Yesterday’s Lileks Bleat (which went up late, so I didn’t see it until today) is fully screedy goodness, against overprivileged and cynical haters of civilization. Especially that pinnacle of evil–western civilization:
Over lunch I read the local free newspaper; the editorial page had two opinion pieces. One disparaged dog sweaters. I have no love for dog sweaters either, but they don
Well, I don’t miss Glenn all that much.
Yet.
I mean, it’s just been a few days.
But without the all caps intros, it’s just not Instapundit, so that’s how I voted. It does have exactly the grating effect on the eyes that Tigerhawk notes, and who the hell is Tom Maguire to desecrate it in such a fashion?
If you love me, and my blog, you’ll do the same. Particularly since it’s currently in last place.
Dan Rather, on net neutrality:
Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I’m not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone’s going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there’s an argument the other way, that you can’t have it for everybody, but I just don’t buy that argument. To me, it’s akin to saying, “Well, there’s this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can’t have it at once.”
Funny thing, though. That’s exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn’t bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal–in poverty.
[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]
I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can’t all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?
Dan Rather, on net neutrality:
Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I’m not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone’s going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there’s an argument the other way, that you can’t have it for everybody, but I just don’t buy that argument. To me, it’s akin to saying, “Well, there’s this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can’t have it at once.”
Funny thing, though. That’s exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn’t bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal–in poverty.
[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]
I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can’t all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?
Dan Rather, on net neutrality:
Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I’m not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone’s going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there’s an argument the other way, that you can’t have it for everybody, but I just don’t buy that argument. To me, it’s akin to saying, “Well, there’s this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can’t have it at once.”
Funny thing, though. That’s exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn’t bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal–in poverty.
[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]
I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can’t all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?
Lorie Byrd writes about the media myth that won’t die, in the Plame/Wilson affair:
For almost four years now, the public has been fed a steady diet of Joe-Wilson-truth-teller exposing President Bush
Lorie Byrd writes about the media myth that won’t die, in the Plame/Wilson affair:
For almost four years now, the public has been fed a steady diet of Joe-Wilson-truth-teller exposing President Bush
Lorie Byrd writes about the media myth that won’t die, in the Plame/Wilson affair:
For almost four years now, the public has been fed a steady diet of Joe-Wilson-truth-teller exposing President Bush
Once Nancy and Harry hear about this, and whine to CNN management, Michael Ware may be looking for a new job:
JIM CLANCY: “The Democrats are pressing for a deadline, be it at the end of 2007, 2008 to bring all U.S. troops home. How is that going to affect General Petraeus, the Iraqi government and the Iraqis themselves?”
MICHAEL WARE: “Well, Jim, certainly in terms of the Iraqis and the war that’s being fought in the streets and the deserts of this country, I mean, what’s happening over there, what the Democrats are saying about timetables may as well be happening on the planet Pluto for all that it counts, to the bloodshed and endless combat that we’re seeing day in, day out. All that it does, anyone setting time frames like that without real pre-conditions, anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, al Qaeda and Iran. It allows them some leverage to know when to put the pressure on, to know that the clock is ticking and to know where the pressure points are.
“So, in terms of the battle, day-to-day here, General Petraeus isn’t looking more forward than five or six months. He’s trying to make this surge work. But in terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America’s enemies.”
Quite the faux pas, to tell the truth. As Finklestein notes, actually being on the ground in Iraq can be quite clarifying. Between this, and Brian Williams’ cautious optimism, perhaps the MSM is coming around, even if the Dems aren’t.
I think the copy editor was having trouble with the concept. As a long-time aficionado of paper-wrapped gunpowder, I wouldn’t want to be in the same county as an eight-mile firecracker.