2009/09/21
Unfortunate Ad Placement
I'll say it again, I love interesting juxtapositions. But this story/ad combination from the Wall Street Journal is quite unfortunate, what with Steve Jobs recent health difficulties and nearly skeletal physique:
2009/09/14
So, which is it?
I've seen people who argue for President Obama's health care plan do contradict themselves, but seldom as quickly (six and a half minutes) as David Corn does here:
If there is something that supporters know will be unpopular, then they state that whatever it is, it isn't in the bill:
"...nothing like death panels in this bill...".
But if you question them on something that is, then suddenly...
"there is no bill yet.", with the implication that it is unfair to point that out, since we don't know what the end product will be.
To quote the Coens, "Well, which is it, young feller?"
If there is something that supporters know will be unpopular, then they state that whatever it is, it isn't in the bill:
"...nothing like death panels in this bill...".
But if you question them on something that is, then suddenly...
"there is no bill yet.", with the implication that it is unfair to point that out, since we don't know what the end product will be.
To quote the Coens, "Well, which is it, young feller?"
2009/09/09
Write What You Know...
I was looking for some photos to demonstrate a new JavaScript lightbox slideshow widget I wrote at work, and came across my scans of Emirati notes. Perfect! So, here it is:
You can see it in the context of our website here, where it works much better. (Blogger apparently doesn't like you to include JavaScript and styles within a blog post.)
Emirati Money
These are scans of the available denominations of Emirati notes. The unit of currency in the United Arab Emirates is the dirham. There is no one dirham note; one dirhams come only in coins. A dirham is worth a little more than 27 cents.
You can see it in the context of our website here, where it works much better. (Blogger apparently doesn't like you to include JavaScript and styles within a blog post.)
2009/07/08
Breaking the Irony Meter
Just a few posts apart at Boing Boing:
Absolutely true. Wishing death on those you disagree with is simply appalling. Which makes this post just 12 hours later... Well, decide for yourself.
Abusive "coal-thugs" try to break up anti-mountaintop-removal festival
"At one point the most vile of the thugs threatens a man and his child verbally and with a throat slitting gesture. Simply appalling."
Absolutely true. Wishing death on those you disagree with is simply appalling. Which makes this post just 12 hours later... Well, decide for yourself.
2009/06/05
2009/05/06
Funniest Star Trek humor since
William Shatner's get a life sketch on SNL, and I say that as someone was planning on taking Friday afternoon off to see the new movie as soon as possible:
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
2009/05/05
Banned! Or Can I Start a Blogfight? - Updated
Update - Nevermind, the comments did show up.
I'm not sure, but I seem to have gotten myself banned from commenting on a blog - I think that this is a first for me.
The blog is Lounsbury's subblog at Aquol. I usually don't read his stuff that much, since the things that he writes about don't usually interest me and he employs the "if you disagree with me, you are an idiot". (Well actually it is almost always a "f***ing idiot".) I have no problem with strong opinions, but that sort of argumentation is just very unpersuasive to me. Those with that attitude are unwilling to listen to those who disagree with them. So I don't think that I've ever commented there before.
But on the 2nd I noticed his latest post about the Chrysler bankruptcy negotiations, and I was interested. He condemned the institutional investors as dumb for rejecting President Obama's proposed reorganization plan. Several people submitted comments disagreeing with his position, explaining points to the conflict that he had not addressed, including that fact that the institutions, who represent many people, have an obligation to safeguard as much of their investors money as possible. I submitted one as well but it was held for moderation and still hasn't cleared moderation as of now. He responded by calling us "f***ing morons" with "idiotic and incoherent" libertarian ideas. He stated that since this is a crisis, the normal rules don't apply.
So in response I wrote "You do realize that your 'To hell with the law, this is an emergency' is exactly the same justification that the Bush Administration used for most of their unpopular policies don't you?"
He replied telling me I was "reading comprehension impaired" for not understanding "Moral hazard" and a "hypocritical knee jerking git".
I tried to place two comments in response and they both seem to have disappeared down the bit bucket - not even the warning that they were being held for moderation like my first. So I'm going to try to summarize them here:
I'm not sure, but I seem to have gotten myself banned from commenting on a blog - I think that this is a first for me.
The blog is Lounsbury's subblog at Aquol. I usually don't read his stuff that much, since the things that he writes about don't usually interest me and he employs the "if you disagree with me, you are an idiot". (Well actually it is almost always a "f***ing idiot".) I have no problem with strong opinions, but that sort of argumentation is just very unpersuasive to me. Those with that attitude are unwilling to listen to those who disagree with them. So I don't think that I've ever commented there before.
But on the 2nd I noticed his latest post about the Chrysler bankruptcy negotiations, and I was interested. He condemned the institutional investors as dumb for rejecting President Obama's proposed reorganization plan. Several people submitted comments disagreeing with his position, explaining points to the conflict that he had not addressed, including that fact that the institutions, who represent many people, have an obligation to safeguard as much of their investors money as possible. I submitted one as well but it was held for moderation and still hasn't cleared moderation as of now. He responded by calling us "f***ing morons" with "idiotic and incoherent" libertarian ideas. He stated that since this is a crisis, the normal rules don't apply.
So in response I wrote "You do realize that your 'To hell with the law, this is an emergency' is exactly the same justification that the Bush Administration used for most of their unpopular policies don't you?"
He replied telling me I was "reading comprehension impaired" for not understanding "Moral hazard" and a "hypocritical knee jerking git".
I tried to place two comments in response and they both seem to have disappeared down the bit bucket - not even the warning that they were being held for moderation like my first. So I'm going to try to summarize them here:
You do realize that explaining the concept of moral hazard to libertarians is like explaining the concept of snow to Inuits, right? I mean, you are so much smarter than us, you must know this. But then again, you do not seem to grasp that sticking to one's principles is the exact opposite of hypocrisy, so maybe you don't realize that. I mean, here is an article from Mises.org explaining the concept. You do know who Ludwig von Mises was right and what he means to libertarians? Or do I need to explain that too?If it turns out that I'm not really banned, then I'll update this to reflect that. And if I am, that is fine too; I've always taken the position that one is allowed to do as one pleases.
There is a moral hazard at play here, but it is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. The UAW has run the American auto manufacturers into the ground. This is not a controversial or even libertarian position - just scroll through Mickey Kaus's blog (Kaus is moderate to liberal Democrat, whose plan to save the car industry is to institute national health care to free the companies crushing financial burden to their retirees). Yet they are the ones being rewarded and bailed out by President Obama's plan. At best his plan is only going to buy them a few more years. And they don't want to go to bankruptcy court because the judge can void their contracts. Maybe that is fair, and maybe it isn't but the situation is a heck of a lot more complicated than you think it is. Heck, even us idiots on this side can see it. How come you can't?
2009/04/24
Strange Creature found in Doha
Looking for something else, I came across this:
The report is based on the statement of an Arab expatriate lady who said she had seen the strange figure near the Oryx statue while walking in the area.I'm not sure how the Weekly World News missed out on this. The photography is even evocative of it. You can imagine how "surprised" I was to discover that it seems to be a hoax.
Quoting the woman, the daily said she took a picture of it in spite of being terribly frightened.
“She was very soon surrounded by a large number of people who also attested to the fact of what she had seen . But it suddenly disappeared out of their sight when they tried to go near it,” the report added.
2009/04/22
F1 + Ski Dubai = Carbon Overload
In honor of Earth Day, what might be the most carbon un-neutral event ever: a Formula One race car at Ski Dubai (warning - this may also be the louded YouTube video ever, so you may want to turn your speakers down first)
Bonus points would be awarded if the car were flown to Dubai.
Bonus points would be awarded if the car were flown to Dubai.
2009/04/04
Up Jebel Hafeet in 3 minutes 29 seconds
The UAE's Mohammed Ben Sulayem drives a Nissan GT-R up the World's Greatest Driving Road to set the first official record.
2009/04/03
2009/04/02
You say that, but what do you really mean?
Words all too often stop us from communicating. The same words can vastly different things (just ask my sister who told her English in-laws that she fell on her fanny [see here for what she meant and what they thought]).
In a similar vein, I thought that this article in the CSM is very interesting:
10 terms not to use with Muslims :
In a similar vein, I thought that this article in the CSM is very interesting:
10 terms not to use with Muslims :
- The Clash of Civilizations.
- Secular.
- Assimilation.
- Reformation.
- Jihadi.
- Moderate.
- Interfaith.
- Freedom.
- Religious Freedom.
- Tolerance.
Wow. Just ... Wow
What is wrong with the world today?
Fire kills child, 3, and parents as police prevent neighbours from trying to rescue themaloud allowed [D'oh! Thanks for pointing this out FR] to choose to risk their life?
h/t Ann Althouse
Another example, from the US this time:
Fire kills child, 3, and parents as police prevent neighbours from trying to rescue them
A pregnant woman, her husband and their three-year-old son were killed in a house fire early yesterday as police who arrived before the fire brigade prevented neighbours from trying to save them. The woman screamed: “Please save my kids” from a bedroom window and neighbours tried to help but were beaten back by flames and were told by police not to attempt a rescue...Doesn't this infantilization of society have to stop at some point? I'm sure that it was dangerous to try to help. But shouldn't adults be
“I thought the police were there to protect lives. At one time they would have have gone inside themselves to try and rescue them.
“When a family is burning to death in front of your eyes, rules should go out of the window – especially with kids. Everybody wanted to try and help.”
h/t Ann Althouse
Another example, from the US this time:
A Queens [New York] judge ruled yesterday that subway employees do not have to do anything but pick up their phones if they see a crime — as he threw out a suit against the MTA and two workers who did nothing more to stop a rape.The blogfather nails it:
A conductor saw the rape from the window on his train, and a station agent in the booth witnessed a screaming woman being dragged down a staircase inside the desolate 21st Street station of the G line. But neither one left the safety of their assigned posts to help her.
In a previous day, in a different culture, such men would have been afraid of being called cowards for failing to help a woman under such circumstances. Nowadays, they’re probably proud of acting “sensibly.” (For the record, the story says their names are Harmodio Cruz and John Koort.) And in a different world, Judge Kevin Kerrigan would have been ashamed to describe picking up a phone as “prompt and decisive action.” But he probably thinks it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)