~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Capitalism Without Capital
Check out this piece by Arnold Kling, which I'm just getting to. It has some observations on the Power Law and Weblogs thing from awhile back, that I still think is interesting. The Kling piece shows why even small sites are important.
Oh, and someone remind me to post on some good Policy Review pieces that happen to be up now, and City Journal pieces, too.
Kids going to college this fall were born the year I graduated from high school. Which means that I was going to bars three years before they were born. It also means that they have no real memory of the Soviet Union's existence. It means the scar on my left thumb from the old "Defender" video game is older than they are. It means the first president they were conscious of was Bill Clinton. They don't remember apartheid. They don't remember when Jesse Jackson wasn't a joke. Or when China took Marxism even remotely seriously. Star Wars was an old movie by the time they saw it and they can't remember when Pat Buchanan was a loyal Republican. Big Brother refers to a TV show first and a book by some dead guy second. Most of them have never used a typewriter, never been in a world where the broadcast-news anchors weren't hemorrhaging viewers to cable, never really did school work without the aid of the Internet, and never knew a time when people didn't have cell phones.
I could go on and on, particularly since there are countless lists that detail this sort of thing all over the web.
I donno what to make of it except the usual thing, time passing and getting older. There really is a difference between generations, based on generational experiences. I've experienced some things that younger people didn't, but they've also experienced things in a way I haven't. When I was in school, both Elementary and High School (two different occasions), my mom came in on some sort of Parent Day, where parents would teach something they knew - she was into photography, and taught us how to develop a photo in a darkroom.
You don't do that, now. That's just one change. I've used mechanical and electric typewriters, that's what we used in High School business class, not computers. Nowdays the kids learn Excel and the like. I had a computer programming class in summerschool once, but the things we learned then - early '80s, would be archaic now. I was aware when the Berlin Wall fell, and watched the whole Tiananmen Square student movement unfold. Those things are history to the people graduating college today. I watched political conventions during the last occasions when they still somewhat resembled political conventions, and they were covered on the networks deep into the night and in full, because they hadn't quite yet evolved into entirely scripted prime-time presentations.
I remember when there were videos on MTV and all that stuff. I remember when Tom Hanks was that TV actor in "Bosum Buddies", not an academy-award winning film actor.
I get a lot of nostalgia nowdays, which is odd because I wasn't particularly happy back then. But things are different now. Almost entirely for the better, actually. But different.
Oh, the thing that is really really annoying now is when I talk to people about "Calvin and Hobbes", they don't know what I'm talking about. That's an appalling lack of education!!! That's vital cultural knowledge!!!
Sorry for the utter lack of bloggage lately. I've been a bit distracted. I'm going to try and get on the ball here again. In the meantime, I recommend you check out this site.
Well, I didn't blog much over Christmas & beyond. I didn't get a chance to spend it with my family, which was a bit - well, it blows. I did take the time to read & enjoy life. Didn't read much serious stuff, just a lot of Knights of the Dinner Table. I also got back into hanging out with some internet chums at The Young World, posting & such. I made some political type posts over there, related to debates happening on that board. I'd have posted them here but it would have required lots of editing to make it fit, mainly because of the context of the debates there are different from posts here. But I recommend you check it out.
If you like political message boards, especially conservative ones, you might want to check Conservative Friends out. It looks like a decent site, though I haven't posted there. Check it out.
Anyhow, hope to be increasing the number of posts now, and the quality. The main posting will probably be on the weekends. We'll see how thing goes. I have some ideas for posts, I just have to get the muse to write 'em.
Saw a good C-SPAN program last night featuring Thomas P. M. Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map power-point presentation followed by a call-in with the author. It'll probably replay and if you get a chance to catch it, check it out.
He also has a weblog worth checking out, and happens to be a a Packer fan (hoody hoo!) Indeed, the grandson of one of the people who made the Packers what they are today: a community-owned team.
It's worth remembering that the Packers are unique in that they're owned by the town of Green Bay itself. Not in the sense it would be if it were done today - they aren't owned by the government of Green Bay, but by the people of Green Bay in the truest sense of the word. But I digress (again).
The Economist piece makes a lot of the arguments I, and others, have, and is well worth reading. So too does the OpinionJournal piece, which closes with this recommendation:
One alternative that might work is to scrap the Security Council in favor of some larger caucus of democratic nations. No member would have a veto and the body would not presume to be the voice of "international law." Having the U.N. finally distinguish between representative and non-representative governments would itself be an enormous force for peace and security, since many countries might race to qualify for the club and democracies rarely act aggressively.
I donno who to put. Maybe Kofi Annan, for overseeing the biggest scandal in world history (in monetary terms). But that took him more than one year - and lots of us knew it was going on when it was - it's just now that it's starting to get the attention it deserves.
I guess I'll have to ponder on this one. I don't want to make the "obvious" choice - but, then, a "person of the year" is usually always obvious, not obscure, and attempts to reach for some "unusual" or "unique" choice are invariably strained.
Possibly unrelated, but not really, here's a well-thought-out post on polarized debate. It's certainly not unrelated to the theme of many recent posts here, and it's well worth reading for those of us who discuss things with people who don't share our points of view. The most satisfying way of expressing yourself (see below post) may not be the best way of persuading those who don't agree. The post is long, but well worth reading.
Sorry for the delayed update, but I'm still operating this blog on a "blogger-out-of-the-loop" basis (that blogger being me).
I'm online briefly at the moment. Should have a post or two this weekend. In the meantime, I want to recommend this post by Trent Telenko on the real meaning of the whole Berger documents thing.
On a personal(ish) note, so far it's proving very difficult to even keep up with current events here at AIT. At least on Fort Jackson, they keep us on a pretty tight leash and treat us as children (from what I gather, things are different at some other AITs). Now, this is understandable, since so many act like children. But what that means is it's hard for me to keep informed in a way that would lead to good blog posts. The best I've been able to manage so far is catching a bit of "Headline News" in the chow hall at meal times, and articles & magazines my mother & sister send me via snail mail. Internet access is fairly limited, too, so sending me stuff in an effort to help may not do so. Time online - and even time as such - is limited (lots of downtime in class, but no online access during most of it. We've been given a "cookie" for good behavior now, though, so that's why I'm here posting).
I don't mean this as a gripe - others have things worse. It's more of an explaination. I should be able to post on my experiences in Basic & AIT, as I said, but getting back into "situation normal" blogging may have to wait till after AIT, when I'm better able to keep up on news.
A list at Right Wing News. I could quibble with some of the selections that made the list (remember, we're talking all of history here, not just recent history), and there were a number of people who made my list (like Narmer, who unified Egypt, and Chandra Gupta, who united India, and the first Emperor of China, whose name slips my mind at the moment) who did not make the list. But on the other hand, there are several good choices I did not think of. Check it out.
I haven't had a chance to check them out myself yet, but there's a new City Journal up, repleat with interesting looking articles, including one on the aniversary of the War on Poverty, one on Bush's education reforms, and an article on Multiculturalism, a topic related to much of what I have written about here in the past.
I just want to notify regular readers that I should have an article up next Monday at Enter Stage Right on the whole "Chickenhawk!" argument, and people's right to express their point of view.
That'll be my last piece for awhile, and it's a pretty elementary argument - but unfortunately one that apparently must be made. Please check it out when it's up.
Sorry about the total lack of posting yesterday after having said I'd blog later. The truth is I was too tired after work, mainly 'cause I didn't sleep at all the previous night (no specific reason, just one of those nights, so no need to worry or write letters of concern).
I have a meeting this morning but hope to write some stuff this afternoon, including a debate between myself and a letter writer on outsourcing, and also a Commentary article on Congress' role in creating the intelligence problems we have (link sent by Alene, via e-mail).
Till then, check this out if you want to be even more depressed about the current state of affairs in Iraq.
Also, from Richard Meixner (via e-mail), this post at Oxblog on the current state of things in Sudan. Just when you thought peace might break out, it gets worse.
Finally for now, this piece by David Warren on democratization in the Arab World and the split in opinion among Arab leaders on how to handle pressures for reform.
If you're a regular reader of Winds of Change you know that Joe Katzman is a big fan of American Baseball. Me? I like the Ithklur Leagues. The rules are more like Calvinball, but with less ranting when things don't go the right way.
Joe put up a new baseball-themed blogroll and I've been honored with the position of DH (R). Also, as usual Winds has some good stuff up - including two posts on the War(s) that are being waged. We've discussed similar themes here but the posts there offer a different perspective. The latest, quoting from Laughingwolf, that reminds me I want to comment on this article and Neocons & Trotsky generally. I'll do that later today.
William Safire aptly says it's the biggest financial rip-off in history. I said it was run with a Mafia-style skim, but the Mafia are small-fry by comparison, small-thinking in their crimes. I think it was Stalin, or anyhow attributed to Stalin, that if your crimes are big enough they'll be overlooked. If you're the UN and the French holding up the banner of the "international community", you'll even win praise for your crimes - especially from the Left.
As Glenn Reynolds puts it, "Funny, isn't it, that while people were accusing the United States of starving Iraqi children, it was actually the U.N. that was doing it? "Funny," that is, in the sense that the crimes and hypocrisies of the international political classes are peculiarly unnoted, not funny in the sense of actually amusing."
So last Friday I decided to take the rest of the "Dick Clarke's Rockin' Ides-o-March Hit Week" off. Sure, he was a little late for the Ides, but you gotta get your shiv in when you can, right?
Elsewhere, Sarah has some observations on the better educated. If that's what they're getting out of their education, maybe it's not better, just more. Lots of what people are taught, and not just or even primarily here in the U.S.A., makes them understand the world less well rather than better. I'm not one of those anti-education sorts who believes that there is no value in a good education or being a knowledgeable citizen. But the emphasis is on good education, not manipulative disinformation that leaves you less well-informed about reality than if you hadn't had it at all. At home, it's pretty obvious by now that if you spend this election campaign paying exacting attention to the mainstream press, but only the mainstream press, you're going to end up less well informed than if you didn't pay any attention at all.
Allen has some observations about China worth reading. Just one comment, about China's new respect for property rights. If they were doing that, then the story I linked to in the my so-called market economy post wouldn't exist. Further regarding China, M. Simon wrote, via e-mail:
What happens in China will depend on per capita GDP.
When it passes $4K to $5K they will get democracy no matter what the
oligarchs want.
I believe that is the real lesson of history.
Actually, the real lesson of history, and of the Porphy's Paranoia post, is how you get there from here. How long does it take and what happens along the way? No, I don't believe China's oligarchy will remain in control forever. But how things unfold and the episodes along the way are not necessarily smooth, easy, and bloodless both at home and abroad.
I love the letter near the end, ripping into the French but good, and written by someone named "Jean-Pierre". Only in America.
As for Dick Clarke, if you want good coverage of that you won't find it here. Others are doing a lot better on blogging about that than I'm interested in doing.
Update: Here's a useful reminder that, no, the response to 9/11 wasn't guaranteed and wouldn't have been the same under any Administration, and no, our pre-9/11 methods weren't inevitable either:
Would a less stubborn commander in chief have pursued the risky war plan that ultimately toppled the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run? The record of the '90s suggests otherwise. A White House that cut and ran after the death of 18 soldiers probably would not have had the stomach for the possible casualties. A White House that could not prevail over military objections to using ground troops in Kosovo would have had a hard time overcoming institutional military objections. A White House that ordered retaliation in the form of a night-time strike on an empty intelligence building would not have backed Operation Enduring Freedom.
Before Sept. 11, Clinton defenders say, we did not have irrefutable proof of the casus belli of al Qaeda-Taliban complicity, there was no international consensus on the need to invade Afghanistan, and it would have been politically risky for the United States to act in the face of military objections. The same could be said about the invasion of Iraq after Sept. 11. In other words, determined commanders in chief have the mind-set and the resolve to act in spite of the political climate and military resistance.
It's hard to remember now amid all the revisionism all the people who were, during the Afghanistan campaign, calling it a quagmire and suggesting that military action was a mistake, precipitous. Now they're all claiming anyone would have done it, including themselves, including Clinton, including Gore. Well, it's instructive to remember history - including recent history - before they slip it down the memory hole.
I'm sure you're just thrilled. Hey - at least it wasn't March 9th, that's all I can say.
The second is more of interest to bloggers, perhaps, and more useful. They clued me on this newseum page with that has daily front pages for hundreds of newspapers from dozens of countries. From there you can get into the papers themselves when an article catches your eye. The Mapview might be the most useful way to search them.
Well, three reasons I guess, because here's a piece on blogs and unattributed idea expropriation. I haven't noticed this being a huge problem in the political blogosphere (they seem to be focused on tech blogs. I mean, what are they? Some sort of Tech-centric outlet, or what?). In the political blogosphere people give proper hat-tips and quote/link to their sources.
Update: In honor of Spam's 10th B-Day, I've opened up comments to this post so the various penis enlargement , low-rent bauble hawkers, home refinancer “brokers”, porn aficionados, insurance advertisers, relatives of deposed African potentates, and the rest of the lot can have a party.
Sarah at Trying to Grok wishes me well and has a bunch of other kewl posts. Start at "A Stand Up Guy" and scroll away.
Btw, I'm still way, way behind on replies to mails. Stuff came up the last couple days and I didn't get as far in getting back to people as I hoped & ought to. I'll catch up: I may be slow, but if you wrote me a letter and haven't gotten a response yet, you'll get one. Till then, my thanks again.
A Memri piece on how Saddam's well-oiled bribery machine worked. No blood for oil! Unless it benefits lapdogs of Saddam!
Dave at The Waterglass on fighting the war, and how Bush - but not his opponents - get it.
An open letter to John Kerry - and by extension, many of us - by the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran.
Allah is still mourning the loss of his favorite American political figure.
Check 'em out.
Update: Some comments on Dave's post linked to above.
I think the post overall is very good and indeed the criminal analogy does have another point to it. In the debates on how to reduce crime, some argue that tough enforcement to show that crime isn't to be tolerated is important and they argue that reducing crime benefits the poor because poor neighborhoods are most adversely affected by crime, gangs, drug markets, &tc - reducing crime and locking up the criminals will improve the ability of these neighborhoods to prosper and make them more livable. Others argue that, ok, sure, lock up the criminal, but that's only a stopgap: You won't solve the crime problem until you deal with the underlying causes of crime, which are social and created by neglect of the larger society and the actions of those who disenfranchise the people living in these neighborhoods.
Obviously we're getting a version of that debate writ large in the terror war, with some of us believing the first thing to do is to work to eliminate the terrorists and that will help improve things and set up the conditions where other policies can enable prosperity to take root, but none of this will work until and unless the criminal enterprises (be they non-state or state in origin, with thugs running states cooperating with the terror networks and making progress impossible), while others would do the reverse: offer aid, modification of our policies, &tc up front and hope that would dissipate the anger that leads people to "lash out" against us.
The dividing lines aren't that stark all the time, at least not in public rhetoric. But the attitudinal divide is clear.
So I finally started putting together a blogroll, at long last. It was precipitated purely for antisocial reasons: I'm superhappy to never get a Rittenhouse link, and now I'm guaranteed to never get one.
Another site got a link because purely by chance while doing something else I happened upon the perfect image for a link to that site. The last couple weekends I finally got around to coding those webpages I've been babbling about coding (which is one reason posting is down some), and I chanced upon an image that's just perfect.
I put links up to a couple other sites I favor, too. The problem with blogrolls is that people who aren't on 'em may feel unloved. I don't have a complete roll of my favorite blogs up yet. I hope to add to the roll over time (then it'll get to long. . .the other blogroll problem). In any case, if your site's not on it it may not be because I don't like it.
Some people won't get blogroll links regardless, even though they're favorite sites of mine. These are folks who are on everyone's blogroll: Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, Steven Den Beste, to name the main ones. I link to them a lot within posts, and like I said long blogrolls are unmanagable. Why does Winds of Change get a link, then, considering I also link to them a lot? Just because.
I think we'll all miss that feature. It certainly just won't be the same now that Dean is getting his fundiment handed to him, and none of the others provide the same sort of materiel. Oh, sure, they try. And Clark has potential. But the shear range and volume of Dean material just can't be matched. *Sigh*
Well, at least we have a new recepie to look forward to. I'm not given to "food blogging", like some others, but I could get on board with that one.
Related to the Guest Blog post from this morning is a post at Airstrip One on the Entente Cordiale's centenary. There's also this on the EU's "undead Constitution". Both posts well worth following the links to check out.
As the election season campaign heats up and America's progressives tell us "you never had it so bad", here's a book to read by one of the few remaining optmistic Liberals, Gregg Easterbrook. Here's a quote from the book in a good review of it:
American life expectancy has dramatically increased in a century, from 47 to 77 years. Our great-great-grandparents all knew someone who died of some disease we never fear. Our largest public health problems arise from unlimited supplies of affordable food. The typical American has twice the purchasing power his mother or father had in 1960. In 2001 Americans spent $25 billion - more than North Korea's GDP - on recreational watercraft. Factor out immigration and statistical evidence of widening income inequality disappears. The statistic that household incomes are only moderately higher than 25 years ago is misleading: households today average fewer people, so real dollar incomes in middle-class households are about 50 percent higher today. In 2003 we spend much wealth on things unavailable in 1953 - a cleaner environment, reduced mortality through new medical marvels ($5.2 billion a year just for artificial knees, which did not exist a generation ago), the ability to fly anywhere or talk to anyone anywhere. The incidence of heart disease, stroke and cancer, adjusted for population growth, is declining. The rate of child poverty is down in a decade. America soon will be the first society in which a majority of adults are college graduates.
And lots of other stuff to remember this year when political candidates try to tell you that the country is falling apart, everyone's getting poor, the economy is collapsing, the ecological sky is falling, &tc &tc ad infinatum ad nausium peddling doom and gloom and pumping a boundless well of pessimism for political gain.
I took down what was originally here, for the only good reason that exists. But it left me with a quandary. Simply removing it without explanation might make it seem like it was insincere. But I can't give readers the explanation (sorry, and don't ask for one).
So I'm going to turn it into a post on something else. Life is often full of quandaries. Satisfying one very reasonable thing can mean sacrificing something else. I've mentioned that life is full of trade-offs before. Were it me, left to my own, I might do things one way. But other people who are perfectly reasonable people might see things another way. Accommodating your principles and those of others is harder than people sometimes think. (An aside that cannot be helped: I'm not alluding to any specific people here. I am speaking generally). Sometimes two equally worthy things, ideals, concepts, goals, whatever you might think of are mutually incompatible. One must then use judgement to decide which to pursue and which to sacrifice in the pursuit of the other.
In doing that, we'll sometimes err. Lets take war, for example: who can disagree with the abstract principle that war should be avoided? But in avoiding all wars at all costs, what other principles are sacrificed along the way? Is that sacrifice worth it? We went to war last year for reasons I believe were good ones. In my opinion, many of the common objections to it are unworthy and based on falsehoods and distortions, but that does not mean that there are no objections people raise that aren't reasonable. Some very reasonable people, thoughtful people, believe it was a mistake. And yes, for the folks who read this blog and the person writing it, some of those people are on the Left. Some of them are Liberals, and some of them are further Left. Just because a lot of the criticism and disagreement with the policy seems inane to us does not mean all of it is.
Reasonable people can come to different conclusions. One then lives with a decision, for good or ill. This is, by the by, one reason not to be too harsh on past administrations for not doing what, in retrospect, we think should have been done in tackling terrorism. It's also a reason why I think people who criticize the Bush Administration in intemperate ways might want to be less harsh. Has everything been done right? No. I don't think so either. But I do think it's best to give people credit for trying to do the right thing - until they demonstrate sufficient reason to believe otherwise. Too much baseless speculation about malevolent motives is bad not only for the targets of the speculation but for the people who are doing the speculating.
Life isn't always cut-and-dried, with the right path being obvious and all good things being reached if that path is walked, with nothing of value on other paths. In economics this is contained in the concept of "Opportunity Costs" - getting one Good means giving up the opportunity for some other goods. You buy a computer, you may not have money for a HDTV. Money invested in one thing isn't invested in the other things it might have been invested in, and time spent working on something isn't used on other things. One makes best-judgement choices weighing each of the options. But this concept has relevance outside of economics as well.
Which circles around to why I took down what was here. I'd have left it up, it was sincere. But something else outweighed that. So I accommodated that, at the cost of saying what I had said. The reason I took it down outweighed my own reasons for putting it up, without negating the them. They were just incompatible and I felt that the reason given to me for taking it down outweighs the reason for posting it in the first place. If I were selfish, I'd have left things as they were, but that would have subverted the whole reason for posting what was here in the first place. Life is not always clean for us, whether as individuals or in public policy. In the best of all possible worlds, for example, it would have been preferable to deal with Iraq "multilaterally", with France and everyone agreeing. But we live in a less-than-ideal world, and had to come to a decision based on imperfect reality: deal with Iraq in the realm of the possible or let it go. In '98, Clinton decided it was better to maintain international harmony and not press the issue. In '03, Bush took the other route. I think that Bush was right to do so, but I'm not overly harsh on Clinton for his decision - or at least I try not to be, until his and his minions get all critical and don't seem to have learned, and don't reciprocate. For example, for Dean to say what he said about the behavior of the French back then but then forget it now is unprincipled, in my opinion.
Related to this post responding to a post by Armed Liberal are some posts at Innocents Abroad, one by John Coumarianos and a two-parter by Collin May, Part I and Part II. Redistributionism in Canada seems to substitute for and displace, rather than strengthen, civic bonds.
While we're talking Canada, the Self-Made Critic has a good and funny review of a Canadian film. He liked it.
One of the best films I saw last year. Probably the best. There is a good review up on Strategypage, putting it in context with other movie versions of the Vietnam War.
Arma Virumque On the Brave New World That Has Such Bananas In It
Alert reader Alene sends a link to the New Criterion's blog, wherein Roger Kimbal has a post on the mindset of those who are engaged in the vital task of creating New European Man.
The post leads off with a nice image of the EU's banana, so if you've ever wondered why my friend Last Toryboy selected the URL he did, well there's your answer. If, for those of us who are Big O fans, we're tomatos, the Euros are bananas - and, if you think about it, that's rather fitting.
The Dec. 30th news here is interesting if it pans out:
Sunni Arab tribal and religious leaders have formed a reconciliation committee in Tikrit to urge Sunnis to stop armed resistance against the coalition and the new government. The tribal leaders realize that the Sunni Arabs will be a minority in any democratically elected government and will not have control of the army or police (as Sunnis have for centuries.) As a result, Sunni Arabs would suffer greatly as Sunni and Kurd dominated police fought the Sunni resistance. In such a low level civil war, the Sunnis would be at a major disadvantage, would suffer the most and could not win. US Army Special Forces have been working with the Sunni tribal chiefs for over a year, and that has finally paid off.
Of course it won't mean an immediate end to the violence, but to the extent to which it persuades people, it should encourage people to finger/identify/narc-out the Saddamites & terrorists.
No, this isn't another Packers post. I try to keep my interest in the Mud Bay Slackers to myself as much as possible.
For those of you keeping score at home, Anne Cunningham has moved on to a a new home and new projects. Don't let yourself be the last person to leave Blogspot!
That might sound overly harsh. I have fond memories of posting on Blogspot, myself. But also memories of frustration and vexation in getting my posts to archive to their server so they'd be linkable for others, attempting to link to other people's posts, or simply access them. I was one of the lucky ones, too: my blog must have been on one of their more reliably-archiving servers. But it was still a pain in the hoop. It all came flooding back to me a week ago in the interminable wait for B. Varenius' post to archive, and by the time it did, the moment had really passed.
The fact that these problems persist and haven't been fixed means that Blogspot just isn't a good long-term home for a blog. Free your blog and your links will follow. Or something like that.
I hadn't thought of it quite this way, but that is pretty impressive.
I mean, I have thought of the risks, and the impact in getting out a different perspective such folks have. And I voted for Healing Iraq and The Mesopotamian in the "Best Up-and-Coming" category. But I hadn't thought of it in the way Jeff Jarvis puts it, and looking at it that way highlights how really impressive it is.
A couple months back I linked to One-Sided Wonder, and suggested folks check it out. A few weeks ago there was a brief little exchange on the subject of friendship (which, naturally, I came out best on, of course). I voted for OSW in RWN's 2nd Annual Warblogger Awards, in the category "most underrated", and, of course, being underrated, it didn't win (btw, if you haven't seen it already, check out RWN's top 20 most annoying libs).
Well, our One-Sided Wonder is getting attention from Natalie Solent and Tim Blair now (but, so far as we know, we have the privilege of having linked to OSW first). So, if you foolishly ignored my earlier suggestion:
1) Let this be a lesson to you. Don't ignore my suggestions.
and
2) Go check it out now.
One-Sided Wonder is going to be a pretty cool blog. Even if Anne isn't always right.
Limited posting again this morning; lots of stuff to write about but little ability to write about it, again. More later, this afternoon, I hope.
"The way in which you were given life has nothing to do with the way in which you live your life as a human being." - Roger Smith, The Negotiator, The Big O, Episode #25, "The War of Paradigm City".
They may cut your dick in half,
and serve it to a pig,
and though it hurts you laugh,
and you dance a dickless jig!
But that's the way it goes. . .
Boris commands all cells in the International to anounce the launch of the Self-Made Critic website. If you like witty movie reviews, and if you know what's good for you, comrades, you do, then visiting this site is mandatory.
