...is better than nothing! Natalie has a well-tuned eye... she got up this morning and took a few pictures off the front lawn... Fall.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Once a month posting...
...is better than nothing! Natalie has a well-tuned eye... she got up this morning and took a few pictures off the front lawn... Fall.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Back from Vacation
I shoulda been liveblogging our trip, when I could. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. 'Twas a magnificent journey! Down the coast as far as San Francisco, with many stops along the way, and back to the family reunion in Lister. Loads of Fun!
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Ducks the first Westcoast team to win the Stanley Cup!?!?!?
My letter to Jason Smith at "Allnight" on ESPN: 'Umm... you said it, as did your news guy. In fact, the Victoria Cougars won the Stanley Cup in 1923, and last I checked Victoria is on the Wet Coast. The Victoria Cougars, by the way, are now the Prince George Cougars, who made it to the third round of the WHL playoffs this year before being summarily dismissed by the eventual Memorial Cup Champion Vancouver Giants. Vancouver, of course, itself a West Coast City, won Lord Stanley's Silver in 1915, with the Millionaires: "The Vancouver Millionaires (1911 to 1922) were a professional ice hockey team in the Pacific Coast Hockey Association for Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. They won the Stanley Cup (the only Vancouver team to win the Stanley Cup) in 1915, defeating the Ottawa Senators 3 games to 0. They played for the cup in 1918, 1921, and in 1922. Their jerseys were maroon with a white V, with Vancouver spelled down one side of the V and up the other. The home arena of the Millionaires was the Denman Arena, one of the first artificial ice surfaces in Canada. Hall of Famers Fred "Cyclone" Taylor and Didier Pitre played for the Millionaires.
In 1922 the team changed its name to the Vancouver Maroons (1922 to 1926). They continued to play in the Pacific Coast Hockey Association until 1924 when they then joined the Western Canada Hockey League upon the merger of the two leagues. The team finally folded in 1926." - Wikipedia.'
Three cheers for the Ducks, by the way. They are soooo much kooler than the Sens.
In 1922 the team changed its name to the Vancouver Maroons (1922 to 1926). They continued to play in the Pacific Coast Hockey Association until 1924 when they then joined the Western Canada Hockey League upon the merger of the two leagues. The team finally folded in 1926." - Wikipedia.'
Three cheers for the Ducks, by the way. They are soooo much kooler than the Sens.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Monday, June 04, 2007
Experiment failed...
...when I tried to post from church this morning. I was going to post a picture of Nick with his new mohawk, but couldn't operate blogger properly from my Treo. Oh, well. Do it from home, then! But, darn it, Robin wants me to come to bed. After all, it is one in the a.m. but it's bleedin' hot, too! Tomorrow, then.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Gee-tarrr!
Just got back from Nick's first guitar lesson. Michael Vigano is his teacher, at Sound Entertainment in Prince George. Enthusiasm!
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
John Kerry puts his foot in it again...
My letter to Mr. Hewitt today:
Hugh!
a) Kerry is too clever by half, that is his problem, because it makes him an idiot. He was making a double entendre, taking a slap at the President - he doesn't have to name him for the audience to understand immediately who he is talking about - while at the same time taking a shot at the troops. He is counting on his audience laughing out loud at the first part and internally grinning grimly and slyly at the second. He thinks that the broader audience will brush it off as another "Daily Show" type insult of the President, not realizing - (does this guy never learn?) - that a large part of the broader audience will only hear the gross and disgusting insult of the troops. People say that Bill Clinton "compartmentalized" his mind - but I'll bet he never really forgot what was in the other compartments. John Kerry doesn't seem to recall that he has just a little bit of personal history when it comes to calling down brave Americans.
b) It is okay to recognize that Mark Halperin has a point of view that gives rise to a legitimate debate without agreeing with him. I expect that he would say that your reaction to John Kerry's idiot comment illustrates his point - he would likely say that your partisanship blinds you to the "joke" he was making at the expense of the President, and that if you belonged to the Journalist as Objective Observer School of Reportage you would have "gotten it". And you could counter with the legitimate point that the vast majority of the "Objective Reporters" out there just happen to be hiding liberal views and would write the whole thing off as a joke while burying the sick insult aspect of Kerry's comment. The put-all-your-points-of-view-on-the-table school of reportage is much more consistent with a free society; it engages the marketplace of ideas honestly. Mr. Halperin's theory of reportage is like marxism - sure, it sounds great in theory but it can't really work in the real world; everyone has biases and their biases matter.
This latest Kerry foot-in-mouth-moment is a great example of a false dichotomy. Kerry's comment isn't either (a) or (b), it is both (a) AND (b). To recognize that makes it no less disgusting, and gives the person who recognizes it as such more credibility with a broader audience. It is, in fact, even sicker that Kerry thinks he can get away with a double entendre like that - I expect he thought that most people would only hear the Presidential insult, as he lives in a world where that sort of thing is a staple, and that the "clever people" in his audience would be the only ones who would "get" the "deeper meaning" wherein he was speaking to his anti-military confreres. He makes the mistake many liberals make - he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.
Hugh!
a) Kerry is too clever by half, that is his problem, because it makes him an idiot. He was making a double entendre, taking a slap at the President - he doesn't have to name him for the audience to understand immediately who he is talking about - while at the same time taking a shot at the troops. He is counting on his audience laughing out loud at the first part and internally grinning grimly and slyly at the second. He thinks that the broader audience will brush it off as another "Daily Show" type insult of the President, not realizing - (does this guy never learn?) - that a large part of the broader audience will only hear the gross and disgusting insult of the troops. People say that Bill Clinton "compartmentalized" his mind - but I'll bet he never really forgot what was in the other compartments. John Kerry doesn't seem to recall that he has just a little bit of personal history when it comes to calling down brave Americans.
b) It is okay to recognize that Mark Halperin has a point of view that gives rise to a legitimate debate without agreeing with him. I expect that he would say that your reaction to John Kerry's idiot comment illustrates his point - he would likely say that your partisanship blinds you to the "joke" he was making at the expense of the President, and that if you belonged to the Journalist as Objective Observer School of Reportage you would have "gotten it". And you could counter with the legitimate point that the vast majority of the "Objective Reporters" out there just happen to be hiding liberal views and would write the whole thing off as a joke while burying the sick insult aspect of Kerry's comment. The put-all-your-points-of-view-on-the-table school of reportage is much more consistent with a free society; it engages the marketplace of ideas honestly. Mr. Halperin's theory of reportage is like marxism - sure, it sounds great in theory but it can't really work in the real world; everyone has biases and their biases matter.
This latest Kerry foot-in-mouth-moment is a great example of a false dichotomy. Kerry's comment isn't either (a) or (b), it is both (a) AND (b). To recognize that makes it no less disgusting, and gives the person who recognizes it as such more credibility with a broader audience. It is, in fact, even sicker that Kerry thinks he can get away with a double entendre like that - I expect he thought that most people would only hear the Presidential insult, as he lives in a world where that sort of thing is a staple, and that the "clever people" in his audience would be the only ones who would "get" the "deeper meaning" wherein he was speaking to his anti-military confreres. He makes the mistake many liberals make - he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Yikes. They're called "News"papers for a reason...
Sigh... I know, in my somewhat infrequent postings, that I have of late been spending seemingly disproportionate time critiquing the Telegraph, but it is one feed that I actually read - most I delete without even looking at - and it seems to me that it used to be, at least under Conrad Black (may acquittal be imminent!) a somewhat conservative paper. These days, it seems that they have this policy of only employing reporters (I hate the word "journalists"!) and opinion writers who are terrible with facts and Nutbar Left on opinions. Random fisking to follow:
I exposed CIA agent by mistake, says ex-Bush aide
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 09/09/2006)
The greatest political scandal to hit the Bush presidency took a tantalising twist yesterday when Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, admitted that he was the first to reveal the identity of the CIA agent Valerie Plame.
"Yesterday" it took a twist? Richard Armitage's role in this silliness has been known, and commented on, for some time. It is clear now that the Bush-haters in the press who alleged that there was a grand conspiracy to "out" Valerie Plame were writing at the level of Weekly World News "Alien Baby" stories. Well, actually, it was clear when they were writing it, and others were saying so.
The exposure, which came during bitter in-fighting that erupted in Washington after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in 2003, resulted in the indictment of a senior White House aide for the first time in decades and prompted a flurry of accusations that President George W Bush was directly responsible for the leak.
A flurry of accusations... by Fever-Swamp Nutters!!! Please note, also, why there was "bitter in-fighting": Colin Powell's State Department, and Richard Armitage, were fighting Administration policy at every turn. The real scandal here is that Richard Armitage and Colin Powell both stayed silent for so long, letting the Administration twist in the wind - in the midst of a war - while the nutbars speculated endlessly on the machiavellian machinations of the Rove/Cheney Gang. One of Mr. Bush's personal strengths, but political weaknesses, is his personal loyalty. He ought to have fired Colin Powell way before Mr. Powell left. On the other hand, Ms. Rice's State Dep't appears to be demonstrating that the problem may be due to deep liberal contrarianism in that particular department.
Last night furious conservatives accused Mr Armitage of treachery and demanded an apology from the Bush opponents who claimed that the exposure of Miss Plame's identity in July 2003 was the work of a vindictive White House seeking to undermine critics of the war.
Yes, "Last night" and for a couple of weeks, now, at least. I thought this was a "news" article?
Miss Plame is the wife of Joe Wilson, a former ambassador, who was one of the first to criticise the Bush administration's case for war.
Mr Wilson had angered the White House by refuting the allegation – first made by British intelligence and contained in Mr Bush's 2003 State of the Union address – that Saddam's regime had sought uranium from Niger.
Umm... Mr. Wilson attempted to refute the allegation. It has since been shown conclusively that Saddam indeed had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. In any event, whether he did or didn't is irrelevant, as the intelligence agencies of Britain, France, and the U.S. believed it at the time, and the Administration had nothing better to go on.
Shortly after Mr Wilson wrote an article in the New York Times in July 2003 accusing the Bush administration of twisting the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction a conservative columnist revealed that his wife worked for the CIA.
Okay, just hang the ol' facts out there with an implied conclusion. Ahem, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And, finally... Valerie Plame was not a covert operative. No crime was committed. Repeat until you finally get it!
I exposed CIA agent by mistake, says ex-Bush aide
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 09/09/2006)
The greatest political scandal to hit the Bush presidency took a tantalising twist yesterday when Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, admitted that he was the first to reveal the identity of the CIA agent Valerie Plame.
"Yesterday" it took a twist? Richard Armitage's role in this silliness has been known, and commented on, for some time. It is clear now that the Bush-haters in the press who alleged that there was a grand conspiracy to "out" Valerie Plame were writing at the level of Weekly World News "Alien Baby" stories. Well, actually, it was clear when they were writing it, and others were saying so.
The exposure, which came during bitter in-fighting that erupted in Washington after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in 2003, resulted in the indictment of a senior White House aide for the first time in decades and prompted a flurry of accusations that President George W Bush was directly responsible for the leak.
A flurry of accusations... by Fever-Swamp Nutters!!! Please note, also, why there was "bitter in-fighting": Colin Powell's State Department, and Richard Armitage, were fighting Administration policy at every turn. The real scandal here is that Richard Armitage and Colin Powell both stayed silent for so long, letting the Administration twist in the wind - in the midst of a war - while the nutbars speculated endlessly on the machiavellian machinations of the Rove/Cheney Gang. One of Mr. Bush's personal strengths, but political weaknesses, is his personal loyalty. He ought to have fired Colin Powell way before Mr. Powell left. On the other hand, Ms. Rice's State Dep't appears to be demonstrating that the problem may be due to deep liberal contrarianism in that particular department.
Last night furious conservatives accused Mr Armitage of treachery and demanded an apology from the Bush opponents who claimed that the exposure of Miss Plame's identity in July 2003 was the work of a vindictive White House seeking to undermine critics of the war.
Yes, "Last night" and for a couple of weeks, now, at least. I thought this was a "news" article?
Miss Plame is the wife of Joe Wilson, a former ambassador, who was one of the first to criticise the Bush administration's case for war.
Mr Wilson had angered the White House by refuting the allegation – first made by British intelligence and contained in Mr Bush's 2003 State of the Union address – that Saddam's regime had sought uranium from Niger.
Umm... Mr. Wilson attempted to refute the allegation. It has since been shown conclusively that Saddam indeed had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. In any event, whether he did or didn't is irrelevant, as the intelligence agencies of Britain, France, and the U.S. believed it at the time, and the Administration had nothing better to go on.
Shortly after Mr Wilson wrote an article in the New York Times in July 2003 accusing the Bush administration of twisting the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction a conservative columnist revealed that his wife worked for the CIA.
Okay, just hang the ol' facts out there with an implied conclusion. Ahem, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And, finally... Valerie Plame was not a covert operative. No crime was committed. Repeat until you finally get it!
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Telegraph, again
Re: The Telegraph on 1 September: Are you insane??? If someone is willing to fly people to the continent "for a fiver", more power to them! If they go belly up, that's life! "Environmental costs" will be sorted out, "inevitably", by the market. The Telegraph used to LIKE the market... what has happened?
Sunday, August 20, 2006
My Pic as not hosted elsewhere...
Hmm... trying to get this photo on to "My Profile"... too big! Learning... learning... how to shrink? Let us see what software we have... trying Nero... post again here... OK, that didn't work either. How do I make this blankin' thing small enuf? Aha! Done! Office Picture Manager did what I wanted it to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
