Darth Groznii says that the Order of the Jedi deserved to be destroyed. It seems like a sound analysis to me.

There are now 350 episodes of The Simpsons.

I don’t know if this will be the last word on the subject, but Matt Labash certainly has the best take so far on Lord Minniehaha:

All this anarchism has made me thirsty, so I cross the street to get a Diet Coke, and take a coffee order from Churchill and Saito. All I can find, however, is a Starbucks. When I come back to the fair with two venti something-or-anothers, surly anarchists look like they want to kick my windows in, just like they did the Seattle Starbucks back at WTO ’99.

Churchill, to his credit, doesn’t subscribe to any meaningless “praxis of personal purity,” so he takes his coffee (black) with a shrug and lights a Pall Mall. I ask if he’s an anarchist, and though they have an affinity, he says no. He’s an Indigenist. Not quite sure what that entails, I ask him to explain. He’s a wordy bugger, and goes on for a good while about a “consciously synchronous level of population” and a “latitude of action that is governed in a self-regulating manner” and a “unity in the differentiation that’s consonant with natural order.” I figure this would all go down a lot easier if I’d first eaten peyote.

Kofi “Look The Other Way” Annan is slated to give the commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania. Some of the students, unsurprisingly, aren’t happy about it.

The Boston Herald bravely reports that the “Kennedy Feud May Turn Ugly.”

Actually, they’re pretty hard on my eyeballs even when they’re getting along…

“Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”

That’s the old joke about how the New York Times would headline a story about the apocalypse.

Well, in the case of the tsunami, life imitates satire.

“Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”

That’s the old joke about how the New York Times would headline a story about the apocalypse.

Well, in the case of the tsunami, life imitates satire.

“Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”

That’s the old joke about how the New York Times would headline a story about the apocalypse.

Well, in the case of the tsunami, life imitates satire.

While a little skeptical of the merits of the case, I find it a little surprising that none of the judicial rulings have erred on the side of keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive until all can be resolved with some degree of certainty. After all, there’s no harm in doing so.

Those who want to kill her (and no matter what kind of gloss they wish to put on it, that’s exactly what they’re doing) shouldn’t be in such a hurry–after all, there’s plenty of time to pull the tube later if the de novo investigation comes to the same conclusion. Why are they determined to act with such alacrity, almost desperate to end her life? Some might argue that if it’s her wish to do so, it’s an injustice to her to continue to delay it. But those who argue that also claim that she has no awareness, so why should she care–she’ll never know?

The only rationale that I can think of is that they want to create a fait accompli, because once she’s dead (assuming that no cryonic suspension has been arranged), she’s not coming back. There’s no patient to examine, and the entire issue becomes moot. What are they so frightened of in a potential review that they want so quickly to destroy any of the evidence, put a stake through the heart of the case?

While a little skeptical of the merits of the case, I find it a little surprising that none of the judicial rulings have erred on the side of keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive until all can be resolved with some degree of certainty. After all, there’s no harm in doing so.

Those who want to kill her (and no matter what kind of gloss they wish to put on it, that’s exactly what they’re doing) shouldn’t be in such a hurry–after all, there’s plenty of time to pull the tube later if the de novo investigation comes to the same conclusion. Why are they determined to act with such alacrity, almost desperate to end her life? Some might argue that if it’s her wish to do so, it’s an injustice to her to continue to delay it. But those who argue that also claim that she has no awareness, so why should she care–she’ll never know?

The only rationale that I can think of is that they want to create a fait accompli, because once she’s dead (assuming that no cryonic suspension has been arranged), she’s not coming back. There’s no patient to examine, and the entire issue becomes moot. What are they so frightened of in a potential review that they want so quickly to destroy any of the evidence, put a stake through the heart of the case?