Sunday, July 30, 2006
Ace post on Deb Frisch
My comment on his thread:
(if you don't know what this is about, do a search)
Everything you said above could be perfectly substituted by:
She's a homosexual and an academic lesbiunnn, right? In the academic/homo world her behavior is not really all that outrageous. Seriously. As an outsider who must now and than make forays into academia, I can tell you first hand that there are lots of homo/bi people who talk and behave like DF. Our colleges and universities, primarily the humanities deparments, are loaded with such creatures. Their rhetoric, when they are among themselves and discussing their "enemies" (conservatives, Republicans, Martians, etc.) is typically violent and abusive in the extreme. They talk like bolshevik commissars drawing up lists of the ideologically impure to execute or attack as full of hate is they don't follow the pig party brainwashed line of thought regarding sexuality.
And that's when they aren't discussing who to sexually harass next or putting it into practice.
You give power to pigs and this is what happens. Animal Farm had it laid out very simply decades ago.
p.s. I'll be copying some of my comments here, because sometimes I want to write related stuff to them later.
(if you don't know what this is about, do a search)
Ed Snate commented: She's an academic, right? In the academic world her behavior is not really all that outrageous. Seriously. As an outsider who must now and than make forays into academia, I can tell you first hand that there are lots of people who talk and behave like DF. Our colleges and universities, primarily the humanities deparments, are loaded with such creatures. Their rhetoric, when they are among themselves and discussing their "enemies" (conservatives, Republicans, Martians, etc.) is typically violent and abusive in the extreme. They talk like bolshevik commissars drawing up lists of the ideologically impure to execute.
Everything you said above could be perfectly substituted by:
She's a homosexual and an academic lesbiunnn, right? In the academic/homo world her behavior is not really all that outrageous. Seriously. As an outsider who must now and than make forays into academia, I can tell you first hand that there are lots of homo/bi people who talk and behave like DF. Our colleges and universities, primarily the humanities deparments, are loaded with such creatures. Their rhetoric, when they are among themselves and discussing their "enemies" (conservatives, Republicans, Martians, etc.) is typically violent and abusive in the extreme. They talk like bolshevik commissars drawing up lists of the ideologically impure to execute or attack as full of hate is they don't follow the pig party brainwashed line of thought regarding sexuality.
And that's when they aren't discussing who to sexually harass next or putting it into practice.
You give power to pigs and this is what happens. Animal Farm had it laid out very simply decades ago.
p.s. I'll be copying some of my comments here, because sometimes I want to write related stuff to them later.
IP locator
IP Address Locator Tool
This IP Address Map lookup service is provided for FREE by Geobytes, inc to assist you in locating the geographical location of an IP Address. Click here to checkout our other FREE localization services.
Saw it on Ace's.
This IP Address Map lookup service is provided for FREE by Geobytes, inc to assist you in locating the geographical location of an IP Address. Click here to checkout our other FREE localization services.
Saw it on Ace's.
Religion train of reflections
I have been thinking about the fundamental problem of a church setting, specially a Christian one, where you have all kinds of crap of people come to Church, prance about, participate in rituals, etc and they all think that's what Christianity amounts to. For a lot of people, as long as they babble some Bible verses, say a few Praise-the-Lord's - that is enough to exempt them from an entire life of lack of character or a putrid mind or sordid actions - usually huge disgusting gobs of all previous three combined. An attitude I find particularly despicable, but which is very, very common. And I am particularly irritated to see pigs of people participating in rituals in a Church. I wouldn't mind it so much if they just sat in the "audience," but when you see slime of people put on a pious face and go up there to do main rituals, I am revulsed.
In the Catholic Church, you have the problem with so many diseased priests and a corrupt, autocratic hierarchy. In the Protestant Churches you have so many junk of people who participate in the rituals and the higher echelons of the Churches, even if they are not clergy. The issue is if you are going to make a Church open to anyone, it will always result in this problem. Apparently it does not bother too many people. In fact, it seems for many Church-going people, the more pigs in a Church, the more they fit in or the more they have things to gossip about. I personally find it repulsive.
So I was thinking about a different format. I think going to Church once a week is cool if there is an important message from the clergy each week. For me, that should be the main objective of a service. However, then I think people could form very small groups (such as 4-6 people) to discuss what was preached. And you have to like and respect the other people, it's like a mutual choice, not groups one is assigned to. I don't like Bible study groups, because on the whole I find the discussions so stupid. I don't think the Bible has much to offer alone, a lot more has been written in better and more sophisticated ways for guiding people about their lives. Evidently you can see that I am not a Christian by certain criteria, but am partially by others. Just as I am partially a lot of other religions. Or if there cannot be a "partial" definition to belonging to a certain religion, than I have my own religion.
On a related note, but a completely different subject, a couple of weeks ago I saw a documentary that had a most promising title, but turned out to be another junkumentary production. A "junkumentary" is one of those cheaply churned out television "documentaries" that have no intellectual depth whatsoever, more like a series of inane comments filling the junctures between endless meaningless glossy film takes. On the whole, highly unsatisfactory and a waste of time. But the subtitle was regarding the transition of cultures who had many gods to a monotheistic system that remains quite prevalent still in our modern times in many of the main mass religions. Why did this monumental shift happen and became dominant? I know there are some good books on the subject (polytheistic vs monotheistic), but apparently no one has produced a good documentary on it yet. And I am not about to go and read the books because this subject is of tangential interest to me.
I have always perceived Catholicism in particular to be polytheistic - but a certain disguised polytheism, in a different way than the ancient Greek or Roman religions, for example, which stated outright their polytheism. Because in Catholicism, first of all, you have the duality of God and Jesus (more than one) and then you have the whole pantheon of saints - who for many people function as second-level gods - they worship them, they pray for them, etc. Just like for the Romans and Greeks you had the big celebrity gods and then the minor ones, but for which people prayed for as well regarding different deeds, pledges, situations. In Catholicism, in addition, you also have Mary, who became revered like a semi-god, and is of course, female. So Catholicism to me is far from being strictly monotheistic.
Another related subject I find fascinating are the changes in the representation of God, specially in this last century. The modern "God" I see portrayed in many protestant churches nowadays seems to have completely lost the punitive, terrorizing, brazen aspects that were one of the main imprints in the Middle Ages and closer up to the modern ages, although many Christians seem to still love the "lord/master" aspect of God.
The "lord" characteristic relates to what is a really sick aspect of a lot of Christians: how they love to resign to other people's suffering and malaise - to the point that many revel in it. "It's the will of god" is the explanation dogmatically applied in millions of situations that could have been 1) avoided, because they were the result of human evil doing; 2) not gone unpunished or unresolved, because again, people could have acted differently in the aftermath. Many religious folks are really shamefully egoistic and insensitive and this passivity is nothing but a tremendous self-serving cowardice in the face of evil. Another thing that makes me disgusted with many religious people I have contact with.
In the Catholic Church, you have the problem with so many diseased priests and a corrupt, autocratic hierarchy. In the Protestant Churches you have so many junk of people who participate in the rituals and the higher echelons of the Churches, even if they are not clergy. The issue is if you are going to make a Church open to anyone, it will always result in this problem. Apparently it does not bother too many people. In fact, it seems for many Church-going people, the more pigs in a Church, the more they fit in or the more they have things to gossip about. I personally find it repulsive.
So I was thinking about a different format. I think going to Church once a week is cool if there is an important message from the clergy each week. For me, that should be the main objective of a service. However, then I think people could form very small groups (such as 4-6 people) to discuss what was preached. And you have to like and respect the other people, it's like a mutual choice, not groups one is assigned to. I don't like Bible study groups, because on the whole I find the discussions so stupid. I don't think the Bible has much to offer alone, a lot more has been written in better and more sophisticated ways for guiding people about their lives. Evidently you can see that I am not a Christian by certain criteria, but am partially by others. Just as I am partially a lot of other religions. Or if there cannot be a "partial" definition to belonging to a certain religion, than I have my own religion.
On a related note, but a completely different subject, a couple of weeks ago I saw a documentary that had a most promising title, but turned out to be another junkumentary production. A "junkumentary" is one of those cheaply churned out television "documentaries" that have no intellectual depth whatsoever, more like a series of inane comments filling the junctures between endless meaningless glossy film takes. On the whole, highly unsatisfactory and a waste of time. But the subtitle was regarding the transition of cultures who had many gods to a monotheistic system that remains quite prevalent still in our modern times in many of the main mass religions. Why did this monumental shift happen and became dominant? I know there are some good books on the subject (polytheistic vs monotheistic), but apparently no one has produced a good documentary on it yet. And I am not about to go and read the books because this subject is of tangential interest to me.
I have always perceived Catholicism in particular to be polytheistic - but a certain disguised polytheism, in a different way than the ancient Greek or Roman religions, for example, which stated outright their polytheism. Because in Catholicism, first of all, you have the duality of God and Jesus (more than one) and then you have the whole pantheon of saints - who for many people function as second-level gods - they worship them, they pray for them, etc. Just like for the Romans and Greeks you had the big celebrity gods and then the minor ones, but for which people prayed for as well regarding different deeds, pledges, situations. In Catholicism, in addition, you also have Mary, who became revered like a semi-god, and is of course, female. So Catholicism to me is far from being strictly monotheistic.
Another related subject I find fascinating are the changes in the representation of God, specially in this last century. The modern "God" I see portrayed in many protestant churches nowadays seems to have completely lost the punitive, terrorizing, brazen aspects that were one of the main imprints in the Middle Ages and closer up to the modern ages, although many Christians seem to still love the "lord/master" aspect of God.
The "lord" characteristic relates to what is a really sick aspect of a lot of Christians: how they love to resign to other people's suffering and malaise - to the point that many revel in it. "It's the will of god" is the explanation dogmatically applied in millions of situations that could have been 1) avoided, because they were the result of human evil doing; 2) not gone unpunished or unresolved, because again, people could have acted differently in the aftermath. Many religious folks are really shamefully egoistic and insensitive and this passivity is nothing but a tremendous self-serving cowardice in the face of evil. Another thing that makes me disgusted with many religious people I have contact with.
Mel Hell
Lovely.
Proof that he owns a lot more than just little Malibu.
p.s. and he looks like a total madman in the photo! What's with the beard? It makes him look like a hobo.
Proof that he owns a lot more than just little Malibu.
p.s. and he looks like a total madman in the photo! What's with the beard? It makes him look like a hobo.
Kill all the children?
34 Youths Among 56 Dead in Israeli Attack
Israeli said it targeted Qana because it was a base for hundreds of rockets launched at Israeli, including 40 that injured five Israelis on Sunday. Israel said it had warned civilians several days before to leave the village.
"One must understand the Hezbollah is using their own civilian population as human shields," said Israeli Foreign Ministry official Gideon Meir. "The Israeli defense forces dropped leaflets and warned the civilian population to leave the place because the Hezbollah turned it into a war zone."
[So what are they going to do, kill all the civilians?]
Rescuers aided by villagers dug through the rubble by hand. At least 20 bodies wrapped in white sheets were taken away, including 10 children. A row of houses lay in ruins, and an old woman was carried away on a plastic chair.
Villagers said many of the dead were from four families who had taken refuge in on the ground floor of a three-story building, believing they would be safe from bombings.
"We want this to stop!" shouted Mohammed Ismail, a middle-aged man pulling away at the rubble in search for bodies, his brown pants covered in dust. "May God have mercy on the children. They came here to escape the fighting."
Israeli said it targeted Qana because it was a base for hundreds of rockets launched at Israeli, including 40 that injured five Israelis on Sunday. Israel said it had warned civilians several days before to leave the village.
"One must understand the Hezbollah is using their own civilian population as human shields," said Israeli Foreign Ministry official Gideon Meir. "The Israeli defense forces dropped leaflets and warned the civilian population to leave the place because the Hezbollah turned it into a war zone."
[So what are they going to do, kill all the civilians?]
Rescuers aided by villagers dug through the rubble by hand. At least 20 bodies wrapped in white sheets were taken away, including 10 children. A row of houses lay in ruins, and an old woman was carried away on a plastic chair.
Villagers said many of the dead were from four families who had taken refuge in on the ground floor of a three-story building, believing they would be safe from bombings.
"We want this to stop!" shouted Mohammed Ismail, a middle-aged man pulling away at the rubble in search for bodies, his brown pants covered in dust. "May God have mercy on the children. They came here to escape the fighting."
Friday, July 28, 2006
What headlines I've been reading...
Cycling left dying on its wheels amid overdose of greed, contempt and sham
By Simon Barnes
THIS is no longer a viable sport. I don’t think we can duck this conclusion. The likelihood that Floyd Landis, the dramatic and brilliant winner of the Tour de France, was stoned out of his head on testosterone is the final nail in the coffin. Professional cycling, of the stage-racing kind, has lost all credibility.
Such a shame.
Sport is dead when citius, altius, fortius is replaced by fixius, drugius, corruptiusBy Simon Barnes
[...] Today, we expect to hear the decisions on the Italian football match-fixing scandal. Matches and, by extension, championships have been won not by the brilliance of footballers, but by clout, money, pressure, nudges, winks, what’s in it for me and we’ll see you right. The football itself is a sham, going through the motions. The real action takes place on the telephone in the weeks before the game.
[...] Every time a drugs story hits the sports pages, there are letters written by smart alecs who ask: “Why bother to catch them? Why not let them take anything they want and let the best pharmacist win?” The fact is that people who like sport don’t want to watch doped athletes.
[...] These three things — match-fixing, race-fixing, institutionalised drugging — come down to the same thing, and it is the greatest error in all of professional sport. The error in question is that sport is about winning. Winning at all costs. That winning is not the most important thing, but the only thing.
In other words, too much money, too easily given out.
People are so hungry for entertainment, aren't they? They just want to devour gobs of it. And will dish out colossal amounts of money for it.
And you know that other thing that irritates me profoundly in sports? It's the fabrication of a false hero, which most atheletes are - an egotistical little maniac who doesn't do anything relevant to any serious problem in the world but who is continuously lauded by other morons and glorified beyond belief.
I mean, what big achievement is it to kick a ball into some rectangular area? Or use a little shtick to tap another little sphere into a hole? Or fling some bouncing ball over a net? Did they save a single life doing that? No. Did they find a cure for a disease? No. Did they do anything meaningful? NO. It's like a circus clown, who succeeds in twirling 5 pins all at once. Bravo. But the sports commentators language just revel in hero-speak. Yes, he went through grueling training for years to twirl those five pins! His discipline! His courage! Not 2, not 3, but 5 pins! He has class as he twirls, he is very talented with pins! No one can twirl a pin like he can. He didn't know if he was going to be able to twirl all five pins up to the last moment... suspense! And so it goes... but what did he really do? Nothing. A clown -- in a world avid and desperate for entertainment.
And if there are millions of dollars to be grabbed if you twirl your pin just a little higher than the rest, well, there you go. The end of anything even remotely beautiful. Even the artificial sports spinned tale of a "big achievement" in life is destroyed and the swamp swells and takes over.
By Simon Barnes
THIS is no longer a viable sport. I don’t think we can duck this conclusion. The likelihood that Floyd Landis, the dramatic and brilliant winner of the Tour de France, was stoned out of his head on testosterone is the final nail in the coffin. Professional cycling, of the stage-racing kind, has lost all credibility.
Such a shame.
Sport is dead when citius, altius, fortius is replaced by fixius, drugius, corruptiusBy Simon Barnes
[...] Today, we expect to hear the decisions on the Italian football match-fixing scandal. Matches and, by extension, championships have been won not by the brilliance of footballers, but by clout, money, pressure, nudges, winks, what’s in it for me and we’ll see you right. The football itself is a sham, going through the motions. The real action takes place on the telephone in the weeks before the game.
[...] Every time a drugs story hits the sports pages, there are letters written by smart alecs who ask: “Why bother to catch them? Why not let them take anything they want and let the best pharmacist win?” The fact is that people who like sport don’t want to watch doped athletes.
[...] These three things — match-fixing, race-fixing, institutionalised drugging — come down to the same thing, and it is the greatest error in all of professional sport. The error in question is that sport is about winning. Winning at all costs. That winning is not the most important thing, but the only thing.
In other words, too much money, too easily given out.
People are so hungry for entertainment, aren't they? They just want to devour gobs of it. And will dish out colossal amounts of money for it.
And you know that other thing that irritates me profoundly in sports? It's the fabrication of a false hero, which most atheletes are - an egotistical little maniac who doesn't do anything relevant to any serious problem in the world but who is continuously lauded by other morons and glorified beyond belief.
I mean, what big achievement is it to kick a ball into some rectangular area? Or use a little shtick to tap another little sphere into a hole? Or fling some bouncing ball over a net? Did they save a single life doing that? No. Did they find a cure for a disease? No. Did they do anything meaningful? NO. It's like a circus clown, who succeeds in twirling 5 pins all at once. Bravo. But the sports commentators language just revel in hero-speak. Yes, he went through grueling training for years to twirl those five pins! His discipline! His courage! Not 2, not 3, but 5 pins! He has class as he twirls, he is very talented with pins! No one can twirl a pin like he can. He didn't know if he was going to be able to twirl all five pins up to the last moment... suspense! And so it goes... but what did he really do? Nothing. A clown -- in a world avid and desperate for entertainment.
And if there are millions of dollars to be grabbed if you twirl your pin just a little higher than the rest, well, there you go. The end of anything even remotely beautiful. Even the artificial sports spinned tale of a "big achievement" in life is destroyed and the swamp swells and takes over.
New gmail email address!
I've changed to Gmail. Please write to AlessandraReflections@gmail.com (it's not case sensitive, but it's just easier to read like that).
Q, could you send me a test email, please?
Q, could you send me a test email, please?
sketchup
This looks very cool! Easy and practical. Of course, you need to buy the PRO version if you want to export movie clips :-/ They should have named it Ketchup. :-D
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Just like a horror film.
That's what it feels like talking to this guy. So I met this guy, let's call him Jay - who is a stupid, incredibly dumb liberal (with some other traits), who doesn't even begin to imagine just how different our views are - and the guy was interested in dating me even after talking to me for awhile!
So, one conversation goes by and it becomes clear as daylight to me that we don't agree on a single thing - have you had a conversation like this? It's like a horror film. Not one single thing matches regarding our understanding of reality or life. And what freaks me out is that after talking for a sufficient time to have this be as stark as it can be - it's somehow not absolutely clear to him! It's not even dimly clear! It doesn't even begin to dawn on him. This is a problem with liberals and other such people, they are so lacking in consciousness about what trash they are, that in their own minds, they think they are swell.
For example, I told him about a guy who is a racist jerk, someone I know personally, that Jay has never met or seen - and guess what Jay replies? "There is no racism in this country." Flat. Categorically. "Maybe he isn't nice, but this guy you know is not a racist, because there is no racism in this country." And Jay was very serious and he didn't like being contradicted. And I am totally freaked out. Extreme denial. There isn't even a tiny breach, like, there is a tiny minority of people who are racists. No, it's absolute - there is NO RACISM. Period. "What psycho medication are you on?" I thought. "Wouldn't it be nice if there were medication involved because then it wouldn't be your freakin' mind that was so warped?" I added to myself.
Has Jay ever taken a walk around the block? Apparently not. But Jay has a chained brain that cannot face that many people are racist.
I hate these so-called "normal" people who are so totally demented psychologically. They have the most skewed brains and apparently they don't notice it. (Like most pro-homosexuals - which I am sure Jay is also). It's like the diseased Elais, who fervently believes ALL homosexuals are ALL nice ALWAYS. Flat. Dogmatic. Blind. It's the mind of idiots - and so many of them are in important positions in life - making decisions with their diseased minds that are so detrimental to society.
I just keep wondering - how can you have such a diseased mind - and never do anything about it? How can your level of denial be so extreme? How can you not have any consciousness whatsoever?
After having to hear this idiot Jay make a series of such blind, dogmatic statements that were completely demented vis a vis reality, I deduced something very intriguing. Everything that Jay denied existing was something that was different from his own experience. For example, he had never experienced racism, THEREFORE, there was no racism - for anyone else. In other words, "I am the world, the world is me, everything begins and ends with me and my belly-button version of human experience." Extreme egotism. Total arrested psychological development.
And something else just occurred to me right now. Jay, who works for a left-wing organization, like many stupid liberals, has picked up some of these faddish social science theories that he likes to apply in the most schizophrenic ways to people in situations that have nothing to do with such theories. Guess what was one of his BIG explanations to everything in the world? The fear of the "other" or "otherness." If you've had any contact with social sciences in the last decades, you know what a fad this was.
Now, what is a person who simply cannot face that other people have experiences different than their own? This is someone who is profoundly afraid of difference, of "otherness." More than fearful, I would say, I perceived Jay as anxiety-ridden regarding any experience that contradicted his. By plopping this "fear of others" dogma on all these other people, Jay was projecting onto others something that profoundly shapes his own mental/psychological dynamics but which apparently he has no awareness of whatsoever. And why does this happen? One explanation could be severe arrested development - therefore Jay has a lack of a capacity to differentiate between his self and others.
Anyways, I find such people so frightening. Not to mention irritating.
So, one conversation goes by and it becomes clear as daylight to me that we don't agree on a single thing - have you had a conversation like this? It's like a horror film. Not one single thing matches regarding our understanding of reality or life. And what freaks me out is that after talking for a sufficient time to have this be as stark as it can be - it's somehow not absolutely clear to him! It's not even dimly clear! It doesn't even begin to dawn on him. This is a problem with liberals and other such people, they are so lacking in consciousness about what trash they are, that in their own minds, they think they are swell.
For example, I told him about a guy who is a racist jerk, someone I know personally, that Jay has never met or seen - and guess what Jay replies? "There is no racism in this country." Flat. Categorically. "Maybe he isn't nice, but this guy you know is not a racist, because there is no racism in this country." And Jay was very serious and he didn't like being contradicted. And I am totally freaked out. Extreme denial. There isn't even a tiny breach, like, there is a tiny minority of people who are racists. No, it's absolute - there is NO RACISM. Period. "What psycho medication are you on?" I thought. "Wouldn't it be nice if there were medication involved because then it wouldn't be your freakin' mind that was so warped?" I added to myself.
Has Jay ever taken a walk around the block? Apparently not. But Jay has a chained brain that cannot face that many people are racist.
I hate these so-called "normal" people who are so totally demented psychologically. They have the most skewed brains and apparently they don't notice it. (Like most pro-homosexuals - which I am sure Jay is also). It's like the diseased Elais, who fervently believes ALL homosexuals are ALL nice ALWAYS. Flat. Dogmatic. Blind. It's the mind of idiots - and so many of them are in important positions in life - making decisions with their diseased minds that are so detrimental to society.
I just keep wondering - how can you have such a diseased mind - and never do anything about it? How can your level of denial be so extreme? How can you not have any consciousness whatsoever?
After having to hear this idiot Jay make a series of such blind, dogmatic statements that were completely demented vis a vis reality, I deduced something very intriguing. Everything that Jay denied existing was something that was different from his own experience. For example, he had never experienced racism, THEREFORE, there was no racism - for anyone else. In other words, "I am the world, the world is me, everything begins and ends with me and my belly-button version of human experience." Extreme egotism. Total arrested psychological development.
And something else just occurred to me right now. Jay, who works for a left-wing organization, like many stupid liberals, has picked up some of these faddish social science theories that he likes to apply in the most schizophrenic ways to people in situations that have nothing to do with such theories. Guess what was one of his BIG explanations to everything in the world? The fear of the "other" or "otherness." If you've had any contact with social sciences in the last decades, you know what a fad this was.
Now, what is a person who simply cannot face that other people have experiences different than their own? This is someone who is profoundly afraid of difference, of "otherness." More than fearful, I would say, I perceived Jay as anxiety-ridden regarding any experience that contradicted his. By plopping this "fear of others" dogma on all these other people, Jay was projecting onto others something that profoundly shapes his own mental/psychological dynamics but which apparently he has no awareness of whatsoever. And why does this happen? One explanation could be severe arrested development - therefore Jay has a lack of a capacity to differentiate between his self and others.
Anyways, I find such people so frightening. Not to mention irritating.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
And so we wait...
and wait in Casablanca. Again.
Stop the madness. Simply stop.
People are just such #@%§§*!!
What in the world are these #@%§§* people doing in the Middle East?
The best headline I saw today was something like "the war of the madmen." The US, Israel, Iran, and Syria are all insane. They are war-oriented, violence-driven, bullying-type countries. Swatted flies get more respect from these hooligans than defenseless civilians, all who are now trapped in this useless cross-fire and cross-bombing and cross-bloodshed.
And the civilians will continue to be mass-executed while the madmen play their despicable arrogant bullying war games. And evidently some people are avid for this proxy Israeli-Hezbollah war to escalate to some nuclear showdown - which is another word for World War III or genocide.
People are just such #@%§§*!!
(memory from childhood - a person whom today I profoundly despise for her lack of character was teaching me composition. She congratulates me because I unwittingly wrote a composition that started with an idea and then followed a winding path only to return and end the writing with the same initial idea. This was a major composition for the day, a full one page. ;-)
Well there you go.
People are just such #@%§§*!!
Beautiful composition.
Best satirical news article related to the war (wish I could write like this):
What in the world are these #@%§§* people doing in the Middle East?
The best headline I saw today was something like "the war of the madmen." The US, Israel, Iran, and Syria are all insane. They are war-oriented, violence-driven, bullying-type countries. Swatted flies get more respect from these hooligans than defenseless civilians, all who are now trapped in this useless cross-fire and cross-bombing and cross-bloodshed.
And the civilians will continue to be mass-executed while the madmen play their despicable arrogant bullying war games. And evidently some people are avid for this proxy Israeli-Hezbollah war to escalate to some nuclear showdown - which is another word for World War III or genocide.
People are just such #@%§§*!!
(memory from childhood - a person whom today I profoundly despise for her lack of character was teaching me composition. She congratulates me because I unwittingly wrote a composition that started with an idea and then followed a winding path only to return and end the writing with the same initial idea. This was a major composition for the day, a full one page. ;-)
Well there you go.
People are just such #@%§§*!!
Beautiful composition.
Best satirical news article related to the war (wish I could write like this):
Yo, Blair, who calls the shots in this double act?
Douglas Fraser July 19 2006
'Yo, Blair! . . . You see, thing is, what they need to do is get Syria to get Hizbollah to stop doing this s*** and it's over."
Sometimes, George Bush defies satire. His excuse may be that he was struggling to devour a Russian sandwich while discussing with Tony Blair how to handle the Middle East tinderbox as it ignites.
This was into a live microphone at the St Petersburg summit, reducing the highest level, most sensitive international diplomacy to the kind of barely comprehensible grunts you hear from teenage boys in conversation.
The Prime Minister – Mr Yo Blair, as he should now be styled – was a little more coherent, his words and his body language displaying the subservient role he plays in this relationship. Though only a brief insight into the most intriguing double act in 21st-century world power, he gave away far more than he would want.
This was a pitch to put some urgency into Washington's response to the outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon, the Prime Minister testing the waters to see if he could get support for a whizz round Middle East capitals to talk peace. Between bites of sandwich, the President made it clear that Condoleezza Rice, his secretary of state, would be taking on that role. The response, however incoherent, was enough. Blair knows his place, and this week, it is in letting the Americans deal with the Middle East its own way, which appears to mean hanging back until the Israelis have finished taking Hizbollah apart.
Indeed, most weeks it involves letting the US do things its own way. In diplomatic wrangling with other European Union members – the EU once again exposing its weakness in the face of crisis – it was the British and Germans who did what America wanted, cooling down the enthusiasm of other EU members to point at least one finger of blame at Israel for a disproportionate reaction to provocation. Blair stepped out of line with Washington only to recommend a stronger multinational stabilisation presence as a buffer between Israel and its Lebanese-based attackers.
[...]
But the most striking element of Blair's and Bush's discussion is their assumption they have any diplomatic credit left in the Arab bank. They are practised at seeing the Israeli point of view, but do they see the Arab one? They would prefer to see no link between Hizbollah's increased confidence and bravado and the war in Iraq. Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, was yesterday indignant when that link was put to her by a radio interviewer. Nor is there appreciation that Israel's treatment of Palestinians has been highly effective in recruiting for what Tony Blair describes as an "arc of extremism".
In the neat world these leaders occupy, you lean on one national leader and guerilla fighters are reined in. A word from President Assad of Syria, and "this s***" can be stopped, according to George Bush – as if Arab anger at Israel, America and, yes, Britain, could be controlled by an instruction from the presidential palace in Damascus. Islamist extremism is not about power structures and control. It does not respond to diplomatic communiques. Bombings from London to Mumbai do not need to be orchestrated through al-Qaeda. This is an ideology which has taken root, its web continues to spread and it has no need of controls.
Within it, Hizbollah has shown not only that it can be a hero to Arabs in its provocation of Israel, but that it has successfully emerged as a new kind of enemy. A cuckoo in the Lebanese nest, all that Israel can think to do is to strike hard at Lebanon. The Israeli logic, if you can call it that, is that the government of Lebanon, pounded by Israeli bombs, is somehow in a stronger position with which to assert itself against both Hizbollah and its sponsors in Syria.
Lashing out in anger was never the way to win the Middle East, and critical friends of Israel wonder if now could be a turning point at which Israel recognises that years of harsh, trigger-happy responses have got it no closer to lasting peace and security. If either Blair or Bush had credibility in the Arab world, they would be better placed to be that critical friend.
I've been drafting some posts...
but have no time to write something coherent, so I will just post bits and pieces of life flutterings.
Here are some of the issues, nevertheless:
- the hypocrisy of the public vs private spheres regarding how diseased modern sexuality is. Every form of degradation is allowed in the private (including the artificially private world of porn), but hypocritically condemned in public. Inspiration about writing this sparked from Ace and one of his frequenters, geoff, who embody a lot of this hypocrisy.
- the extreme egotism that shapes core fundaments of liberal sexuality (and that comes through very prominently in their pro-homosexuality ideology).
- a typology of some of the most prevalent ad hominem attacks used by pro-homosexuals against their opponents, as well as some of the most fundamentally wrong claims regarding their opponents.
- a draft of the aspects of denial that we find in pro-homosexual psychological profiles (such as demonstrated by these garbage of extreme pro-homos such as andy and Elais ).
Here are some of the issues, nevertheless:
- the hypocrisy of the public vs private spheres regarding how diseased modern sexuality is. Every form of degradation is allowed in the private (including the artificially private world of porn), but hypocritically condemned in public. Inspiration about writing this sparked from Ace and one of his frequenters, geoff, who embody a lot of this hypocrisy.
- the extreme egotism that shapes core fundaments of liberal sexuality (and that comes through very prominently in their pro-homosexuality ideology).
- a typology of some of the most prevalent ad hominem attacks used by pro-homosexuals against their opponents, as well as some of the most fundamentally wrong claims regarding their opponents.
- a draft of the aspects of denial that we find in pro-homosexual psychological profiles (such as demonstrated by these garbage of extreme pro-homos such as andy and Elais ).
It's been hot.
Good. Summer should be hot. And I usually don't even like air-conditionning. What I don't understand is all the news hoopla about elderly people in Europe dying from a 35-40 C weather. What is the medical explanation? What happens to the body of these people? If 38 degrees C were a killer temperature, half of the population in the Middle East would be dead every year. And so it would be for so many other scorching summer weather countries around the globe. I can understand people dying from freezing cold, I can understand people dying from sunstroke if they are left in the blazing sun all day long, but people comfortably resting indoors?
Unfortunately with all the hoopla that the news media does, there isn't a single explanation to why they think it's the 35 C heat that is causing all these elderly deaths. Without more info, I just find it all quite weird.
Unfortunately with all the hoopla that the news media does, there isn't a single explanation to why they think it's the 35 C heat that is causing all these elderly deaths. Without more info, I just find it all quite weird.
It's been a few weeks...
since I last saw him and I don't know if I will ever see him again. But if he asked me to marry him tomorrow, I would say yes, and I know I would be happier than I ever could imagine.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
The best thing that happened in the World Cup so far...
His name is Pascal, I don't even want to try to write his last name - Swiss goalkeeper ;-)
And if he weren't already drop dead handsome on TV, when I went to search for a photo, this is the info I found:
"Date of birth: 8 January 1971
Height: 197 cm
Weight: 98 kg"
1.97 ms of Pascal... ;-)
(actually that is a little too tall, I'm not a lamp post, but anyways... he is very proportionate, not like those weird looking basketball players ;-)
Even his mug shot looks cute.
From the Fifa above site:
"Weighing in at 98kg, towering above opposition strikers at 1.97m tall, with hands that have been compared to frying pans and a voice that makes town-criers envious, Zuberbühler has certainly been blessed with some useful physical attributes. "
LOL
And if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, there is some McDonalds ad gig that says:
"Add this player to my Fantasy Roster"
too funny :-D
