I’m hearing on the news that Chirac made a speech (his first public appearance since the riots started) in which he said that France was in a malaise. No word if he was wearing a cardigan at the time, or beset by rabbits. Or what his daughter thought about the world situation.
Anyway, is it time for the French Ronald Reagan?
[Update at 9:15 PST]
Here’s the link.
Mark Whittington once again demonstrates his inability to understand the arguments against his wacky “Chinese-taking-over-the-Moon” hysteria:
Of course I am assured that the Chinese would not even think of behaving badly in space. That would be “stupid.”
No, Mark. What is stupid is thinking that anyone has ever made such an argument. Or at least anyone at this web site. Perhaps you’re arguing with someone at some fantasy web site in your own mind.
Just more evidence of Mark’s continuing flight from reality, and another demonstration of why it’s so difficult to take him seriously.
If one is to believe the Hindustani Times (and hey, who wouldn’t?!), Angelina Jolie resorted to black magic to woo Brad Pitt away from Jennifer Aniston.
I’ve got to think that something else is going on there, myself.
Hey, Angie, I’ll watch while you do that voodoo, that you do so well.
I’m about a week late on this, but Michael Belfiore is feasting on crow.
Michael, there’s an old saying on Usenet, which is that the best way to learn something about a subject you’re interested in is to post something blatantly (almost trollishly) wrong about it in a relevant newsgroup.
With the blogosphere, the whole web is Usenet now.
I have no doubt that this will be militarily very effective, but I wonder what kind of safeguards they have in place to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on one, in such a way as to use it?
I’d like to think that at some point these weapons will have security measures, such as temporary codes (good for, say, an hour), to prevent them from being used by the terrorists. I don’t know whether it’s practical or not, but as our weaponry continues to advance, so will theirs if they can get access to it.
I have no doubt that this will be militarily very effective, but I wonder what kind of safeguards they have in place to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on one, in such a way as to use it?
I’d like to think that at some point these weapons will have security measures, such as temporary codes (good for, say, an hour), to prevent them from being used by the terrorists. I don’t know whether it’s practical or not, but as our weaponry continues to advance, so will theirs if they can get access to it.
I have no doubt that this will be militarily very effective, but I wonder what kind of safeguards they have in place to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on one, in such a way as to use it?
I’d like to think that at some point these weapons will have security measures, such as temporary codes (good for, say, an hour), to prevent them from being used by the terrorists. I don’t know whether it’s practical or not, but as our weaponry continues to advance, so will theirs if they can get access to it.
But it’s worth a listen. Heck, I even turned Greta down for it.
Yes, Mickey, that is damning it with faint praise, but it’s what happened to be on at the time that I linked to it from Glenn’s site. I would have turned down Hannity and Colmes, too, and probably O’Reilly, unless he had some really interesting guest on (a rare event). But not Brit Hume.
Here’s the problem. Political commentary doesn’t make for compelling video, even if it offers the entertainment of watching human robots (a combination of natural ability, and many frozen frames as the video buffer fills up). Even on high-bandwidth media (i.e., my satellite dish), talking heads are talking heads, and most of the time I rarely watch, but listen to it as I’m doing things elsewhere in the house. Well, unless Lauri Dhue, or Megyn Kendall, or various other newsbabes come on. Then, for some strange reason, I feel compelled to actually come into the room to view the screen. I’ve no idea why, but perhaps Robert Wright does.
But I thought the conversation was interesting, and much easier on the ears than the shout shows, and more intelligent than most of them as well. So one suggestion might be to bag the video, because it really is very little value added, and do bloggingmouths.radio instead. Bandwidth doesn’t yet grow on trees, and sticking with audio would open up the audience to the dialup crowd, and allow easier storage of shows, both for users and the server, with reduced bandwidth charges for all.
But even then, the question is, what is the value of listening to guys (and gals) talk, as opposed to reading what they write, which for me has a much higher baud rate for lower bandwidth. I had the same problem in college. I rarely attended the lectures, unless I explicitly had to in order to get the grade, because I don’t take information in that well through my ears, at least if I want to retain it. I always preferred to read the book, which offered me much more data in a given amount of time than having to listen to someone slowly mouth the words.
But given that I do keep a news channel on in background when I’m working, and I could download the audio and listen to it while exercising or out for a walk, one could certainly do worse than checking them out. As I mentioned up at the top, I know I was. Doing worse, that is.
Michael Fumento says that there’s a lot of unjustified hysteria over the “inevitable” avian flu pandememic.
Michael Fumento says that there’s a lot of unjustified hysteria over the “inevitable” avian flu pandememic.