As opposed to many of the so-called ones in this country. I find it ironic that many people who call themselves Democrats are the ones in the forefront of poo pooing democracy when it actually happens. If a Democrat was in the White House, they’d be praising it, and him (or her) to the skies, of course.
Anway, Adam Keiper has compiled a stirring video of the Iraqi elections.
Just a little rant.
I guess it’s some kind of technological advance when we can talk to robots on the telephone, but I don’t want to do it. It’s not just that the technology isn’t perfect, and you have to enunciate clearly and loudly. Did it ever occur to these morons that if I’m in the middle of a cube farm, I just may not want to speak my credit card number, or social security number, or zip code, or mother’s maiden name aloud? Or even speaking precise monosyllables, and sounding like an idiot to your cubemates?
I thought that the concept of using the digital keypad for sending commands to a remote system was great. Going to voice is, for me, a step backwards. There’s no reason that they can’t give a keypad option for each verbal one, yet many of them, once they transition to the new voice recognition systems, don’t. I prefer to pay my bills in silence, and I’ll prefer service providers that recognize that.
Hugh Hewitt has an interview with someone who was present at Eason Jordan’s accidental unveiling of his anti-military, anti-US views.
The Arab journalists and WEF members who were in the audience
and congratulated Mr. Jordan for his bravery and courage for standing up to the U.S. heard what we all heard, and it was pretty damning.Someone should search the Arab language press (web and print) for their reaction to what was said. If the WEF 2005 videotape of this meeting is ever released for public view, it will not help Mr. Jordan at all. He is much better off if the tape (in classic “1984” style) just disappears. I can only imagine the reaction of a U.S. audience to a broadcast of what he said prior to being challenged, prior to his backtracking, and prior to having time to realize the implications of what he said.
To be fair, we are all only humans and in the heat of the moment many people say all sorts of things that they later regret. The contrast of what he was saying before and after he realized what he was saying was pretty incredible. His media savvy, professional executive brain did kick in, but not soon enough. The content and context of what he said would allow groups with an anti-American bias to take what he said and believe that the American military forces had
targeted for assasination journalists. For someone with a pro-U.S. posture, you were left confused and in disbelief.
There’s an old joke about a faux pas being the accidental blurting out of the truth. There’s an alternate version, which is the accidental disclosure of what one believes to be the truth, even if it’s a fantasy. No doubt Mr. Jordan actually believes this, or at least doesn’t disbelieve it enough to be uncomfortable with saying it in front of what he perceives to be friendly audiences.
How much longer will most of the media continue to ignore it? I’m particularly surprised that Fox, or even more so–the more-desperate MSNBC aren’t playing up the head of their rival network’s slanderous comments to the hilt, exposing CNN for the anti-Bush shills that they are. And yes, I do think that that’s the true animus behind this. It’s about Bush hatred. The reputation of the American military that has liberated and democratized fifty million people in the past two years is just (perhaps, perhaps not) regrettable collateral damage in the noble crusade against Chimpy McFlightsuit.
C’mon, Keith. What’s the point in passing on this tidbit if you’re not going to name names?
Who’s the administrator candidate? Who’s the former JSCer? This isn’t journalism–it sounds like a Cindy Adams gossip column.
I suppose the response will be that (s)he knows who (s)he is.
[Noon update]
Commenter Leland makes a good point:
Now others are left speculating on names of who is doing what to whom with the greatest likelihood of muddying the names of innocent people.
Knock it off indeed.
The Iraqis are turning on the “insurgents”:
The insurgents raided the village of al-Mudhiryah south of Baghdad after warning its inhabitants not to vote in the election.
The villagers fought back, killing five of the insurgents and wounding eight others.
The insurgents’ cars were then set alight.
Al-Mudhiryah’s tribal sheikh says his people are sick of being threatened by Islamic extremists.
Maybe they’ll start to get the message now. I doubt if Michael Moore will, though. Just what the heck kind of quagmire is this, anyway?
It’s been out for over a month, but I just noticed this survey on nanotechnology at the Economist.
If this is the next political divide, I know which side I’m on.
This could revolutionize interplanetary flight.
I didn’t expect the president to mention space last night, and he met my expectations. Reflexive Bush-hating space enthusiasts (you know who you are…) will of course claim that this is indicative of his lack of enthusiasm and support for his own new initiative, but I think that’s nonsense. I think that it’s more reflective of confidence in his ability to continue to execute it without having to rally the public behind it (something that it’s not clear that it’s possible to do). If anything, parading it in a SOTU address might simply draw fire from critics in a time of massive budget deficits.
I will continue to judge the president’s support by his actions, rather than public speeches. He got the full NASA budget passed last fall, using a rare threat of a presidential veto. The program is moving forward as quickly as it’s possible for a bureaucracy like NASA to make it happen, with concept studies underway, an RFP about to be released for the CEV, and plans for a Lead System Integrator to be selected this year. Ultimately, it’s hardware, not speeches, that will get us into space.
I’d love to see what Mindles and Jane, and Tyler Cowen, think about this:
A model that assumes stock market traders have zero intelligence has been found to mimic the behaviour of the London Stock Exchange very closely.
However, the surprising result does not mean traders are actually just buying and selling at random, say researchers. Instead, it suggests that the movement of markets depend less on the strategic behaviour of traders and more on the structure and constraints of the trading system itself.