Thursday, January 29, 2004(0) comments
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Monday, January 26, 2004
Friday, January 23, 2004(0) comments
Thursday, January 22, 2004
In leu of that quiz, here is a timeless old Onion story.
While I'm at it, I think that this is supposed to demonstrate the feasability of a square wheel. I'm not sure though, I had a hard time deciphering this website.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
You are Jacques Lacan! Arguably the most important
psychoanalyst since Freud, you never wrote
anything down, and the only works of yours are
transcriptions of your lectures. You are
notoriously difficult to understand, but at
least you didn't talk about the penis as much
as other psychoanalysts. You died in 1981.
What 20th Century Theorist are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
The quiz did seem fairly halfhazard though. You know, I hate to post anything for quite awhile after I make any really good posts, like the Zardoz one of Jan 19, as if anyone looking at this site will just look at the top entry, and miss all the really cool ones!
Tuesday, January 20, 2004(0) comments
Monday, January 19, 2004
Friday, January 16, 2004
Follow up on the Hitler post: I think the movie I was thinking of was "The Trial Of Billy Jack", the sequel to Billy Jack. During the trial, some smelly hippy is interrogating a representative of the Man on the witness stand, and he reads some quote about the desireability of law and order. The greasy, slackjawed Perry Mason asks the Evil White Man if he agrees with the sentiment expressed in the quote, which he does. The brilliant stoner reincarnation of Cisero reveals that the quote is actually from Hitler, and everyone craps their pants and admits that they were wrong. The quote is made up, but it's been attributed to Hitler ever since. The Melvile book I was thinking of was Billy Bud. Sweet, fancy Moses, Billy Jack, the world's most seventies guy is running for President, among other things.
One more, possibly final stab at the illegal immigration issue: Possibly the most frustrating aspect of this whole thing is the truly incredible, surrealistic dimensions of the dishonesty with which the issue is discussed. The obvious imposibility of patrolling the border with 100% effectiveness is presented as a reason not to try to increase effectiveness to 5 or 10%, which would probably be enough. The vast length of the border is supposed to make guarding it futile, when the illegal crossings mostly take place along relatively small stretches of border in California and Texas. Being in favor of either enforcing existing laws or changing them just enough to make them enforcible makes you "anti-immigration", even if you, yourself, are an immigrant. Third generation Latino U.S. citizens are described as members of a unified political block with non-English speaking illegals. Et cetera. Fixing this whole thing should be childishly simple- Make it easy to become a naturalized citizen: Background check, blood test, take a test to show that you know a few token phrases of English, then take the oath. Those who still opt to sneak over could then justifiably be treated as criminals.
I don't think anyone is reading this.
Thursday, January 15, 2004(0) comments
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
On the subject of yesterday's post - It seems that no one except us commoners wants immigration to be as simple an issue as it ought to be (illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good). One way or another, everyone else seems to be determined to create an American peasant class. I can't for the life of me see how this would be to the advantage of anyone except the left. It means that our next revolution will be French in character. The only people who's votes it could buy aren't -supposed- to vote.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Just declare all Mexican citizenship to be the equivalent of U.S. citizenship. This would encourage every Mexican who ends up here to respect American laws, and even have some patriotic sentiment towards this country. I really do believe that this would be better than Bush’s policy.
Yes, very good. This amuses me.
Monday, January 12, 2004
Someone has linked to me!
Sunday, January 11, 2004
A new flash game is set to sweep the net: Pull My Finger!
Saturday, January 10, 2004
I suppose I could lose my blogging license if I don't post something about
the capture of Saddam. I'll try a conspiracy theory: They really knew where
he was all along, but they saved him to use as a distraction from some
shady Halliburton doings. That was kind of fun. What I'm really wondering
about now though is, does he still think he's Nebbuchadnezzar, and if so,
has he entered the grass eating stage?
I wrote the above conspiracy theory before (Dec 13) I heard Baghdad Jim
McDermot say something similar.
On 60 Minutes, Leslie Stahl sounded like she was trying to get Rumsfield to
say that he would be personally administrating daily beatings to Saddam.
This post is apparently cursed. Every time I tried putting it up, something went wrong, until now.
Friday, January 09, 2004
"Palestine" is the Kwanzaa of nationalism. Yasser Arafat is an Egyptian, most "Palestinians" are from Jordan. More truth about Arabic nationalism in the Holy Land can be found here.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
The above link might not work (rnc.org might have taken it down by now), so I'll just sum up the logic for you:
Two democratically elected cheif executives of modern nation-states; BOTH gave speeches, BOTH promised to defend their countries, BOTH mentioned God, BOTH occupied foreign countries, and BOTH had thumbs. (Man, both is a wierd word, now that I think about it). Coincidence? They must be essentially the same. It's like the fake "law and order" quote in that hippie movie with the title that was like the title of a Melville book, but different.