Monday, July 17, 2006
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The difference between "wth" and "wtf"
I decided to express my slightly more than usual concern with the recent turn of events in the Middle East, which has genuinely got me a little worried now that Israel is on the brink of war with Hezbollah. The fact that this violence is now no longer between just Israel and Palestine, but has spread to include Lebannon, draws a higher probability for the violence to escalate into a full-scale war. With Iran fanning the flames, the Middle East is quickly becoming fertile ground for Palestine and Lebannon to draw allies against Israel. And naturally, Israel draws in their own ally, America...
If my memory of history lessons serves me correct, both World Wars started by the death of just one man. And now an Israeli soldier was kidnapped (2 killed), triggering the massive attack by the Israeli army on Palestinian infrastructure. Throw in a rogue imperialistic country like North Korea just itching to launch more missiles, and we've got the ingredients for WW3. This is all deep speculation of course. And I sincerely hope that my worries are nothing more than paranoia.
Given that one might be reading today's headlines thinking "what the hell?!" at pictures of Beirut on fire... I thought something even more un-nerving should warrant the F word (no, not that stupid Gordon Ramsaycooking pig-killing swearing show). Jon Stewart presents a (yet another) clip of George Bush who clearly misses the gravity of the situation in Israel.
"I am going to go watch "24" now and pretend that imaginary president is in charge." - Anonymous @ Onegoodmove.org
If my memory of history lessons serves me correct, both World Wars started by the death of just one man. And now an Israeli soldier was kidnapped (2 killed), triggering the massive attack by the Israeli army on Palestinian infrastructure. Throw in a rogue imperialistic country like North Korea just itching to launch more missiles, and we've got the ingredients for WW3. This is all deep speculation of course. And I sincerely hope that my worries are nothing more than paranoia.
Given that one might be reading today's headlines thinking "what the hell?!" at pictures of Beirut on fire... I thought something even more un-nerving should warrant the F word (no, not that stupid Gordon Ramsay
"I am going to go watch "24" now and pretend that imaginary president is in charge." - Anonymous @ Onegoodmove.org
Monday, July 10, 2006
To hot to touch: The Park of Jurassic Dinosaurs
It may not be a reality show, but ITV are about to hit us with a new prime time extravaganza. But for me it is a devastating disappointment. Prehistoric Park, with its derivative name and suspiciously reminiscent idea [the memory of BBC show Walking with Dinosaurs is not quite extinct yet] is nothing more than a softly softly cop out of The Park of Jurassic Dinosaurs. ITV, the channel that compromises most when it comes to creativity, has ruined a good idea by removing the celebrity-eating element and replacing it with time travel and animal rescue. Doctor Who + Animal Hospital + Walking with Dinosaurs?? You almost expect a ticked-off BBC executive to pop up and cry "this what WE do". ITV play it so safe that they probably wanted David Jason and Ross Kemp to take up the roles of the dinosaurs. If my grisly vision is to ever take shape Channel 4 will need to intervene and show them how it's done. Come on guys, lets make a show where Davina McCall actually has something worth screeching about.
Viva Il Dunce. Kick racism out of football; beat racism out of Heffer
It's official: Simon Heffer openly sympathises with fascism. Don't take my word for it, he said so himself in a truly disgusting piece of xenophobic bile in this weekend's Telegraph. Mixing sport and politics, and somehow managing to misunderstand both, he states why he wants Italy to beat the "French dog" in the World Cup final. He claims that this particular dog is down, though Amelie Mauresmo might have something to say about that. We may recall that Heffer is not new to yobbish discrimination, having recently lent his support to those leaden-minded English fans trying to force a reenactment of World War II on the German hosts. He therefore truly excels himself by claiming:
"Are we supporting France or Italy? It is, I admit, a tricky one, like choosing between Marshal Pétain and Mussolini"
How crass can you get? This sounds like the immature ranting of a six year old who has just read their first bit of history. Instead it comes from an apparently grown man, though one still gets the feeling that if his brain was tossed from a high building it would hit the ground with a dull thump rather than a squelch. And is he so blind to see what the words he has written actually mean? If he is backing Italy over France then by his logic he is giving his support to Mussolini. Part of me thinks that he has taken lessons on logic from Melainie Coulter, I mean Ann Phillips, no wait, I mean a possum. The other part of me thinks that the big closet fascist is coming out, and only his Italian sytmpathies prevent cries of "Heil Heffer." I guess they'll just have to call him Ill Dunce. Anyway, he's not done yet. Our sporting expert declares that this contest is like choosing between:
"snails soaked in garlic and gnocchi"
How about two football teams better than England? Or more positively, how about Paris and Rome, Sartre and Ecco, Michaelangelo and Cézanne? This earwig thinks he can extol the glories of English history while never reflecting on its failings. But when it comes to other nations, they may only look at themselves in disgust. Such insulated absence of principle would suit any fascist nicely.
Heffer's vindictive crusade against French people, regardless of who they actually are or what part of society they occupy, extends to the European Constitution. He witlessly claims that this was a piece of adversity for the "arrogant French", conveniently blinding himself to the fact that the idea was rejected by the French people themslves, on both extremes of the political spectrum. The European Constitution was rejected by France in the same way Mussolini was disposed of by the Italians [and Heffer's hated lefties at that]. The fact that he rejoices over riots in Paris makes you wonder just how far his schadenfreude would go. Had terrorist plots in Strasbourg and Paris been pulled off, would he have enjoyed those too?
The fact is that if Heffer had any success to show himself he wouldn't need to cower behind a collective identity while making cheap jibes at others like some yellowbellied sniper. Heffer shouldn't be asking who he wants to support - he wont find a good enough answer based on history or politics - instead he should be asking why he is sticking his nose into a competition that he clearly doesn't care about. As Shakespeare himself may have written: "what a complete tit".
Petain - Simon Heffer's archetypal Frenchman is thinking: "After we win the World Cup, we will enslave Europe with our fiendish constitution. Haw haw haw"
"Are we supporting France or Italy? It is, I admit, a tricky one, like choosing between Marshal Pétain and Mussolini"
How crass can you get? This sounds like the immature ranting of a six year old who has just read their first bit of history. Instead it comes from an apparently grown man, though one still gets the feeling that if his brain was tossed from a high building it would hit the ground with a dull thump rather than a squelch. And is he so blind to see what the words he has written actually mean? If he is backing Italy over France then by his logic he is giving his support to Mussolini. Part of me thinks that he has taken lessons on logic from Melainie Coulter, I mean Ann Phillips, no wait, I mean a possum. The other part of me thinks that the big closet fascist is coming out, and only his Italian sytmpathies prevent cries of "Heil Heffer." I guess they'll just have to call him Ill Dunce. Anyway, he's not done yet. Our sporting expert declares that this contest is like choosing between:
"snails soaked in garlic and gnocchi"
How about two football teams better than England? Or more positively, how about Paris and Rome, Sartre and Ecco, Michaelangelo and Cézanne? This earwig thinks he can extol the glories of English history while never reflecting on its failings. But when it comes to other nations, they may only look at themselves in disgust. Such insulated absence of principle would suit any fascist nicely.
Heffer's vindictive crusade against French people, regardless of who they actually are or what part of society they occupy, extends to the European Constitution. He witlessly claims that this was a piece of adversity for the "arrogant French", conveniently blinding himself to the fact that the idea was rejected by the French people themslves, on both extremes of the political spectrum. The European Constitution was rejected by France in the same way Mussolini was disposed of by the Italians [and Heffer's hated lefties at that]. The fact that he rejoices over riots in Paris makes you wonder just how far his schadenfreude would go. Had terrorist plots in Strasbourg and Paris been pulled off, would he have enjoyed those too?
The fact is that if Heffer had any success to show himself he wouldn't need to cower behind a collective identity while making cheap jibes at others like some yellowbellied sniper. Heffer shouldn't be asking who he wants to support - he wont find a good enough answer based on history or politics - instead he should be asking why he is sticking his nose into a competition that he clearly doesn't care about. As Shakespeare himself may have written: "what a complete tit".
Petain - Simon Heffer's archetypal Frenchman is thinking: "After we win the World Cup, we will enslave Europe with our fiendish constitution. Haw haw haw"
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Factless: Church of Coulter
I am beginning to share my opinion with some critics that Ann Coulter's entire political commentary is merely an act, and a great marketing scheme. Capturing the attention of CNN, she has had her latest intellectual fraudulence exposed even more for the world to see. The report compares a particular quote from her latest book with the actual document and shows how Coulter chose to leave out certain words. Of course, people who chose to defend her will say that those allegations (by Conservative standards) are "trivial and meritless", even excusing such dishonesty by claiming she is a "political commentator and not a journalist". Right.
At this rate, how will they ever charge her for plagiarism I wonder.
Note: I had some trouble finding the html link to the CNN video clip, which was neither under the "U.S." or "Politics" section. Nope I found it under "Entertainment" next to Jack Sparrow and The Devil Wears Prada. Kudos CNN.
Related:
- Audio clip from Adam Carolla radio show with Ann Coulter. (From Crooks and Liars)
- Godless' Causes Liberals to Pray... For a Book Burning (An AnnCoulter.com original)
- Clueless: Church of Plagiarism (a parody based on above article)
- More Coulter bashings on Technorati here.
At this rate, how will they ever charge her for plagiarism I wonder.
Note: I had some trouble finding the html link to the CNN video clip, which was neither under the "U.S." or "Politics" section. Nope I found it under "Entertainment" next to Jack Sparrow and The Devil Wears Prada. Kudos CNN.
Related:
- Audio clip from Adam Carolla radio show with Ann Coulter. (From Crooks and Liars)
- Godless' Causes Liberals to Pray... For a Book Burning (An AnnCoulter.com original)
- Clueless: Church of Plagiarism (a parody based on above article)
- More Coulter bashings on Technorati here.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Maximum Phillips
More tripe from Melanie Phillips, who, after putting in a miserable wide-eyed display on Question Time last week*, returns to her old tricks, claiming that it is "The Palestinians" the who are attacking Israel [Hamas and IJ are shooting rockets at us so lets get some revenge and punish any old Palestinian] and by having us believe that attacking power stations is not collective punishment but self defence. These two disgraceful viewpoints can be twisted together to justify the war crimes currently being perpetarted by the Israeli government in its incursion into Gaza. She is not alone. The funniest excuse I have heard so far came last week from some cabinet minister on Channel 4 News whose name and role regrettably escape me. He told host John Snow that the power for the whole population of Gaza needed to be cut to stop kidnappers operating at night - if they can't see they can't kidnap people, right? When John Snow politely pointed out that total darkness actually would be quite useful for any would be kidnapper or smuggler the minister reverted to the worthless roundabout arguments that Melanie Phillips will one day have patented.
One thing Melanie Phillips doesn't seem to appreciate about Israel is its wonderfully free press. So when Gideon Levy of Haaretz daringly claims that:
"It is not legitimate to cut off 750,000 people from electricity. It is not legitimate to call on 20,000 people to run from their homes and turn their towns into ghost towns."
His opinion is trashed as being "self-loathing" and "despicable". He is also accused of aiding those who seek to destroy Israel, a rather Stalinist statement and a bizarre one at that coming from Phillips. She would have us believe that reports of what Britain and the US carry out in Iraq does not encourage the increase in radical muslims, who in her view would perpetrate their evil acts with or without witnessing them. Meanwhile similar reports on Israeli acts encourage people to attack Israel. Which one is it? In truth, the honest reporting of these crimes in Gaza, along with past atrocious behaviour by the government, IDF and the other security forces, has done something which keeps her up at night far more. It has made people well-informed, including Jewish people, who, in her world of sides and teams and us vs them, should be on her side of the fence. When they don't, like the hundreds of British Jews who contributed to a full-page ad in The Times yesterday condemning the "collective punishment of the people of Gaza" she slimes them as "despicable". What are we going to do with her?
*Interestingly, Melanie Phillips thought it would a good idea to mount a scathing attack on the "puerile" interview that Jonathan Ross conducted with David Cameron two weeks ago. Her disgust was welcome but a little strange given her crusade for freedom of expression earlier this year. Does she now hold the view that, while people are thankfully free to say and print what they want, they would also do well to listen to their conscience first? Or is this the latest in a now expansive line of double-standards?
One thing Melanie Phillips doesn't seem to appreciate about Israel is its wonderfully free press. So when Gideon Levy of Haaretz daringly claims that:
"It is not legitimate to cut off 750,000 people from electricity. It is not legitimate to call on 20,000 people to run from their homes and turn their towns into ghost towns."
His opinion is trashed as being "self-loathing" and "despicable". He is also accused of aiding those who seek to destroy Israel, a rather Stalinist statement and a bizarre one at that coming from Phillips. She would have us believe that reports of what Britain and the US carry out in Iraq does not encourage the increase in radical muslims, who in her view would perpetrate their evil acts with or without witnessing them. Meanwhile similar reports on Israeli acts encourage people to attack Israel. Which one is it? In truth, the honest reporting of these crimes in Gaza, along with past atrocious behaviour by the government, IDF and the other security forces, has done something which keeps her up at night far more. It has made people well-informed, including Jewish people, who, in her world of sides and teams and us vs them, should be on her side of the fence. When they don't, like the hundreds of British Jews who contributed to a full-page ad in The Times yesterday condemning the "collective punishment of the people of Gaza" she slimes them as "despicable". What are we going to do with her?
*Interestingly, Melanie Phillips thought it would a good idea to mount a scathing attack on the "puerile" interview that Jonathan Ross conducted with David Cameron two weeks ago. Her disgust was welcome but a little strange given her crusade for freedom of expression earlier this year. Does she now hold the view that, while people are thankfully free to say and print what they want, they would also do well to listen to their conscience first? Or is this the latest in a now expansive line of double-standards?
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Secondary addiction: Ann Coulter on evolution
James Downard presents this part one of his critique of Coulter's take on evolution:
Read full article...
All this is grist for debate on literary civility, of course, but Coulter's tome landed in my crosshairs on account of the third of her book (the last 4 of 11 chapters) devoted to assailing the Liberal's Creation Myth, Darwinian evolutionary theory. Her sashay into matters scientific delightfully illustrates a common theme in sloppy thinking. Coulter is a secondary citation addict.
Like a scholarly lemming, she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true. It never once occurs to her that she might find it prudent to check on the reliability of those sources before accompanying them off the cliff, either by investigating critical takes on those sources, or by actually inspecting the original technical literature directly.
This starts naturally enough with the commonest activity of antievolutionists: fielding the "usual suspects" of authority quotes mined over the years by critics more concerned with succulent text strings than evaluating far more recalcitrant data.
Read full article...
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Creationism and holy encyclopedias
An NUS professor doesn't share his cynicism of science with spirituality:
The greatest contradiction I could possibly derive from this argument is that the author (Yuen Chung) admits that in the instance of quantum physics, a nuclear scientist may completely understand the concepts and theories substantiating the existence of atoms, while still reflecting some degree of denial based on the remaining uneducated human population.
And then there is the term "faith".
In this context, I would much more appropriately choose the term "trust". The human population in general accept popular scientific belief because they trust that the scientific community shares a commonly held logical form of interpreting information and deriving conclusions, as opposed to a faith-based approach. While we are able to make independent logical conclusions from scientific discovery, we cannot do the same in religious terms. In essence, the Bible dictates to us what to believe, and requires genuine faith where an otherwise logical form of observe and deduce may not be applied. Classroom textbooks and encyclopedias certainly do not share the same foundation of scientific credibility as holy scriptures. They do not command authority over our beliefs. On the contrary, they demand our logical intellect and objectivity to comprehend information that is disseminated into our minds.
EXAMPLE:
1. An encyclopedia might explain how a river dam prevents water from flooding its banks. Fair enough, water flow is blocked by a solid wall, thus restricting the overflow of the river.
2. The Bible does not mention how Moses parted the sea except with a wooden stick. This does not make sense when I try it at the beach.
The latter does not make sense because it is not consistent with my own observations, after a nearly scientific approach at the beach. To believe the event of Moses parting the sea, I am required to exercise faith. On the other hand, I am not required to see a dam to believe it works because upon exercising my brain, logic tells me water does not pass through a solid wall.
So why is it essential for one to see a dinosaur or atom before believing they exist? That's like saying you won't believe a million dollars exist until you see bundles of green fill your living room. If anything, the aim of science is to discover and learn more about that which we cannot see with our eyes alone. Secondly, the layman does not have to completely understand how something works in order to consider it a matter of science over faith. For example, we can safely say that majority of drivers are not qualified mechanics or engineers and do not completely understand how a car works. But they know enough that when you step on the gas pedal the car goes faster and stepping on the brake pedal makes it slow down. In this way, we make observations and deductions about the car and hence the car is a predictable system and under our control. We do not consider driving a miracle (for most people).
The logical error comes from the choice of questioning the probability that an assertion is correct over the probability that it is incorrect. And this is where creationism's shares its dangers in a faith-based approach to science. If we constantly questioned science without presenting any real evidence or alternative observations to disprove currently accepted beliefs, then we would not believe in pollution, global warming, ozone depletion and other hazards that demand global attention. In essence, such views only excuse ignorance at the expense of scientific credibility.
We cannot expect to share the same faith in science as we do religion, and then not expect to reach a crossroad where both collide and contradict each other. Accepting both blindly as truths is only failure to appreciate and understand the roots of both concepts.
Related: Hicks & Colbert on Creationism: Dinosaurs
...the proposition that scientific ideas are better accepted than spiritual ideas because they can be "proved" is highly dubious. We believe in atoms and dinosaurs, but has it really been "proved" to us that atoms exist and dinosaurs existed? None of us have ever seen an atom or a dinosaur, nor ever will. There are some very large skeletons that are on display in museums, but how do we know these came from animals that lived millions of years ago? Some of us use electricity generated from nuclear reactors, but in what way does this prove the existence of atoms? The connection may be clear to a nuclear scientist, but not to the human majority.
For most of us, such beliefs are merely based on faith: there are these books from the libraries that show pictures of atoms and dinosaurs, and there are these wise looking men who tell us that such things exist(ed); we accept their words because they command authority. Is this so very different from believing in the bible and the priests? Even scientists themselves have to base much of their beliefs upon faith once they move out of their own specialized domain into areas in which they are not expert.
The greatest contradiction I could possibly derive from this argument is that the author (Yuen Chung) admits that in the instance of quantum physics, a nuclear scientist may completely understand the concepts and theories substantiating the existence of atoms, while still reflecting some degree of denial based on the remaining uneducated human population.
And then there is the term "faith".
In this context, I would much more appropriately choose the term "trust". The human population in general accept popular scientific belief because they trust that the scientific community shares a commonly held logical form of interpreting information and deriving conclusions, as opposed to a faith-based approach. While we are able to make independent logical conclusions from scientific discovery, we cannot do the same in religious terms. In essence, the Bible dictates to us what to believe, and requires genuine faith where an otherwise logical form of observe and deduce may not be applied. Classroom textbooks and encyclopedias certainly do not share the same foundation of scientific credibility as holy scriptures. They do not command authority over our beliefs. On the contrary, they demand our logical intellect and objectivity to comprehend information that is disseminated into our minds.
EXAMPLE:
1. An encyclopedia might explain how a river dam prevents water from flooding its banks. Fair enough, water flow is blocked by a solid wall, thus restricting the overflow of the river.
2. The Bible does not mention how Moses parted the sea except with a wooden stick. This does not make sense when I try it at the beach.
The latter does not make sense because it is not consistent with my own observations, after a nearly scientific approach at the beach. To believe the event of Moses parting the sea, I am required to exercise faith. On the other hand, I am not required to see a dam to believe it works because upon exercising my brain, logic tells me water does not pass through a solid wall.
So why is it essential for one to see a dinosaur or atom before believing they exist? That's like saying you won't believe a million dollars exist until you see bundles of green fill your living room. If anything, the aim of science is to discover and learn more about that which we cannot see with our eyes alone. Secondly, the layman does not have to completely understand how something works in order to consider it a matter of science over faith. For example, we can safely say that majority of drivers are not qualified mechanics or engineers and do not completely understand how a car works. But they know enough that when you step on the gas pedal the car goes faster and stepping on the brake pedal makes it slow down. In this way, we make observations and deductions about the car and hence the car is a predictable system and under our control. We do not consider driving a miracle (for most people).
The logical error comes from the choice of questioning the probability that an assertion is correct over the probability that it is incorrect. And this is where creationism's shares its dangers in a faith-based approach to science. If we constantly questioned science without presenting any real evidence or alternative observations to disprove currently accepted beliefs, then we would not believe in pollution, global warming, ozone depletion and other hazards that demand global attention. In essence, such views only excuse ignorance at the expense of scientific credibility.
We cannot expect to share the same faith in science as we do religion, and then not expect to reach a crossroad where both collide and contradict each other. Accepting both blindly as truths is only failure to appreciate and understand the roots of both concepts.
Related: Hicks & Colbert on Creationism: Dinosaurs
Monday, July 03, 2006
Hero of the month: John Howard
John Howard wants Australia's Channel 10 to do a bit of self-regulation. And by self-regulation, he really means kick the blaaady show off the air:
If you think that's bad, maybe you should have seen a woman a few seasons back on the British version sexually assault/rape a wine bottle... I pity the fool who uses whatever it is that gets made out of that recycled glass. And OK, so maybe Howard hates it more for his conservative values. But a little bit of groin-rubbing in a woman's face isn't gonna raise any eyebrows here in the UK. Oh no, people here love that kinda stuff.
Still, how bad does a tv programme have to be before a prime minister steps up and publicly announce "you suck".
CANBERRA, Australia (Reuters) -- Australian Prime Minister John Howard called on Monday for reality television program "Big Brother" to be taken off the air after an incident between contestants prompted an investigation into sexual assault.
Two housemates were kicked off the program on Saturday and police were called in after an early-morning incident was broadcast live on the Internet by the Ten Network.
Police said they would lay no charges over the incident, where a male contestant held down a female housemate while another male contestant rubbed his groin in her face.
"I think it is just a question of good taste," Howard told Australian radio on Monday.
"Here is a great opportunity for Channel Ten to do a bit of self-regulation and get this stupid program off the air."
The Saturday incident is the latest in a long string of complaints about the raunchy antics of the young housemates. The previous week the channel dumped an adults-only version of the show after complaints about excessive nudity.
If you think that's bad, maybe you should have seen a woman a few seasons back on the British version sexually assault/rape a wine bottle... I pity the fool who uses whatever it is that gets made out of that recycled glass. And OK, so maybe Howard hates it more for his conservative values. But a little bit of groin-rubbing in a woman's face isn't gonna raise any eyebrows here in the UK. Oh no, people here love that kinda stuff.
Still, how bad does a tv programme have to be before a prime minister steps up and publicly announce "you suck".
.jpg)
