14. desember 2002

With license to offend The North Korean government is deeply insulted by the latest James Bond film, Die another day, primarily because they are the villain, but also because the country is described as backwards (and?). South Koreans also take offense at the movie, more specifically a sex scene in a temple. I really liked this part: "The film - starring Pierce Brosnan and Halle Berry - "clearly proves" the US is "the root cause of all disasters and misfortune of the Korean nation" and is "an empire of evil", according to the Secretariat of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland." (BBC News) Hey, dimwits. James Bond is not even American; it is British! What does that prove about you? 6:41:34 PM    comment []

Tech support scare Imagine trying to repair a PC, opening it up, and seeing a live snake, possibly poisonous. The tech guy even took pictures. Have a look! 7:33:55 AM    comment []

God late for wedding "An embarrassed God admitted Monday that He was late for the Saturday wedding of Patrick Moore and Dina Roble, arriving halfway through the ceremony but catching "most of the important stuff." (The Onion) 6:20:26 AM    comment []

Is 'mooning' constitutionally protected free speech? "A lawyer for defendant James Albert Ernest Togo, 20, told a court in the eastern state of Queensland last month that his client was exercising his right to protest and was not guilty of indecency when he bared his buttocks at a police car last August. " (CNN) Did he say that with a straight face? 3:11:06 AM    comment []

Lott's past record on race Trent Lott's latest gaffe just illuminates his dubious past record on race issues in the US Senate. While Thurmond, who once ran for president on a segregationist platform, has since changed and often voted for racial reform, Lott (picture) has consistently been voting extreme-right-wing on race. And in his College days, he fought tooth and nail to keep blacks out of his fraternity. Now Lott is fighting for his political life. Here are some examples from his Senate voting, quoted from this web site: In 2001, Lott cast the only vote against the confirmation of Judge Roger Gregory, the first African American judge ever seated on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Thurmond voted for Gregory. In 1983, Lott voted against creating a federal holiday for civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. Thurmond voted for the holiday. In 1982, Lott voted against the Voting Rights Act extension, which Neas called “the most important civil rights vote in the 1980s.” Thurmond supported it. In 1978, Lott voted against the 1978 District of Columbia Voting Rights Constitutional Amendment. Thurmond voted with the two-thirds majorities in both houses that passed the amendment, which eventually failed to win approval in enough states to be ratified. 1:59:57 AM    comment []

Who will be the new leader of 9/11 commission? I think I have learned how George Bush thinks when he appoints people to top positions, so here is my prediction: Oliver North. You read it here first. (with tongue somewhat in cheek, but I wonder...) 1:30:01 AM    comment []

Blogs matter, or what? Three different, important issues have been discussed a lot on Salon blogs lately, including here. The stunning silence about the Venezuelan crisis in American media. Lott's racial gaffe, and the initial very slow reaction to it. Kissinger being made head of the 9/11 investigation. On the first issue, some things are improving, it seems, but not as much as it should. Still, those who read blogs are well-informed, especially thanks to our on-the-spot blogger. Trent Lott is currently in very hot water, and even the President have chided him publicly. Personally, I doubt he'll become majority leader after this, but the Republicans have surprised me before. If you are a Democrat, I guess you should hope he stays. I am quite sure the blog community has been part of the chorus that has been heard. We know what Kissinger just did. 12:48:41 AM    comment []

Kissinger stepping down from 9/11 investigation George Bush's decision to make Henry Kissinger the head of the investigation into the 9/11 attacks was met with surprise and anger by many, including the secular blasphemer. Today it was announced that Kissinger steps down, less than three weeks after starting the job. No explanation was given. 12:16:19 AM    comment []

Is cross-burning constitutionally protected free speech? The US Supreme Court is currently struggling with a case concerning statutes against cross-burning, and Dahlia Lithwick of Slate gives us the arguments made to the court, pro and con. She also manages to get very humourous about this serious subject, and so, apparently, does the justices themselves (for one, the KKK leader's name is Barry Black). If a cross-burning is "speech," and everybody seems to agree it is, then it is protected by the first amandment (most civilised countries have similar laws). However, if it is threats or "fighting words" then it is not constitutionally protected. Personally, I am always uneasy about infringments on free speech, and while I sympathise with the arguments, I find myself hoping the Supreme Court strikes down the Virginia statute. If a form of speech is banned because a symbolic expression can be labeled a "threat" even when directed at nobody in particular, I think we're treading on very thin ice. I am sure many New Yorkers, for example, can feel genuinly threatened by hearing some Islamic clerics. I feel a slippery slope. 12:09:18 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.01.03; 04:00:11.