Tom DeLay is a bastard (but then we knew that...)
Amazing display of callous hatefullness. ( Read more... )
2005-01-07
this is quite appalling
Thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mazzie for pointing it out.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/6/194434/1328
The sponsor is also Chief Patron on two joint resolutions seeking a constitutional amendment stating marriage is between a man and a woman, supporting tort reform (IOW, this is W, Virginia-style), and this curious bill (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+sum+HB1731) that seems to be about forcing high schools to allow home-schooled or parochially schooled students to participate ont heri local high school's interscholastic teams even if they don't *go* to their local high school.
mazzie for pointing it out.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/6/194434/1328
The sponsor is also Chief Patron on two joint resolutions seeking a constitutional amendment stating marriage is between a man and a woman, supporting tort reform (IOW, this is W, Virginia-style), and this curious bill (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+sum+HB1731) that seems to be about forcing high schools to allow home-schooled or parochially schooled students to participate ont heri local high school's interscholastic teams even if they don't *go* to their local high school.
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear
I've taped a few episodes of The Kumars at No. 42, and I finally had a chance to watch it.
Oh goodness.
It may just be over-compensating AngoIndianophile taste (or half a bottle of cheap merlot), but I found it quite hilarious. And I know know who's going to tak over from Dick clark when he announces his retirement. And how did Ami find out so much about Donny Osmond?
Oh goodness.
It may just be over-compensating AngoIndianophile taste (or half a bottle of cheap merlot), but I found it quite hilarious. And I know know who's going to tak over from Dick clark when he announces his retirement. And how did Ami find out so much about Donny Osmond?
somewhat impatient
OK, so I'm catching up with this week's topical humour. And I watched Jon Stewart's interview with Howard Zinn.
I have to issue my own personal objection to Mr Zinn's comparison between George W. Bush and Christopher Columbus. It's simply not intellectually honest to pretend, as he is clearly happy to do, that there's a similarity there. That the actions of a 21st century state are the same as the professed interests of the Roman Catholic Church, the objectives of the Crown of Spain, and the objectives of a personally directed, privately financed scientific and adventuring expedition.
First because Zinn applies 21st century standards of conduct to Columbus. That's simply just silly, but it's easy and painless for him, because he knows that most of the people watchimg and listening are going to expect a 16th century person to be just like them; why wouldn't he be, right?
Second, because he's disingenuous about Columbus' real motivations. Columbus, from all I've read about him, was not a religiously motivated conquistador like Cortez and Balboa. He was interested in finding trade routes, not converts.
Last of all, for the reason most unpopular with people like Mr Zinn. The IDEA, the CONCEPTION that people in the colonized countries might have been better off under colonial rule than native rule. Of course I'm not going to attempt to justify Columban or 16th century Spanish (or English) rule. But cast you minds on this poem about the responsibilities of empire as seen by the most 19th century Englishman and tell me with a straight face that Jinnah, Gandhi, Musharraf, Kenyatta, arap Moi, Smith, Mugabe, Botha, de Klerke, Doe, Strasser, Sankoh, yes even Ben Gurion and Meir have done a better job, created more free and more democratic more prosperous and open states than the ones they inherited from colonial governments.
You see, it's very easy to criticize and carp. When you're actually on the ground and are responsible, it's a different matter, one that I'm obliiged to think most academics are sadly unprepared for.
I have to issue my own personal objection to Mr Zinn's comparison between George W. Bush and Christopher Columbus. It's simply not intellectually honest to pretend, as he is clearly happy to do, that there's a similarity there. That the actions of a 21st century state are the same as the professed interests of the Roman Catholic Church, the objectives of the Crown of Spain, and the objectives of a personally directed, privately financed scientific and adventuring expedition.
First because Zinn applies 21st century standards of conduct to Columbus. That's simply just silly, but it's easy and painless for him, because he knows that most of the people watchimg and listening are going to expect a 16th century person to be just like them; why wouldn't he be, right?
Second, because he's disingenuous about Columbus' real motivations. Columbus, from all I've read about him, was not a religiously motivated conquistador like Cortez and Balboa. He was interested in finding trade routes, not converts.
Last of all, for the reason most unpopular with people like Mr Zinn. The IDEA, the CONCEPTION that people in the colonized countries might have been better off under colonial rule than native rule. Of course I'm not going to attempt to justify Columban or 16th century Spanish (or English) rule. But cast you minds on this poem about the responsibilities of empire as seen by the most 19th century Englishman and tell me with a straight face that Jinnah, Gandhi, Musharraf, Kenyatta, arap Moi, Smith, Mugabe, Botha, de Klerke, Doe, Strasser, Sankoh, yes even Ben Gurion and Meir have done a better job, created more free and more democratic more prosperous and open states than the ones they inherited from colonial governments.
You see, it's very easy to criticize and carp. When you're actually on the ground and are responsible, it's a different matter, one that I'm obliiged to think most academics are sadly unprepared for.