David Brin has launched a personal appeal to anyone involved in rigging voting machines inviting them to spill the beans. And he claims to know of people who will pay big bucks for solid proof:
If you spill the beans convincingly on a nasty cabal that is stealing elections — or anything similar — you will be paid at least as much as the Blofelds are paying you to help them cheat. And Blofeld can’t offer you the book deal, talk shows and starlets.
In fact, I am letting a cat out of the bag. (I have permission to say this much.) If we see a repeat of 2000, with weird electoral veers in suspicious precincts that stink to high heaven, those billionaires will go public with their offer! Millions in exchange for proof that is iron-clad and solid.
Now look at your co-henchmen in the conspiracy. Consider that they have already recorded you. They have such proof, stocked and hidden away. While you twiddled your thumbs. They are positioned to take advantage of such offers, while you are not. And only the first one to blab will get the bonanza.
I’d get busy, if I were you.
Daniel Shaviro (NYU) offers up The moral and political philosophy of Mitt Romney, each of which puts a Romneyian spin on a well-established tradition. He’s on to something. I especially liked this one:
(5) The original position: Where you stand after you have received government subsidies (so long as they aren’t from entitlements or poverty programs), but before you have paid any federal income taxes
I am not a fan of any of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, but here’s a well-argued suggestion that someone watching the all the Star Wars films for the first time should watch them in Machete Order.
My own view, FWIW, is that the prequels are not redeemable. I find the Jar-Jar thing in Part I as unpleasant as the next guy, but where I seem to part company with the majority is Episode II. I though Episode II was downright repulsive: it invited the viewer to enjoy the spectacle of large numbers of people being mowed down in waves; that some were clones who may have lacked free will did not improve matters for me. There is nothing entertaining about wholesale slaughter, and I cannot sympathize with any film that presents it as a thing to cheer for.
I don’t watch modern war movies or ‘action’ films, although I do like spy thrillers. In general, I tend to avoid violent films, although I’m not religious about it. I remember enjoying Mad Max despite the violence (I saw it long before I learned about the personal characteristics of the star, which otherwise probably would have put me off it). More generally, I find the US movie rating system doesn’t work for me. If I were in designing a ratings system, I’d rate primarily on violence, and on psychological impact. That scene with Bilbo and the Ring in the first episode of Lord of the Rings could, I think, traumatize anyone. On the other hand, I don’t think in my ideal system the ratings would be much affected by “language”, and while I understand rating on sex, I think the ratings people are much too sensitive to nudity. The British film ratings system, while very far from perfect, seems better to me on these issues, at least insofar as they rate films for teens and tweens.
From my perspective, killing and maiming in film is much more upsetting, and child-unfriendly (not to mention adult-unfriendly!), than naked bodies. I suppose it’s just one more way in which I’m out of step with popular culture.
He’s coming. It looks like I have a scheduling conflict so I likely won’t be able to go.
In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.”
“Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.”
Who said or wrote that this week?
Answer below. I wouldn’t have guessed.