I do have fans. In fact, I am very pleased with who my fans are! That's part of the reason I blow off the booboisie.
I don't worry about blog ranking, prizes, or any of that guff.
I am doing this to let off steam.
The other point is that I can't persuade some people no matter how cogent my arguments. I could come up with the most definitive analysis of why the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment is bullshit, yet these people won't accept it.
It's the Michael Bellesiles/John Lott syndrome: Bellesiles is "all lies", yet Lott is "gospel".
Yeah, yeah, I still have more Michael Bellesiles apologia, but not here. The point I am making is that Bellesiles Arming America was trashed with a broad brush.
Somehow, I think reading Arming America is akin to having read The Satanic Verses. For those not in the know, The Satanic Verses was so hard to get through there was something called the "Page 19 Club" for anyone who could get past Page 19!
I am proud to say that I a member of that organisation!
On the other hand, I think a lot of people who trashed Arming America withouth having held a copy, let alone having read it.
And you are totally insane if you read all this post (not really)! But, it's not propaganda!
More Norah Jones
I forgot that "Man of the Hour" was actually about her dog! Actually, I thoght there were a couple of love songs about her dog on the album. The other one being "I Wouldn't Need You".
A woman after my heart.
"The more I see of men, the better I like my dog".
A woman after my heart.
"The more I see of men, the better I like my dog".
New York State of Mind
I'm listening to Norah Jones's "Back to Manhattan" and wondering what is it with New York City that it captures people's imagination?
Seriously? I was in Fort Monmouth for 3 month and used to go there pretty much every weekend. I would notice that I would be short $100 as soon as the train entered the tunnel under the Hudson. I would go insane within 5 hours and get out.
There is no way I could handle the place for more than a weekend.
I'll make no bones about it that I prefer London, or even being in Paris, to New York. And saying I would rather be in Paris than New York tells you that NYC is theeighth circle of hell in my opinion.
Still, I have a NY playlist full of songs about the place. In balance i should mention that I also have a London playlist, about 5 different England playlists, and a Northern Soul Playlist.
New York is not America, yet people think of it as being such. So go figure?
Seriously? I was in Fort Monmouth for 3 month and used to go there pretty much every weekend. I would notice that I would be short $100 as soon as the train entered the tunnel under the Hudson. I would go insane within 5 hours and get out.
There is no way I could handle the place for more than a weekend.
I'll make no bones about it that I prefer London, or even being in Paris, to New York. And saying I would rather be in Paris than New York tells you that NYC is theeighth circle of hell in my opinion.
Still, I have a NY playlist full of songs about the place. In balance i should mention that I also have a London playlist, about 5 different England playlists, and a Northern Soul Playlist.
New York is not America, yet people think of it as being such. So go figure?
Part II
I decided it was better to divide the last post into two parts since this is really unrelated to the point I was making in my previous post. This is just me engaging in mental masturbation.
One finds that 2,000 guns cross the US-Mexico border to drug gangs.
For example, one cannot make a blanket statement that gun control does not work in reducing that number. This is especially true if we see that "one gun a month" has changed the internal dynamic of illegal guns within the US. Likewise, the only firearms registration program that has existed in the US has been the NFA: how many NFA weapons are found at crime scenes? If a firearms regulation has an effect internally, why not with guns smuggled externally?
We also know internally within the US that guns move from regions of weak regulation to those of stronger regulation. Likewise, the amount of gunrunning from Nations with strong firearms regulation is next to nil (e.g., how many crime guns come from Britain?).
The answer to Mexican Crime guns might indeed be stronger regulation of US firearms, but how likely is that to happen? the problem is that one cannot let their conclusion be clouded by their own opinions if the evidence shows that answer is stronger regulation of firearms, then that should be the conclusion. If Mexican crime guns came from New Jersey, then you might be able to show that gun control had no effect on the issue.
Another point, is that gun control isn't seen as a panacea, but as a method of reducing the flow. Looking at internal US figures, is that a possibility? I believe there are studies showing that "one gun a month" reduces the amount of crime guns from those states and the figure shifts to states without that regulation. SO, if the amount of guns IS reduced by "gun control" one cannot state there is no effect.
OK, there are a lot of factors involved in the above example, but the primary one is that the person who made it "believes in the Second Amendment" freedoms. I could assume some things from that statement, but I can see that her argument is coloured by her belief. The belief isn't challenged and the result is confusing.
That is a blanket statement that gun control will not reduce the amount of crime guns. Likewise, that whatever reduction resulted from US gun control would beneficial.
Of course, the drug lords have enough money that they could set up their own firearms factories making any gun control moot. Which is also a flawed statement on my part as I think about it. Is it more economically sound and practical to set up clandestine gun factories in Mexico? Is it more viable to smuggle guns from the US than make illegal guns in Mexico? This comes in contemplating her point about making weapons from parts kits.
Again, if it is more economically feasible to make a firearm starting from a kit and only produce a receiver in a clandestine factory (Considering all the other factors), this leaves us with a load more questions. Especially if the source for parts kits is the US. Does that mean an even tighter restriction on firearms parts?
Is the actual answer incredibly tight gun controls rather than gun controls are ineffective?
Anyway, it seems I have glommed two posts into one. More as a musing in the Second half. I do like to challenge my beliefs.
Well, I do like a challenge!
One finds that 2,000 guns cross the US-Mexico border to drug gangs.
For example, one cannot make a blanket statement that gun control does not work in reducing that number. This is especially true if we see that "one gun a month" has changed the internal dynamic of illegal guns within the US. Likewise, the only firearms registration program that has existed in the US has been the NFA: how many NFA weapons are found at crime scenes? If a firearms regulation has an effect internally, why not with guns smuggled externally?
We also know internally within the US that guns move from regions of weak regulation to those of stronger regulation. Likewise, the amount of gunrunning from Nations with strong firearms regulation is next to nil (e.g., how many crime guns come from Britain?).
The answer to Mexican Crime guns might indeed be stronger regulation of US firearms, but how likely is that to happen? the problem is that one cannot let their conclusion be clouded by their own opinions if the evidence shows that answer is stronger regulation of firearms, then that should be the conclusion. If Mexican crime guns came from New Jersey, then you might be able to show that gun control had no effect on the issue.
Another point, is that gun control isn't seen as a panacea, but as a method of reducing the flow. Looking at internal US figures, is that a possibility? I believe there are studies showing that "one gun a month" reduces the amount of crime guns from those states and the figure shifts to states without that regulation. SO, if the amount of guns IS reduced by "gun control" one cannot state there is no effect.
OK, there are a lot of factors involved in the above example, but the primary one is that the person who made it "believes in the Second Amendment" freedoms. I could assume some things from that statement, but I can see that her argument is coloured by her belief. The belief isn't challenged and the result is confusing.
That is a blanket statement that gun control will not reduce the amount of crime guns. Likewise, that whatever reduction resulted from US gun control would beneficial.
Of course, the drug lords have enough money that they could set up their own firearms factories making any gun control moot. Which is also a flawed statement on my part as I think about it. Is it more economically sound and practical to set up clandestine gun factories in Mexico? Is it more viable to smuggle guns from the US than make illegal guns in Mexico? This comes in contemplating her point about making weapons from parts kits.
Again, if it is more economically feasible to make a firearm starting from a kit and only produce a receiver in a clandestine factory (Considering all the other factors), this leaves us with a load more questions. Especially if the source for parts kits is the US. Does that mean an even tighter restriction on firearms parts?
Is the actual answer incredibly tight gun controls rather than gun controls are ineffective?
Anyway, it seems I have glommed two posts into one. More as a musing in the Second half. I do like to challenge my beliefs.
Well, I do like a challenge!
You're not as smart as you think...
I've wanted to follow up on my corollary to my previous post about brainwashing and propaganda.
That's brainwashing, mind control, thought reform, coercive persuasion, influence, manipulation or the subversion of an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making.
Part of recognizing propaganda techniques is to know what they are and how they are used. Most people don't, which is why they are easily swayed.
Of course, the emotional techniques, especially those used by the "gun cretins" is highly effective and pretty much text book for being propaganda techniques.
I have a great example that I won't give, except in generalities, where a "gun cretin" is so oblivious of propaganda techniques that his argument shoots him in the foot. The premise of his argument is stated after something he wants to portray as false. Actually, it's buttressed by what he is trying to disprove. Fortunately, the way he states it, he ends up stating what he believes to be false.
I am being purposefully vague since I agree with what he believes is false. I have shared this with other people who agree with me that he is being unintentionally counterproductive to his cause. On the other hand, I don't want to publicly point out that he is supporting my point of view if this fucker is so clueless as to miss what he is doing!
Thank you for being a total dildo and not being able to spot that, guy! If only you knew what a dumbfuck you were being maybe you might get your shit together. Then again...
The problem goes to something I commented on in Man With the Muckrake's Gene change in cannibals reveals evolution in action post:
These people don't want to think. They don't want to challenge their beliefs. They restrict their reading and/or viewing material. The idea is to insulate people from any opposing points of view, to persuade them of a point of view. Any material that might be contradictory to the "line" is censored and taken out of context to change meaning.
We could hope that people discover critical thinking, although that seems highly unlikely given the strong anti-intellectual bias in the US. The ability to think critically involves three things:
The problem is that one needs to challenge one's beliefs, especially in the light of contradictory evidence.
That's brainwashing, mind control, thought reform, coercive persuasion, influence, manipulation or the subversion of an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making.
Part of recognizing propaganda techniques is to know what they are and how they are used. Most people don't, which is why they are easily swayed.
Of course, the emotional techniques, especially those used by the "gun cretins" is highly effective and pretty much text book for being propaganda techniques.
I have a great example that I won't give, except in generalities, where a "gun cretin" is so oblivious of propaganda techniques that his argument shoots him in the foot. The premise of his argument is stated after something he wants to portray as false. Actually, it's buttressed by what he is trying to disprove. Fortunately, the way he states it, he ends up stating what he believes to be false.
I am being purposefully vague since I agree with what he believes is false. I have shared this with other people who agree with me that he is being unintentionally counterproductive to his cause. On the other hand, I don't want to publicly point out that he is supporting my point of view if this fucker is so clueless as to miss what he is doing!
Thank you for being a total dildo and not being able to spot that, guy! If only you knew what a dumbfuck you were being maybe you might get your shit together. Then again...
The problem goes to something I commented on in Man With the Muckrake's Gene change in cannibals reveals evolution in action post:
You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a Pavlovian manner. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
Studies show the brain is wired to get a quick high from reading things that agree with our point of view. The same studies proved that, strangely, we also get a rush from intentionally dismissing information that disagrees, no matter how well supported it is.
Therefore, facts tell nothing to him, even if you shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures: he will refuse to believe it.
These people don't want to think. They don't want to challenge their beliefs. They restrict their reading and/or viewing material. The idea is to insulate people from any opposing points of view, to persuade them of a point of view. Any material that might be contradictory to the "line" is censored and taken out of context to change meaning.
We could hope that people discover critical thinking, although that seems highly unlikely given the strong anti-intellectual bias in the US. The ability to think critically involves three things:
1. An attitude of being disposed (state of mind regarding something) to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences,
2. Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning,
3. Some skill in applying those methods.
Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent(relevant) information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.
The problem is that one needs to challenge one's beliefs, especially in the light of contradictory evidence.
18 November 2009
Dumb Question time...
So, what exactly do the Bloomberg and Brady folks do with the guns they buy at gun shows?
I mean you see videos where they plunk down cash for firearms and then walk off with them.
Other than the because they can, why do this?
Do they take them and have them destroyed? Do they turn them over to law enforcement?
Or do they turn them into art like this bike rack made by Guns into Art?
I mean you see videos where they plunk down cash for firearms and then walk off with them.
Other than the because they can, why do this?
Do they take them and have them destroyed? Do they turn them over to law enforcement?
Or do they turn them into art like this bike rack made by Guns into Art?
I couldn't say it better myself..
I keep wanting to do a post on using "Wedge Issues" as a distraction. Then, this video turned up in some research I was doing for the previous post.
Song by Tommy Roz. From the description:
Song by Tommy Roz. From the description:
What makes a poor man vote for a rich polititian? All this and more are explored in a singing indictment of America Gone Wild! An entertaining yet forboding parody of the current political and social landscape which suggests that the only thing standing in the way of a second civil war is a third world war. So hold onto your helmets! It looks like it's time for Armegeddon again.
There's hope yet
Man With the Muckrake has an interesting post about how exposure to chemicals in the brains of male foeti change change their patterns of play. In this study, the frequency of engaging in "typically masculine play" decreased with a greater foetal exposure to certain phthalates in males.
Muckrake asks: "If the phthalate exposure neutralizes the male aggressive gene, will the military find it more difficult to find recruits to fight in future wars?"
This could prove yet another glitch in the gun lobby's attempt to raise sales in a saturated market. I mean who will buy firearms if males become less aggressive? Of course, they can raise the panic level the way gun cretins usually do by creating fear of crime.
Will this change the attitude of the pro-life crowd since they don't want to procreate "effeminate" males? Will they use Amniocentesis to deterine that they kid won't be macho? I mean they want those macho men who love the smell of gunpowder instead of wimps who think guns are dirty, loud, and noisy.
Muckrake asks: "If the phthalate exposure neutralizes the male aggressive gene, will the military find it more difficult to find recruits to fight in future wars?"
This could prove yet another glitch in the gun lobby's attempt to raise sales in a saturated market. I mean who will buy firearms if males become less aggressive? Of course, they can raise the panic level the way gun cretins usually do by creating fear of crime.
Will this change the attitude of the pro-life crowd since they don't want to procreate "effeminate" males? Will they use Amniocentesis to deterine that they kid won't be macho? I mean they want those macho men who love the smell of gunpowder instead of wimps who think guns are dirty, loud, and noisy.
Makes one want to become a Luddite.
Citygirl at Mudflap Bubba's had some criticism about her Blackberry. This follows on that line.
My Senior has been trying to get me to buy one of the things. There is indeed a temptation since my Palm pilot is totally wonky. The digitiser makes using it quite interesting. Fortunately, I am clever enough to have some work arounds for this problem.
I really only need the thing because I have to keep a diary of court appearances. And, it amuses me whilst sitting in Court. Despite the Courtroom dramas, being in Court is boring as fuck.
There are disadvantages to reading in court. One being that some tipstaffs will tell you that you can't read (unless it's a brief). Of course, you can only read a brief so many times. The other problem is if the book is engrossing in anyway, you will lose attention to what is going on in court.
That means play games on the old palm. I usually play Solitaire (Bristol is my fave version since it is pretty easy), but I have Nine Men's Moris, Go, Tetris, Chess, Monopoly, Scrabble, and Dope Wars. The last one was given to me by someone who was representing the prosecution, which seemed ironic. Scrabble using my rules can be too amusing for court.
I refuse to give up my toy!
Anyway, I had this computer security panic that my Senior's (the QC I trail after) e-mail account was compromised. That meant I decided to change his password, which buggered up the e-mail being sent to the Blackberry. Thus, I was sent to the mobile phone shop where QC is a "regular" (he has 20 phones and a seriously addictive personality).
The rep sorted us out. But it was far more complicated than I would like.
Not to mention I see the new phones on the market. It seems that the iPhone is becoming the trend. I just want a bloody phone and none of the other crap for chrissake. I'd probably get rid of the mobile altogether except it is useful when traveling.
Otherwise, mobiles are the bane of modern existance: especially the morons walking down the street or elsewhere texting. I could go on a long rant about mobile phone rudeness.
Here is a nice fantasy from Mobile to end this post.
WARNING: VIOLENT AS ALL GET OUT!
My Senior has been trying to get me to buy one of the things. There is indeed a temptation since my Palm pilot is totally wonky. The digitiser makes using it quite interesting. Fortunately, I am clever enough to have some work arounds for this problem.
I really only need the thing because I have to keep a diary of court appearances. And, it amuses me whilst sitting in Court. Despite the Courtroom dramas, being in Court is boring as fuck.
There are disadvantages to reading in court. One being that some tipstaffs will tell you that you can't read (unless it's a brief). Of course, you can only read a brief so many times. The other problem is if the book is engrossing in anyway, you will lose attention to what is going on in court.
That means play games on the old palm. I usually play Solitaire (Bristol is my fave version since it is pretty easy), but I have Nine Men's Moris, Go, Tetris, Chess, Monopoly, Scrabble, and Dope Wars. The last one was given to me by someone who was representing the prosecution, which seemed ironic. Scrabble using my rules can be too amusing for court.
I refuse to give up my toy!
Anyway, I had this computer security panic that my Senior's (the QC I trail after) e-mail account was compromised. That meant I decided to change his password, which buggered up the e-mail being sent to the Blackberry. Thus, I was sent to the mobile phone shop where QC is a "regular" (he has 20 phones and a seriously addictive personality).
The rep sorted us out. But it was far more complicated than I would like.
Not to mention I see the new phones on the market. It seems that the iPhone is becoming the trend. I just want a bloody phone and none of the other crap for chrissake. I'd probably get rid of the mobile altogether except it is useful when traveling.
Otherwise, mobiles are the bane of modern existance: especially the morons walking down the street or elsewhere texting. I could go on a long rant about mobile phone rudeness.
Here is a nice fantasy from Mobile to end this post.
WARNING: VIOLENT AS ALL GET OUT!
My ideal job...
I've always wanted a job like Bernard Woolley from the Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister Series. The title is Minister's Principal Private Secretary, but otherwise seems to have no real job other than being a nanny for Jim Hacker.
Being able to tell Sir Humphrey that Greek, unlike Latin, has no ablative case and generally act smart with no real purpose is appealing to me. That's why I like to blog.
But, unlike blogging, being a Minister's Principal Private Secretary would mean civil service bennies and a steady paycheque!
Yipee!
Being able to tell Sir Humphrey that Greek, unlike Latin, has no ablative case and generally act smart with no real purpose is appealing to me. That's why I like to blog.
But, unlike blogging, being a Minister's Principal Private Secretary would mean civil service bennies and a steady paycheque!
Yipee!
17 November 2009
Assault weapons ban and Mexican drug gang guns
I have to admit to mixed feelings from reading a post at Mexico's Drug War that rips the assault weapons ban and reinstating it to stop Mexican gang from acquiring firepower.
She states she isn't a firearms expert, which gives me a bit of an advantage over her.
I have to agree her that the Assault Weapons Ban was pretty effete. Personally, I think assault weapons should be regulated as machineguns. Although, it is way too late for that to happen.
She also points out the availability of parts kits and building assault weapons with those kits. Good point for somebody who isn't a firearms expert. Of course, one could just as well build a gun from scratch as use a parts kit.
Sylvia also has a great article on the The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. where she says that presents a "misleading and inaccurate picture of the weapons trafficking problem that ultimately does a great disservice to the agencies that actively work southbound weapons trafficking issues."
Sylvia points out "bottom line, between non-assault weapons, legal parts kits, and the straw purchase method, renewing the assault weapons ban - or enacting other types of gun control laws - would serve more as window dressing than an actual deterrent to the southbound flow of guns."
I guess I have to agree with her: the Assault Wepons Ban needs to be much tougher. Although, I disagree about the blanket statement about other types of gun control as a deterrent. The weak laws that get on the books won't stop dick, but registration, purchase limits and reporting stolen weapons do work as a deterrent.
But how likely is any form of gun control or serious assault weapons legislation to happen?
She states she isn't a firearms expert, which gives me a bit of an advantage over her.
I have to agree her that the Assault Weapons Ban was pretty effete. Personally, I think assault weapons should be regulated as machineguns. Although, it is way too late for that to happen.
She also points out the availability of parts kits and building assault weapons with those kits. Good point for somebody who isn't a firearms expert. Of course, one could just as well build a gun from scratch as use a parts kit.
Sylvia also has a great article on the The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. where she says that presents a "misleading and inaccurate picture of the weapons trafficking problem that ultimately does a great disservice to the agencies that actively work southbound weapons trafficking issues."
Sylvia points out "bottom line, between non-assault weapons, legal parts kits, and the straw purchase method, renewing the assault weapons ban - or enacting other types of gun control laws - would serve more as window dressing than an actual deterrent to the southbound flow of guns."
I guess I have to agree with her: the Assault Wepons Ban needs to be much tougher. Although, I disagree about the blanket statement about other types of gun control as a deterrent. The weak laws that get on the books won't stop dick, but registration, purchase limits and reporting stolen weapons do work as a deterrent.
But how likely is any form of gun control or serious assault weapons legislation to happen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
