I can’t say I am highly annoyed at the recent cloning
announcement, but it does contribute to that dull, throbbing annoyance
that is France. My gut
reaction is that I’m against it. I
don’t really have much to say about the cloning issue, but I am so relieved that the chief of the Raeliangroup, Claude Vorilhon—a.k.a. Rael,
is French. My only worry is that
deep down their goal is to clone Jerry Lewis. (Posted December
30, 2002)
Update notices should be banned. If I wanted to
update whatever program is now out of date, I’d go on the internet and beat
it out of Microsoft’s website. I hate those helpful little reminders. I
hate it that the Microsoft Corporation apparently knows more about what is
on my computer than I do. And one, Comet Cursor, finally defeated me. I
don’t even know what the heck it does but it has repeatedly asked me to
download it to bring me joy and happiness. I always say no thank you. But
Comet Cursor is persistent. While clicking it away last week, I must have
downloaded it by mistake because I found the Comet Cursor toolbar on my
Internet Explorer. Sigh. I clicked it off. It kept coming back. I did
mention it is persistent, right? I finally got tired of clicking it off
and stopping it at the wire so I sought it out in its lair. I found the
Comet folder that it had apparently created and deleted the whole darned
thing. Then in sheer spite I deleted it from my trash bin. Even here it
clung to life, refusing to go. But I was persistent, too. It finally died.
All was well. But then, this weekend, I clicked on Microsoft Word to write
and …it was gone. The ghost of Word told me the unfortunate
information—somehow instead of being in the Microsoft Word folder, it had been moved to the Comet folder. Did I
move it? Did Comet? Was there always a Comet folder there that I’d never
noticed? Don’t know and it wouldn’t do me any good if I did. Undeleting
and restoring features were useless. I even went into DOS. Dead. Yeah,
Comet Curser was the unfortunately appropriate name for that. But hey, I
had purchased Wordperfect for my laptop some
months ago (since Word was ridiculously expensive), so now I have no
excuse not to learn it inside out.There,
I feel better now. Needless to say, however, it was quite annoying. (Posted December 23, 2002)
The new Jaguar commercials are really annoying. A
very British woman, who I am sure is intended to
convey sophisticated European automotive excellence rather than drunken
soccer hooligans puking on Bobbies, talks about this car. I can only
assume that the accent gives a consumer reassurance that the gobs of money
needed to purchase the driving machine are well spent. Anyway, these are
only minor annoyances perhaps exacerbated by the main one. So (taking a
deep breath here), why on Earth does she pronounce the car’s name as
“Jag-you-are”? It’s “Jag-wire” in America for Pete’s sake! Jag-you-are? Oh yes, that is so
much better. And worth at least ten grand more, no? I want to send Carroll
O’Connor to yell at her. In some forgettable World War II movie, he played
an American general, and his highly educated aide, a major, told him
something about developments around “Non-CEE.” The general replied, “Do
you mean Nancy, major? If you mean Nancy, then say Nancy!” And don’t even
ask me what colour I want it to be. (Posted December
19, 2002)
Trent Lott should not be senate majority leader.
On the one hand, I am tempted to write off his remarks at Strom Thurmond’s
100th birthday celebration as just insincere fluff meant to
compliment a colleague at a tremendous milestone. Yet what part of the past
fifty years would we be better of without? The Civil Rights Act? Velcro?
MP3s? The implication is terrible. Given past statements by Senator Lott,
it seems that Lott is an annoyance to his party who could undo their
gains. For politics and decency, Lott should step down as Senate leader.
Perhaps I make too much of an offhand remark, but it appears to be too
hard-hearted to stand. We stand poised to free the Iraqis yet the leader
of the Senate pines for the days when some of us were less than free? Or
he appears to say that, at least.His apology was at least better than
Saddam’s, but not by much. (Posted December 10, 2002)
You know, I once rather liked
Patrick Buchanan. Sure, I never wanted him in power, there
was an intensity that was always off putting. But he would say things about the
Soviet Union that needed saying. Since 1991, he’s just become a
nut case. It is sad to see someone descend to a new low level of
anti-Americanism. He
blames America for 9-11. If only we weren’t “over there” they would have
left us alone. Hogwash.
They hate us for who we are. If we weren’t there—presumably Buchanan opposes
our military presence there—the Islamists would see our influence there. They’d
hate Pepsi, and Britney Spears, and McDonalds, and Dallas reruns. To them, we’d be there—corrupting their
youth. They’d still attack us for that. So, I salute Pat Buchanan—Annoyance. He
now sits with the anti-globalization/pro-Iraq crowd. They are welcome to each
other. (Posted November 15, 2002)
My stairwell lights are
starting to really annoy me. I have two high-powered lamps on the wall way up
high. I’ve lived here now for 17 months and the bulbs still work. I don’t know
how long they’ve been there. Every time I turn those lights on, lately, I tense
up waiting for the pop and dimming of light. It’s a dadburned bulb of Damocles.
I’m perhaps a little more sensitive right now since both my car headlights went
out in one week. As luck would have it, I replaced the first light immediately
based on my reflexive habit of having reserves available for anything. What
would happen, I reasoned, if my other headlight went out and I was driving home
on the freeway at night? (as I do all the time, of
course) Anyway, my stairwell lights will go out. Sure, when my condo was built
as an apartment townhouse, this was no problem. The guy with the really tall
ladder would come by and replace it. I, of course, have neither the ladder nor
the vertical leap to enable me to replace those bulbs. I may have room for a 16
foot extendible ladder if it really does contract to 8 feet. I’m not sure if
sixteen feet is enough to let me reach the bulb, but that’s my plan. Yep, the
first time one of those bulbs goes out, that first replacement bulb will set me
back about $70. That is annoying. (Posted November 14, 2002)
James Carville is a repulsive caricature of a political beast. Watching him on Tim Russert Sunday night is just a horrible reminder that this man once walked in the halls of power. His venom and willingness—even eagerness—to twist events into a full partisan attack is gruesome to behold. That he seems to enjoy it makes it even worse. It is difficult enough to debate real issues without men such as Carville around who work for the cheap shot. I am grateful he is limited to the talk shows. I am horrified to think that some might listen to his advice. Truly a waste of good oxygen. Truly sad actually. A talented man. Yet it is as if he has succumbed to the dark side. (Posted October 27, 2002)
C-SPAN has Ramsey Clark on, spouting off. He disgusts me. He accuses us of genocide and militarism. He charges that the Persian Gulf War was a war crime. He charges that we are a repressive government. He blames us for all the problems. May he rot in Hell, if the Devil can stomach his presence. Oh my God, my joy is complete—Cynthia McKinney followed him. She actually said, "When good men do nothing, evil triumphs." Does she not see that we are fighting evil? And that she and Ramsey are the ones who would do nothing and therefore let evil triumph? Of course not. She is an idiot. Amazingly, Jesse Jackson actually looked a little uncomfortable behind them. What a bunch of losers. A hodgepodge of protesters who probably weren’t sure what the protest of the day was. And all in one place. They just don’t seem to realize that we were attacked. Our enemies hate us—even them. Yet the protesters would just sit and take it. And believe we deserve it. Amazing. (Posted October 26, 2002)
·Ok, another annoyance. Phil Donahue torques me
off. Big time. And it’s worse because I thought we were long rid of his
television presence. He is of the
undead.Sadly, though I love the variety
of cable news, this also means there is room even for this fool to get air time
(I sob when I think that Sledge Hammer might still be on if there were as many
stations on the air when it tried to attract an audience). I read this, since I can’t take more than five
minutes of his show: “Another reader says, “Check out Phil Donahue’s comment
the other day, that an overwhelming majority of black
and ‘Latino’ congressmen voted against the Iraq
resolution because ‘It’s their brothers and sisters who will be fighting this
war!’ As a ‘Latino’ former member of the armed forces, I always kind of thought
that all Americans were my brothers and sisters in a sense.”” I suppose
I should rag on Chris Matthews and others for this, but Phil is much like Iraq:
he combines a whole bunch of outrages in one place.It is simply a lie that minorities have
perished in greater numbers than whites. It is a myth that was not true in Vietnam
(and no less false for its persistence) and will not be true if we fight Iraq.
Although minorities are
“over-represented” in the military, whites are way “over-represented” in the
infantry and other combat branches. I’ve heard it explained as more minorities
going in for career/education reasons and whites going in for adventure. Whatever, those who worry that minorities will
suffer disproportionately can rest easy.It bugs me that it should be particularly
awful to some that minorities will die. Are
we not all Americans? Do our soldiers
not protect all of us?Jeez, they even
protect the protesters.If war is bad,
why isn’t it just as bad for some freckle-faced kid in Iowa
to die?That Phil would spout this is no
surprise. Lord let his ratings tank so
his show may die once and for all. This time please use a stake through the
heart to make it permanent.(Posted October 24, 2002)
Ramsey Clark: “Goodlife.” Definitely
annoying. A waste of good oxygen. I had rather forgotten that he is still
alive and kicking. And people wonder why we might not want to replace our
system of justice with the International Criminal Court? With people like Ramsey Clark out there,
showing up at the office could be twisted into a war crime. He should be ashamed of himself for writing this letter. But
he has been a persistent idiot who is only free because he has the good
fortune to live in a free country. If
we were as bad as he thinks we are, he’d have been shot a long time ago. Mercifully, we are free enough to
tolerate such propaganda. And only a small cadre of
fellow idiots listen to him. We bad life are
going to end the threat of Saddam Hussein to our nation. (Posted September 27, 2002)
“The Troubling Old Face” of defeated America in that far off land where the Soviet Union was morally equivalent to us is back.He has advice for us. He has valuable
print space. He hasn’t a clue.In
his “The Troubling New Face of America” opinion
piece, former president Jimmy Carter complains about a number of
things. Quite honestly, I’ve forgotten what he wrote already. I just don’t
care. He annoys me to no end and I wish he would remain silent. He is
truly a speed bump interrupting the pursuit of American interests. Whether
he goes on about the Middle
East, Africa, South
America, Cuba, Afghanistan, or anything more substantive than what he might
have for lunch, he is just wrong. I just don’t care what he thinks about Iraq or civil liberties. Or anything else. He
provides no fresh insights, just tired old complaints rearranged with the
wonders of word processing to apply to the latest target of his morally
superior pose. Model former president indeed. President Jimmy
Carter—Friend to Dictators and Counsel to Those Who Hate Us.May that be is epitaph (after a long
life, I wish him no personal ill). He is now reduced to being merely an
annoying thing to be listed here. It is sad that we wasted four precious
years of our nation with him at the helm. It is sadder yet that because of
those four years, we must listen to him prattle on. (Posted September 6, 2002)
Ted Rall is an idiot.
His over the top ravings are truly gems. I almost always restrain myself
nowadays but sometimes I just can’t help myself. Must be a character flaw
on my part. He never fails to impress me with his ability to twist the
normal into a BIG HORRIBLE ASSAULT ON OUR LIBERTIES. His
latest drivel concerns his drive to give POWs held by us in Cuba actual criminal defendant rights. He of course
believes that they are being treated horribly.Good God, even
the European press stopped going on about that lie long ago. Goodness
gracious, one tried to commit suicide with a plastic razor! We must be at
fault! I assume he carries this logic to September 11—they did commit
suicide as they killed 3,000 of us—must have been our fault, eh Ted? Ted
is truly a waste of good oxygen better consumed by mammals and some of the
cuter reptiles. Oh, I should at least link to a defense of actually holding
enemy POWs during war. (Posted August 22, 2002)
NPR today revived a pet peeve of mine that was rampant in the 1980s. Namely, every reporter who wanted to show their support of the Sandinistas would pronounce every Spanish word as if they were fresh from crossing the Rio Grande the previous night. Honestly, the most white bread and velveeta sounding Anglo would break into rolling R's and the works if they said "Nicaragua." Today, some reporter discussing Hispanic immigrants who make it in America pulled out all the stops! Good God! Does she break into a Lucky Charms accent when discussing the IRA and Northern Ireland? Does she get a Boris Badinov accent when reporting on Putin's Russia? Does she have problems with her R's and L's when talking about Japan's economic crisis? Does she descend into Pepe Le Pew French when ridiculing the French? (Ok, that's a bad example. I know I do) I would think it would be an insult to mimic the subject's language or accent. Can you imagine the uproar over a fake Jewish mother style of speech or inner city slang in the course of a news report? Yet somehow, it is the height of progressiveness to use a fake Hispanic accent. Saturday Night Live had a great skit on this years ago with Jimmy Smits as one of a group of lawyers discussing the type of Mexican food they would order for lunch! Anglo speech until any one of them mentioned "tortilla" or "enchilada." Absolutely hilarious! (Posted August 2002?)
Defense lawyers who proclaim that getting a child abductor/killer off on a technicality represents a selfless defense of our right to a fair trial are full of it. They may need to believe that to sleep at night but it is a crock. A fair trial does not mean getting an idiot jury so that you have a fifty-fifty chance of going free. Too many think that having the laws fairly applied so that you are not punished beyond what the law provides means you have the right to exploit any loophole. The fact is, by the time somebody is charged and is prosecuted in court, all the accused who are not probably guilty have been weeded out and are already free. Those charged and prosecuted are those likely to be guilty, notwithstanding "innocent until proven guilty." This is useful in the abstract but to be true in real life would require prosecuting everybody arrested, regardless of the circumstances. Then, almost all in court would be innocent. As proof of the guilt of the vast overwhelming majority of prisoners, I was heartened to see that few convicts take advantage of free DNA tests to prove their innocence and gain their freedom. I don't know if there is anything that can be done to correct this without damaging our system of juries, but it sure seems like there should be. (Posted July 30, 2002)
Ok, I tried to resist. Jesse Jackson used to just annoy me. Even when he has a legitimate point, he has a way of making me disagree with him as a reflex. Fine, I'll even concede that once upon a time he was probably a great civil rights leader. That was a long time ago and I don't see much to admire any more. Certainly, there's much to despise. He agitates on race without ever conceding that yes, this country has made tremendous and much needed progress on race relations. It is always 1954 to Jackson and the dogs are always about to be unleashed. He just shakes down corporations and television stations for money and air time. But you know, now I just don't care what he says. I used to at least listen. But he hasn't even been able to come up with a decent rhyme in recent memory. Now I just tune to a different station. That's why God gave us cable TV and remotes. If I thought he might come within spitting distance of a reasonable position, I'd listen. Honestly, does anybody care what he thinks nowadays? (Posted July 24, 2002)
"Peace activists" really annoy me. With rare
exception, the folks who spout off about how war is wrong
and should never be used to solve problems don't actually
mean it. You can usually name a cause for which they
would gladly support a war. Yet they automatically gain
the moral high ground. Sure, they may even be right; but
why are their motives assumed to be pure? These are the
same folks displaying the bumper sticker I see on
occasion, "If you want peace, work for justice."
Seems like the believers in this slogan have forgotten
something. Namely, those who would perpetuate injustice
often can't be Kumbayad into providing justice. "Peace"
in that sense is simply the numbing status quo of living
a life without hope or freedom. Enforcing justice usually
requires tanks, and planes, and ships, and all the
assorted lethal hardware joined to a willingness to use
it ruthlessly for a good end. Oh sure, in the very long
run, peace could be the result of universal justice, but
the people that slap this on their car bumper don't mean
that. No, gaining justice in the international scene
requires a 2 X 4 applied firmly to the head of tyrants. (Posted July 12, 2002)
I've read a lot about "moral clarity" in the
war on terrorism. I believe they are dead wrong. Sadly,
it is from writers with whom I agree often on other
issues. Mostly it seems to be asserted by people who
believe more countries should be put in the "against
us" camp. President Bush's "you are either with
us or against us" challenge was a great rhetorical
device and a good broad challenge. It was not meant to be
a rigid litmus test nor should it be. I think many of
these proponents confuse the moral clarity of the
ultimate objective of crushing terrorism and the tactics
necessary to reach that goal. Did we lack clarity in
World War II for allowing one of the original axis of
evil, Italy, to switch sides? Hardly. The major evil was
Nazi Germany and getting the junior evil partner out of
the way was done to facilitate the main fight. Did we
lack moral clarity for supplying Stalin's Soviet Union? I
imagine we are all familiar with Churchill's remarks
about what he would do if Hitler invaded Hell. More
recently, was Ronald Reagan deficient in his view of the
"evil empire" because he bolstered equally
reprehensible (but less immediately dangerous) communist
China during the Cold War? If the architect of our final
victory over Soviet Russia cannot meet the current demand
for moral clarity, I believe the standard is ridiculous.
We have many tasks ahead of us and I see no reason why we
should insist on tackling all of them at once. I shall
end with a quote from Nicias as the Athenians debated
striking Syracuse because Syracuse supported (but was not
an actual co-belligerent with) Sparta, from Thucydides'
The Peloponnesian War: "[Y]ou are leaving many
enemies behind you, and you apparently want to make new
ones... and have them also on your hands." Let's
prioritize the threats and deal with them on a manageable
rate. (Posted July 12, 2002)
The French are upset because one of their own, Zacarias
Moussaoui, may be put to death if we convict him? Good
God, do they not at least have the decency to be ashamed
that one of their own conspired to kill Americans in
large numbers? Do they really think that withdrawing
cooperation with us on his prosecution is the right thing
to do? I swear, the French haven't done anything for us
since the Revolution, and even that was done to annoy the
British and not for any love of liberty. Why do I suspect
that the French would be smugly happy if the September 11
terrorists had taken out the Statue of Liberty? The fact
that the symbol of American freedom and appeal to the
world is a gift from the French people must irk them to
no end. I must keep reminding myself, they really are our
ally, they really are our ally... (Posted July 12, 2002)
Actually, this one isn't an annoying thing. Just glad to
see the hand wringing of those in the West opposed to
expanding NATO failed to deter expansion. Their panic
mongering was false and NATO expansion is going just fine,
thank you. Ok, this next part is annoying. Those who
opposed expanding NATO to former satellite states and
conquests claimed that it was too provocative and risky
for us to defend them if Russia attacked. Simultaneously
they claimed Russia was not a threat. And they further
often said that we should let Russia into NATO. So
extending NATO's protective umbrella all the way to the
Russian-Chinese border is a good idea? Lord knows I think
the Russians should firmly side with us, but I hardly
think linking our power to defending the Russian-Chinese
border is a good idea. (Posted July 12, 2002)
