|
|
Post by angra on Dec 6, 2012 20:00:32 GMT 10
Yes I know it's old hat and stupid, but I love Christmas and all it's bits and pieces. Especially carols. What's your favourite? Here's mine... www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK7DV5XH8ck |
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 6, 2012 20:09:08 GMT 10
We got our tree and lights up today, and are listening to carols. Actually the King's Singers spoof with Kiri. Come on, gotta enjoy SOMETHING in life! They are still brilliant. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5Su1X79WMM |
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 25, 2012 8:05:41 GMT 10
Happy Christmas and happy holidays to all you Muslim,Buddhist,Hindu, Ikea-ism friends!
Cat came in with a massive leech on her today. Merry bloody Christmas
|
|
|
|
Post by jack on Dec 25, 2012 8:27:56 GMT 10
Ebenezer Bolt has risen at sparrow fart to deliver the startling revelation that Thomas L Friedman is "dumb".
Can't really fault that. In his writing, Friedman issues adolescent effusion dressed up in apparent grown-up language.
What I can't work out is why Mister Christmas would drag himself away from hearth and home on this day of peace and good will to take a snarky pot shot at someone most of his acolytes wouldn't know from a bar of soap, over an op-ed piece that's days old.
Anyway what I really meant to say was...
Merry Christmas one and all!
|
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 25, 2012 9:02:16 GMT 10
Blot? fuck him. Who cares anymore? We all know what he is.
It's Christmas and time to forget the arseholes of the mejaa.
Time to watch 'Its a Wonderful Life' again. Now THATS a great film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 25, 2012 12:58:19 GMT 10
Oh, angra. Settle down. We don't want to be labelled "barbarians" ... "What I can't work out is why Mister Christmas would drag himself away from hearth and home on this day" He's not having much of a holiday. I'm similarly baffled at the choice of article that he's decided to focus on as well. Is that REALLY the worst of the derp flying around? No comment on the archbishop's act of appeasement? (I'm sure entirely unrelated to political calls for a royal commission). No thoughts about the NRA's "buy more (american) guns" prescription to end gun violence? (did anyone see israel's response to the spokesman's comments? Comedy gold - basically "leave us out of it - you don't know what you're talking about") I have to shake my head at his repeated "no, that's not right" any time anyone tries to point out that there are people who deny that global warming is happening, that it's contributed to by anthropogenic emissions or that it's a problem. Yeah, really andrew, there ARE people who say that or have said that. Some of them are members of our government, and LOTS of them are in the US congress. The "deniers" tag just means that somebody is in denial. It doesn't mean that they have to think the earth is the center of the solar system. Andrew's been very careful, over the years, to avoid overtly taking any particular position at all - choosing instead to take potshots at the mainstream views instead, and trivialising/parodying the positions, or occasional slips, that others take (it's pretty gutsy, I know, but a journalist has to take the tough calls ...). It's very rare for him to make a direct, falsifiable statement at all - although he has written that it's "an essentially trivial problem", and I think we will, one day, find out if he is correct. I think the triviality of the problem (if even the median predictions are correct) will depend very much on where one is standing. Changing weather patters could ruin your day if it's your lattitude-constrained country that doesn't get any rain any more. Of all the possibilities, this is the one that (if I had any authority) would worry me the most. Australia can just move its crop production around - a land mass like ours will surely have somewhere that will do well out of any possible rearrangement. African and European countries won't have quite so much freedom to move. And nothing will wipe out a bunch of people quite like a few tens of millions of people having to relocate in order to feed themselves. Heck - we bitch and moan about a few thousand and how it's all so unfair. We lock them up on an island to live in leaking tents and deny them their due legal rights. Well ... suppose south sudan turned up on enthiopia's doorstep instead. What could possibly go wrong? Change the direction of some ocean currents, or raise the sea surface temperature off the coast of africa a bit, and england freezes - water pipes burst, 6 feet underground. It's happened before. Change some prevailing weather patterns and they'll have to change the crops they grow in western europe (I've expounded on the good luck the french have in ripening grapes before - it's more than just elevation and lattitude). Get that artic gyre shaken up a bit each winter and (apparently) all hell breaks loose. These are effects that don't require anything massively unusual to occur, and they've occurred before. Raising the average global temperature by a few degrees will do things far more unpredictable than just give us all a nice even tan. Mr coriolis and Mrs ocean circulation says that it doesn't quite work that way. I honestly don't know enough to be alarmist. I don't know what will happen, it might not be a problem, but I do think it's something we need to try to work out, and not be so flip about it until we do. I think there's enough credible evidence that the "nothing to see here" response isn't defensible. |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 25, 2012 13:00:43 GMT 10
Since this is the christmas thread, everyone have a nice present: Romney didn't want to run for president, son saysWASHINGTON — No one wanted to be president less than Mitt Romney, his son said in an interview out Sunday that raises new questions about the candidacy of the losing Republican nominee.
In an interview with the Boston Globe examining what went wrong with the Romney campaign, his eldest son Tagg explains that his father had been a reluctant candidate from the start.
After failing to win the 2008 Republican nomination, Romney told his family he would not run again and had to be persuaded to enter the 2012 White House race by his wife Ann and son Tagg. They so totally should have run with petraeus .... |
|
|
|
Post by jack on Dec 25, 2012 16:47:03 GMT 10
"Romney didn't want to run for president, son says"
On this revelation I'll expect to see Americans collectively breathe a national sigh of relief that they made the right choice.
At least in so far as they (fairly decisively, as these things go) did not elect as President someone who it now turns out just didn't want to be there, someone arguably incapable of giving his heart and soul to the job.
Therefore, I'm tipping a collapse in support for groups such as the Tea Party, Birthers, not to mention the GOP, whose singular ineptitude at fielding a serious candidate will cast them into the political wilderness for a decade or more.
Then again, I was tipping a Romney win back in early November.
Seriously though, it's surely difficult to imagine there will be many in the US who wouldn't now be saying, "Phew, that was close!"
|
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 26, 2012 10:24:57 GMT 10
In terms of PR, is it a case of rolling out the son to say the the things the Dad can't?
|
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 26, 2012 10:46:12 GMT 10
Oh, angra. Settle down. We don't want to be labelled "barbarians" ... "What I can't work out is why Mister Christmas would drag himself away from hearth and home on this day" He's not having much of a holiday. I'm similarly baffled at the choice of article that he's decided to focus on as well. Is that REALLY the worst of the derp flying around? No comment on the archbishop's act of appeasement? (I'm sure entirely unrelated to political calls for a royal commission). No thoughts about the NRA's "buy more (american) guns" prescription to end gun violence? (did anyone see israel's response to the spokesman's comments? Comedy gold - basically "leave us out of it - you don't know what you're talking about") I have to shake my head at his repeated "no, that's not right" any time anyone tries to point out that there are people who deny that global warming is happening, that it's contributed to by anthropogenic emissions or that it's a problem. Yeah, really andrew, there ARE people who say that or have said that. Some of them are members of our government, and LOTS of them are in the US congress. The "deniers" tag just means that somebody is in denial. It doesn't mean that they have to think the earth is the center of the solar system. Andrew's been very careful, over the years, to avoid overtly taking any particular position at all - choosing instead to take potshots at the mainstream views instead, and trivialising/parodying the positions, or occasional slips, that others take (it's pretty gutsy, I know, but a journalist has to take the tough calls ...). It's very rare for him to make a direct, falsifiable statement at all - although he has written that it's "an essentially trivial problem", and I think we will, one day, find out if he is correct. I think the triviality of the problem (if even the median predictions are correct) will depend very much on where one is standing. Changing weather patters could ruin your day if it's your lattitude-constrained country that doesn't get any rain any more. Of all the possibilities, this is the one that (if I had any authority) would worry me the most. Australia can just move its crop production around - a land mass like ours will surely have somewhere that will do well out of any possible rearrangement. African and European countries won't have quite so much freedom to move. And nothing will wipe out a bunch of people quite like a few tens of millions of people having to relocate in order to feed themselves. Heck - we bitch and moan about a few thousand and how it's all so unfair. We lock them up on an island to live in leaking tents and deny them their due legal rights. Well ... suppose south sudan turned up on enthiopia's doorstep instead. What could possibly go wrong? Change the direction of some ocean currents, or raise the sea surface temperature off the coast of africa a bit, and england freezes - water pipes burst, 6 feet underground. It's happened before. Change some prevailing weather patterns and they'll have to change the crops they grow in western europe (I've expounded on the good luck the french have in ripening grapes before - it's more than just elevation and lattitude). Get that artic gyre shaken up a bit each winter and (apparently) all hell breaks loose. These are effects that don't require anything massively unusual to occur, and they've occurred before. Raising the average global temperature by a few degrees will do things far more unpredictable than just give us all a nice even tan. Mr coriolis and Mrs ocean circulation says that it doesn't quite work that way. I honestly don't know enough to be alarmist. I don't know what will happen, it might not be a problem, but I do think it's something we need to try to work out, and not be so flip about it until we do. I think there's enough credible evidence that the "nothing to see here" response isn't defensible. Classic Bolt commenters in that link,MoC! Casey Tronlan replied to AS
Fri 02 Dec 11 (09:22am)
The Australian has engaged in a “War on Science”
What we need is a warmist inquisition so that those foul fiends (who spew forth their noxious co2 vapours and so violate the sanctity of earth-mother gaia) can be brought to justice. I suggest we treat them like the witches of the 16-17th century, but rather than dipping them in water we throw them into a volcano: if they fly out, then they are deniers engaged in a ‘war on science’ if they fall in, then they are innocent and we can plant a green shrub in their memory. /sarc. Without the/sarc , I would go on a rant about how his commenters are violent barbarians |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 27, 2012 12:58:43 GMT 10
Woah. I was just listening to a recent "Reasonable Doubts" episode while doing some housework and decided to try to google one of the stories they mentioned. Make sure you don't need to do anything with sharp objects or heavy machinery after reading the following ... www.williamgbecker.com/littleaxeok.htmlAnd, believe it or not, there's more that happened to johann bell than is mentioned in that article. Some people ought to have gone to prison. But remember, everyone - religion makes people better. |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 27, 2012 13:05:33 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 28, 2012 15:49:52 GMT 10
According to Alastair Cooke, Reagan also tried to talk her out of sending the military to take it back. The US didn't want to make more enemies down south who might then decide that the russians were the way to go. He was, apparently, a bit concerned that the royal navy would ask for US refueling support. There was also, of course, that historical precedent - the Suez crisis. Falklands war took Thatcher by surpriseBaroness Thatcher's private reflections about the war are contained in evidence she gave to a committee of inquiry after the conflict.
"I never, never expected the Argentines to invade the Falklands head on," she said.
"It was such a stupid thing to do. I did not think it would happen."
...
The files also reveal that Ms Thatcher wrote an emotional letter to US president Ronald Reagan during the war, calling him the "only person" who could understand her position.
"I am writing to you separately because I think you are the only person who will understand the significance of what I am trying to say," she told Mr Reagan in one letter, saying the principles of democracy, liberty and justice were at stake.
Elsewhere, the files show Baroness Thatcher stressed the special relationship between the two countries as she requested Mr Reagan's help in a letter signed off with "Warm personal regards, Margaret". |
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 28, 2012 17:30:45 GMT 10
Woah. I was just listening to a recent "Reasonable Doubts" episode while doing some housework and decided to try to google one of the stories they mentioned. Make sure you don't need to do anything with sharp objects or heavy machinery after reading the following ... www.williamgbecker.com/littleaxeok.htmlAnd, believe it or not, there's more that happened to johann bell than is mentioned in that article. Some people ought to have gone to prison. But remember, everyone - religion makes people better. That one was just sad. Luckily it was a small small town.... |
|
|
|
Post by jack on Dec 29, 2012 9:27:58 GMT 10
"That one was just sad. Luckily it was a small small town"
Appallingly sad. Or sadly appalling. Or perhaps just appalling. Leaning towards terrifying.
For some reason it recalled for me the movie 'The Wicker Man'. Only saw it once a long time ago, but from memory a relatively sane outsider finds himself in a remote, isolated English community where paganism is still practiced. Of course, the locals thought themselves quite 'normal'.
Those events in Little Axe happened back in the 1980s, but one can't help wondering if such things would still be possible in C21st America.
|
|
