I wanted to note this down in a semi-public place, so that I can semi-publicly look back on it and either marvel at my precience or cringe at my naivete.
I suspect that President Obama will have a nervous breakdown before Independence Day 2009.
There you go. I'll check back in July and see if I'm right or not. I'm just looking at the way he's been behaving over the past two weeks, and getting a mighty strong suspicion that he doesn't have what it takes to handle the most responsible job on the planet.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Sunday, February 01, 2009
What a boon!
This project covered by the Detroit Free Press couldn't be better engineered to get on my nerves. It's equal parts unfounded self-righteousness and creepy submergence in a personality cult; the equivalent of being sneered at by a Moonie for daring to decline an invitation to his wedding.
Double the smug, double the pain.
It just makes me want to punch them on both sides of their heads.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
There are no stupid attempts at satire, just stupid people.
Stimulus…
Dear World:
The United States of America , your quality supplier of ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for its 2001-2008 service outage.
The technical fault that led to this eight-year service interruption has been located, and the software responsible was replaced Tuesday night, November 4. Early tests of the newly-installed program indicate that we are now operating correctly, and we expect it to be fully functional by mid-January.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage, and we look forward to resuming full service — and hopefully even to improve it in years to come.
Thank you for your patience and understanding,
The USA
Response…
Dear The USA,
Thank you for your email. We'll add it to the confusing pile on the edge of our desk.
While we admire your dedication to customer service, we have to admit that we find your frequent apology emails baffling. There was no service outage between 2001 and 2008. We have been getting a steady supply of liberty and democracy from your fine organisation. The only difference is that over the last few years we've been getting increasingly distressed emails from your PR Department apologising for an outage that hasn't actually occurred.
Frankly, we're beginning to wonder if your PR Department has ever spoken to the staff in Supply. How about sitting down with your own people and actually communicating with them about how your organisation functions, rather than making a few insecure and slightly unhinged assumptions and then broadcasting them to us at The World?
Some of us at The World are also a little concerned that your much-vaunted January upgrade will in reality be a shiny new interface masking an inferior platform. The old interface may have been a little clunky but at least we knew that it wouldn't fall over the first time we put demands on it.
In conclusion, we thank you for your ongoing provision of quality liberty and democracy, and ask only two things: one, please stop apologising for an outage that didn't occur, and two, please don't confuse novelty with quality.
With kind regards,
The World
Dear World:
The United States of America , your quality supplier of ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for its 2001-2008 service outage.
The technical fault that led to this eight-year service interruption has been located, and the software responsible was replaced Tuesday night, November 4. Early tests of the newly-installed program indicate that we are now operating correctly, and we expect it to be fully functional by mid-January.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage, and we look forward to resuming full service — and hopefully even to improve it in years to come.
Thank you for your patience and understanding,
The USA
Response…
Dear The USA,
Thank you for your email. We'll add it to the confusing pile on the edge of our desk.
While we admire your dedication to customer service, we have to admit that we find your frequent apology emails baffling. There was no service outage between 2001 and 2008. We have been getting a steady supply of liberty and democracy from your fine organisation. The only difference is that over the last few years we've been getting increasingly distressed emails from your PR Department apologising for an outage that hasn't actually occurred.
Frankly, we're beginning to wonder if your PR Department has ever spoken to the staff in Supply. How about sitting down with your own people and actually communicating with them about how your organisation functions, rather than making a few insecure and slightly unhinged assumptions and then broadcasting them to us at The World?
Some of us at The World are also a little concerned that your much-vaunted January upgrade will in reality be a shiny new interface masking an inferior platform. The old interface may have been a little clunky but at least we knew that it wouldn't fall over the first time we put demands on it.
In conclusion, we thank you for your ongoing provision of quality liberty and democracy, and ask only two things: one, please stop apologising for an outage that didn't occur, and two, please don't confuse novelty with quality.
With kind regards,
The World
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
When overreaction is encouraged
Someone once said that in the Victorian era, people made a lot of over-the-top fuss about death and never talked about sex, whereas in these enlightened times, people make a lot of over-the-top fuss about sex and never talk about death.
Go to a modern funeral, especially a secular one, and there's more fumbling, awkwardness and confusion than a virgin's wedding night. People have no idea what to say, what to bring, how to dress, whether to cry, or even how to feel.
It's no surprise, then, that the 'First Australian Soldier To Be Killed In Iraq', otherwise known as Private Jake Kovco, has elicited an entirely inappropriate, drama queenesque display of grief from the Australian media, and to a lesser extent from the Australian people. Instead of a quiet expression of condolence for his family, they've reacted as if he'd been gunned down while single-handedly rescuing a busload of nuns and orphans from Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Lex Luthor. The word "hero" has been mentioned more than once.
Private Kovco died, in his tent, apparently by his own hand. The only notable thing about it is that it happened in Iraq. If it had happened in Indooroopilly, it would barely make the local paper.
To add further indignity to his ignominious end, Private Kovco's coffin was accidentally swapped with another in Kuwait, and the casket of a Bosnian carpenter was sent to Australia. The error was realised by the time the airplane landed, and the correct coffin was identified and rushed home. But to judge from the reaction of the media, you'd think Kovco's body had been stuffed with candy and then turned over to junior members of al-Quaeda to use a human pinata. Even ordinarily sensible pundits are declaring that the delivery of the wrong coffin to Australia was some sort of unforgivable travesty. Frankly, it's not as if the Australians who are in charge of repatriating the remains of dead soldiers have had much practice. It was an error, it certainly wasn't deliberate, and the people involved are extremely sorry that it happened. What more could anyone want? It certainly shouldn't be a front-page scandal.
Go to a modern funeral, especially a secular one, and there's more fumbling, awkwardness and confusion than a virgin's wedding night. People have no idea what to say, what to bring, how to dress, whether to cry, or even how to feel.
It's no surprise, then, that the 'First Australian Soldier To Be Killed In Iraq', otherwise known as Private Jake Kovco, has elicited an entirely inappropriate, drama queenesque display of grief from the Australian media, and to a lesser extent from the Australian people. Instead of a quiet expression of condolence for his family, they've reacted as if he'd been gunned down while single-handedly rescuing a busload of nuns and orphans from Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Lex Luthor. The word "hero" has been mentioned more than once.
Private Kovco died, in his tent, apparently by his own hand. The only notable thing about it is that it happened in Iraq. If it had happened in Indooroopilly, it would barely make the local paper.
To add further indignity to his ignominious end, Private Kovco's coffin was accidentally swapped with another in Kuwait, and the casket of a Bosnian carpenter was sent to Australia. The error was realised by the time the airplane landed, and the correct coffin was identified and rushed home. But to judge from the reaction of the media, you'd think Kovco's body had been stuffed with candy and then turned over to junior members of al-Quaeda to use a human pinata. Even ordinarily sensible pundits are declaring that the delivery of the wrong coffin to Australia was some sort of unforgivable travesty. Frankly, it's not as if the Australians who are in charge of repatriating the remains of dead soldiers have had much practice. It was an error, it certainly wasn't deliberate, and the people involved are extremely sorry that it happened. What more could anyone want? It certainly shouldn't be a front-page scandal.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Got to keep the rabble from getting themselves het up
Via Professor Bunyip, one of our fair land's most delightful practitioners of the Queen's English, comes this opinion piece from The Age. It was written by the CEO of the the Equal Opportunity Commission, and it was written to defend Victoria's anti-vilification laws.
There's plenty to hate, ironically enough, about this piece. The tone of smug Humanist bigotry, for a start. The implication that there is no need to point out faults in different religions because all reasonable people know that all religion is bunk. The ignorance of Christian dogma, and the assumption that we need a government department to tell us what we as Christians believe.
But I thought I'd put all that aside and just look at one little paragraph that caught my attention.
There are exceptions under the act that cover the work of artists, performers, journalists, academics and scientists, as long as that work is engaged in reasonably and in good faith.
Isn't it interesting that the act makes exemptions for 'artists' and 'performers' but not for religious leaders. Why? Presumably this is because, unlike Christian pastors, artists have a higher calling and, unlike Christian pastors, an intimate connection to the transcendent 'other'. Furthermore, unlike Christian pastors, it's an artist's responsibility to challenge a recalcitrant public and, unlike Christian pastors, inform them about new points of view.
Obviously you can't say the same thing about Christian pastors... unless of course you're one of those ignorant bigoted Bible-thumpers who wouldn't know an Andres Serrano retrospective if it pissed on their leg.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Pro-blogging and pro-having a life
Earlier today I was reading an article about a clash between people who support the war in Iraq and people who don't. The two sides were labelled "anti-war" and "pro-troops".
It seems sort of unfair to define one group by a negative and the other by a positive. It's like there's a subtle level of editorialising going on. I've always appreciated the fact that, in the abortion debate, the two sides are generally referred to as "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Both sides are defined by a positive, by what they have to bring to the debate. As the culture wars have heated up over the last few years, I've occasionally noticed references to "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", but such ratbaggery has been rare. In discussing the debate, most people have realised that both sides have something positive to say, even if they don't agree that the other side trumps theirs.
Wouldn't it be nice if the sides in the issue of support for the Iraq war could be so civilised?
It'd also be nice if biscotti rained from the sky, and about as likely. For a start, it's hard to determine exactly what an anti-war person is protesting. The initial invasion? The continuing actions of troops? The fact that George W Bush continues to live and breathe? And if we try to switch anti-war to pro-something, it's near impossible to determine what they want. Pro-peace? Everyone wants peace; they just don't agree about how to get it. Pro-diplomacy? With Saddam Hussein? That's a difficult one to morally defend. Pro-containment? Irrelevant now that Saddam has gone, and slightly, well, reprehensible. Pro-sovereignty? It's probably the best one I've come up with, but one must question whether it's acceptable to let a people suffer under a tyrant merely in the name of self-determination. The opposite side would presumably be pro-intervention.
It's easier to claim the moral high ground when you're anti-war than when you're pro-sovereignty. Pro-sovereignty sounds like a position taken by a dry bureaucrat in a comfortable UN office in Geneva. Anti-war is passionate, if not particularly coherent. It's much easier, and more satisfying, to scream NO WAR and NO BUSH and NO BLOOD FOR OIL rather than to put forward some different solution to the problem.
Pro-choice, pro-life. Pro-sovereignty, pro-intervention. Such titles may not give you the same little thrill of self-righteousness, or the same confident sense of untrammeled, black-hearted evil in your opposition, but they're fair, and perhaps uncomfortably indicative.
It seems sort of unfair to define one group by a negative and the other by a positive. It's like there's a subtle level of editorialising going on. I've always appreciated the fact that, in the abortion debate, the two sides are generally referred to as "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Both sides are defined by a positive, by what they have to bring to the debate. As the culture wars have heated up over the last few years, I've occasionally noticed references to "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", but such ratbaggery has been rare. In discussing the debate, most people have realised that both sides have something positive to say, even if they don't agree that the other side trumps theirs.
Wouldn't it be nice if the sides in the issue of support for the Iraq war could be so civilised?
It'd also be nice if biscotti rained from the sky, and about as likely. For a start, it's hard to determine exactly what an anti-war person is protesting. The initial invasion? The continuing actions of troops? The fact that George W Bush continues to live and breathe? And if we try to switch anti-war to pro-something, it's near impossible to determine what they want. Pro-peace? Everyone wants peace; they just don't agree about how to get it. Pro-diplomacy? With Saddam Hussein? That's a difficult one to morally defend. Pro-containment? Irrelevant now that Saddam has gone, and slightly, well, reprehensible. Pro-sovereignty? It's probably the best one I've come up with, but one must question whether it's acceptable to let a people suffer under a tyrant merely in the name of self-determination. The opposite side would presumably be pro-intervention.
It's easier to claim the moral high ground when you're anti-war than when you're pro-sovereignty. Pro-sovereignty sounds like a position taken by a dry bureaucrat in a comfortable UN office in Geneva. Anti-war is passionate, if not particularly coherent. It's much easier, and more satisfying, to scream NO WAR and NO BUSH and NO BLOOD FOR OIL rather than to put forward some different solution to the problem.
Pro-choice, pro-life. Pro-sovereignty, pro-intervention. Such titles may not give you the same little thrill of self-righteousness, or the same confident sense of untrammeled, black-hearted evil in your opposition, but they're fair, and perhaps uncomfortably indicative.
Time for you to earn your keep, my pretty.
I started this blog as a test, to see how many hits I'd get from the 'Next Blog' button. After a week, and discounting my own visits to the page, I've discovered that the answer is two.
That's not many.
The good news is that this means my main blog is getting around ten to fifteen hits a day from people who aren't me. It's not great news, but it means that I have a readership, even if it's only a couple of people. I haven't told anyone I know about my blog, so everyone who reads it has come via a comment left on their site, a blogroll, a couple of posts in other blogs, or via the Next Blog button.
Now that this experiment has yielded results, I've decided to make this blog my Ranty Page. I've made a conscious decision to avoid politics and other contentious issues on Get On The Blandwagon!, but I occasionally have things I want to say and it's handy to have them in an accessible, public place. I can vent them without spoiling the convivial atmosphere at the main blog.
Well, that's the theory anyway.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me.
This is an experimental blog to see how many hits a site gets just from readers hitting the 'Next Blog' button.
It's unlikely that anyone could find this blog otherwise, except by going via my profile, which I don't imagine would happen too often.
My theory is that 'Next Blog' visits would equal about five a day, assuming that the system is completely random. I'll run this for a month or so, see how it goes, and check daily
Current Hits - 0
BW - 687
It's unlikely that anyone could find this blog otherwise, except by going via my profile, which I don't imagine would happen too often.
My theory is that 'Next Blog' visits would equal about five a day, assuming that the system is completely random. I'll run this for a month or so, see how it goes, and check daily
Current Hits - 0
BW - 687
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
