Not a whole lot of options here, but then, if you know anything about intellectuals, you know they really only do come in three flavours, existentialist/theist schism notwithstanding.
You scored as Aspiring Intellectual. You truly believe that there is more to our existence than to work and die. Kudos to you, maybe one day you will have the understanding you truly deserve.
What type of intellectual are you? |
Another dead-on music video from DCLugi. Does it sound slightly familiar, perhaps?
and, apparently, using the post-paranoid age’s patented warrant-less taps and hacking provisions, which Blair‘s own government shoved down the throats of a complacent nation. Whoops, won’t do that again soon, will ya?
The Guardian has a report on the panic at #10:
Yates was the man who authorised the arrest of Ruth Turner, the rather earnest daughter of a theology professor and, more importantly, head of government relations at Number 10, on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. The move has set the government and the Metropolitan Police at war. What began with four police officers banging on the door of Turner‘s flat in Waterloo at dawn now threatens to end in a constitutional standoff, raising fundamental questions about the relationship between politicians and the law.
And more of the same, with bonus “senior government officials interfering with an investigation” here.
Downing street was plunged into a full-scale war with the police yesterday after senior officers hit back at criticism of the way the cash-for-peerages investigation is being handled.
They responded after Cabinet Minister Tessa Jowell expressed bewilderment at the manner in which Ruth Turner, Number 10’s director of devolvement relations, was arrested at home at dawn – while former Home Secretary David Blunkett accused police of ‘theatrics’. Yesterday Scotland Yard made clear its anger at what it sees as undue political pressure. Sir Chris Fox, the former president of the Association of Chief Police Officers who remains close to Scotland Yard, accused political critics of ‘scheming to discredit a very important inquiry’. Chief constables feared a potential threat to police independence, he added.
and, best of all, Iain Dale has the story about how it was the coppers hacking into the computer system at #10 which provided the smoking gun. This would, of course, have been illegal but for the shiny new surveillance measures that have been enacted since The War Against Terror began.
…An independent IT expert was then sent in by detectives, with the permission of Downing Street, to look through communications records, it claimed. But the Sunday Telegraph suggested that detectives had obtained high-level permission to “hack” into the IT system remotely…
Here’s one of my patented I-don’t-agree-with-everything-in-this-post-but-it’s-too-damn-good-to-ignore posts. Captain KJ is an American serving in Iraq, and this is her post about the way the American MSM reports on American deaths, doesn’t report on Iraqi deaths, and gives a bad impression of America to Iraqis in multiple ways.
But where she says that exercising their freedom of speech is one of those ways, that is where she and I diverge. This is an excerpt, of course, but I encourage you to read the whole post, because she makes several complex points.
…What does it say to the Iraqis that we yell and scream (or our visible press does) about 20 American deaths when, in this ongoing conflict, a “light casualty day” for civilians in Baghdad is a day when there are less than 50 deaths? What are we saying about our relative valuing of American and Iraqi lives? Perhaps we should consider the messages that we’re carrying around the world when we have hysterics in the press the way we do. Granted, no nation or people can escape a certain amount of ethnocentrism, but it looks really bad to the people here when we obsess continually about American lives lost (which are, after all, lives lost who had volunteered to put themselves in the path of danger), and remain dismissively mute about the Iraqi lives lost, except as an underscore to continually harping about American deaths…
and my comment:
A good post. Respect for American lives does not require the negation of the personhood of any other nationalities, and I haven’t seen it put as well as it is here. But do you think that anyone Stateside gives a moment’s thought to how the US appears to Iraqis? I don’t: your post is the single most humanistic thing I’ve read about the Iraqis since…yes, since the last time I read Al Jazeera.
I have to strongly disagree, however, that parroting the party line strengthens the country. The Iraqis already know the US is divided: the US really is divided. Opposition and debate are inherent in the democratic process and certainly the Founding Fathers of the United States knew and valued this. It’s messy. It’s complicated. But it is the mark of an advanced nation that it tolerates ambiguity and difference, and venerates freedom of speech. There is no point in your being there, trying to bring democracy to Iraq, if they don’t know that this is how it works; they already know how totalitarianism and government censorship work. They know it all too well.
From the truly amusing Modern Drunkard magazine, and coming, as all good things do, through the Baby Jebus.
54. Never lie in a bar. You may, however, grossly exaggerate and lean.
14. If you offer to buy a woman a drink and she refuses, she does not like you.
15. If you offer to buy a woman a drink and she accepts, she still might not like you.
16. If she buys you a drink, she likes you.
raincoaster 