Monday, January 29, 2007
Now that I've moved my blogging account to the new version of Blogger, which is owned by Google, I am seeing some unwanted "talking" between my Blogger account and my Gmail account when people leave comments.
Previously, I'd get an email in my inbox when someone wanted to leave a comment. After I decided whether to post it, I had a filter set up so that the posted comments would land in a separate folder. I would then delete the comment notices after I knew the comments themselves were posted. I kept the comments in the folder for future reference.
Now that I'm on New Blogger, Gmail apparently "recognizes" the stuff from Blogger now and is stringing all this together into "conversations", which is great for email correspondence, but pretty well knackers the system I'd set up for comment tracking. But for this minor inconvenience, I am very happy with New Blogger.
Chinese Year of the "Prophet" Approaches
This may be old news to some of you, but China has apparently decided to subordinate its ancient tradition of naming successive years after signs of its zodiac to the "sensibilities" of its Moslem citizens.
According to the Chinese edition of the Asia Wall Street Journal, [state-owned] CCTV issued a notice to all advertising agencies on Jan 23 that "China is a multi-ethnic country... in order to show respect to the Muslims, as instructed by the respective government unit, that CCTV will not air any ads containing images of the pig throughout 2007. This measures also applies to ads related to the Chinese New Year."In celebration of the upcoming Year of the Pig (or should that be, "The Year of the Prophet"?), I present the image of my blog's mascot at right.
Images of the pig to be banned includes photographs, cartoons, paper cutting silhouettes, and even "Happy Year of the Pig" slogans.
This cartoon is amazing! It not only summarizes perfectly the "position", as it were, taken by the Chinese government, it also accords to Islamofascism exactly the degree of "respect" it deserves!
It is bad enough that the Chinese government does not respect the right of its citizens to freedom of speech, but for it to force its citizens into dhimmitude strikes me as a new low! (HT: Resident Egoist (story), Zombietime (image))
Counting Corpses in the LA Times
Via Arts and Letters Daily, I have learned of an atrocious article in the Los Angeles Times by one Professor David A. Bell, of Johns Hopkins University, in which he asks -- seriously -- whether we have "overreacted" to the atrocities committed in the name of Islam -- a religion held in great esteem by our "strategic partners", the Red Chinese -- on September 11, 2001.
Imagine that on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism. [minor format changes, my bold]One wonders what this educated moron would say if he were victimized in some crime and the police refused to do anything about it on the grounds that it didn't hold a candle to some similar crime. "Sorry, Professor, but you only got a bloody nose and lost twenty dollars in cash. Last week, some eighty-year-old landed in the hospital and lost a bag with ten grand and a bunch of old coins. We arrested his mugger, but since nothing really happened to you by comparison, we're going to hand it over to Statistics and call it a day. To make an arrest in your situation would be to overreact."
Would Professor Bell not become indignant, not to mention worried that he might be in greater danger of similar crimes in the future thanks to this inaction? The purpose of our government is to protect individual rights, not to wait for us to get seriously-enough injured or for some minimal number of us get slaughtered before doing something about an injury or a threat. This applies equally well to foreign threats as it does to domestic ones.
We have, in fact, reacted inappropriately to the atrocities that Professor Bell dares to trivialize, but not in the way he claims. Less digging of toilets in the desert and more bombs would be appropriate, for starters. For more on what the proper response would look like, go here.
Today: Corrected typo and made clarification to last section.