September 13, 2013

Friday The Thirteenth Fell on a Friday This Month

Well, today I got written up at work, pulled over by a cop, and to top it all off the Village Inn ran out of lemon pies.

Let's see what else happened recently that might induce riggatriskaidekaphobia in our readers.

The Russians, not known for fastidiousness in nuclear safety, have advised the North Koreans  not to restart their Yongbyon reactor(which generates plutoniumfor atom bombs) because...
The source told the Interfax News Agency: 'Our main concern is linked to a very likely man-made disaster as a consequence.
'The reactor is in a nightmarish state, it is a design dating back to the 1950s.
'For the Korean peninsula this could entail terrible consequences, if not a man-made catastrophe.'

In other news, the Norks have just fired up their Yongbyon reactor.

Jellyfish are taking over.

I probably need to finagle a guest post at a major blog that qualifies as...

"an entity or service that disseminates news and information.”

..because the Senate is introducing a bill to define journalists. That's the first step to regulation...which is...well...the end.

Wow. Dick Dawkins isn't JUST a brilliant curmudgeon with thought provoking views. It turns out he's actually pretty damned evil.
My friend BOB! suggested that this might be a quote lacking context. Sadly, no.
This wickedness is also part of a pattern that we saw in the '70s  Remember, ads like this got made in the '70s
Worse, this abomination  looks to be quetly creeping back now.

Apple's biometric security may be bad news. I don't know how I feel about it but it's allegedly creepy so I'll assume it belongs here and just put the link here so as to let those more knowledgeable decide.

CDR Salamander sums up the Syria situation with a patch.

Another ACE link. He notes in a recent AlQuaeda Proclamation something that I've been fearing for a while.
We all know how effective the Mohamed/Malvo shooting spree was at inducing regional paralysis, and those turds were amateurs, practically begging to get caught. Had they taken their show on the road, moved around a bit more, stretched the hit interval somewhat, they could still be doing it today.

Some of you might remember the DC Snipers, who certainly saw themselves as helping Al Qaeda. 3 or four of these teams could paralyze the country.


UP! fanboy goes down...

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at 10:57 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Um, had to pay for $2800 in car repairs, and I was the only one on my crew at work today.  While working in the 48 section, my paint spilled, ran unnoticed through a hole in the corner of the containment tray and for about 10' down the center of the fuselage.I had to scramble to clean it up before it began to set, and fish it out from all the nooks and crannies in the brackets.

BTW, said paint contains Hexavalent Chromium.  Just looking at the MSDS for it will cause cancer and liver failure.

Posted by: Mauser at Sat Sep 14 06:28:00 2013 (TJ7ih)

2 At least you don't live here.

Posted by: Siergen at Sat Sep 14 08:44:52 2013 (Ao4Kw)

3 I cut the top of my left big toe getting out of the shower.

Posted by: Wonderduck at Sat Sep 14 08:54:44 2013 (ifb6Y)

4 Ducky, it's the wrists, the wrists.

Posted by: Mauser at Sat Sep 14 18:05:19 2013 (TJ7ih)

5 Hope things work out, Brickmuppet.

I narrowly missed this bit of fun.  Came along as the police were taping off the crime scene.

As for Richard Dawkins - no, he's not evil, he's talking about his personal reaction to something that happened to him as a child.  The Salon headline is a lie, and under UK law they'd be dead meat in a libel suit.  (Which is the first time I've ever said anything positive about UK libel laws.)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sun Sep 15 04:11:18 2013 (PiXy!)

6 You're saying that Salon is misquoting him?
He did not actually say....

Because if that's the case then US libel laws will offer Salon no protection. That is pure defamation of character they put those words in quotes so there isn't even the Maureen Dowd defense.

On the other hand, if he said them and there is no actionable contextual omission, then he his trying to move the goal posts, Overton Window, ( or what have you) on child molestation. Sticking ones hands down a child's pants to do anything other than change a diaper or remove an erant blue ringed octopus is wrong was wrong and has been wrong for a very long time. It's also as close to objectively wrong as wrong can get.

Now while I'm not exactly a fan of many of Mr. Dawkins's conclusions, ( he's a leftist for one thing ) I am perfectly willing to believe that, given his role in 'coffee gate' and his recent statements regards Islam, (both of which are 'new class' taboos of the first degree) that someone has decided to throw him under the bus. That was the first thing that came to the mind of my friend Bob! and I would have no trouble believing it.

Has he denied these quotes or declared they are horrifically out of context? I would be happy to post an emphatic retraction.

Those quotes, (if they are accurate quotes) are hard to square with not being evil. 

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sun Sep 15 09:48:25 2013 (F7DdT)

7 Well, the first of those is a quote.  The second is not, it's a gross misrepresentation of what he is saying.

We have to be clear here: He is talking about his reaction to something that happened to him - this all regards a specific incident recounted in his memoir - and about the context in which it happened.  He doesn't defend it, nor does he make light of anyone else's experience.  He just says that he found it creepy and unpleasant rather than emotionally scarring; he notes that the perpetrator's later suicide affected him much more strongly.

He discusses the point here.

The reason he said "I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm." - a quote the Salon piece borrows from three times, but only once accurately - is not because he doesn't think it's harmful, it's that he discussed it with the other victims in that particular case, both at the time and years later after the suicide.

As for whether Salon has it out for Richard Dawkins, I'd hazard a guess that the answer is yes.  Whether that's because he doesn't toe the leftist party line (he treats all religions equally, which is just not done), or it's just a dying site just trolling for page hits like Slate, I can't say.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sun Sep 15 21:14:49 2013 (PiXy!)

8 Hmph.  I was wondering why no-one actually quotes the original Dawkins interview in The Times, but rather refers to second-hand summaries - it's because it's behind a paywall, and no-one's willing to pay the 25 squid.  And even if you did, no-one would be able to check that you quoted it accurately, because they're not interested enough to cough up the 25 squid either.

Which turns it into a game of Chinese Whispers where the truth is right there but no-one can be bothered to check.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sun Sep 15 21:25:42 2013 (PiXy!)

9 Found the full interview here.  (Salon, obviously, didn't bother to look.)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sun Sep 15 22:38:53 2013 (PiXy!)

10 Thanks Pixy.

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Mon Sep 16 02:22:57 2013 (F7DdT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
37kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.146 seconds.
66 queries taking 0.1218 seconds, 285 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.