Wednesday, October 11, 2006

# Posted 2:44 AM by Patrick Belton  

LA TRAHISON succès des clercs: A frightfully quick roundup before I bugger off on the Piccadilly Line for this morning's dose of suicide by Arabic.

Rushdie, one of my favourite crafters of words, intones on the Today programme that veils suck.

In France, the forces of Chiraquie are indicating that if Sarkozy stands as UMP candidate, they shall stand aside to support Mme Royal.

In Israel, there's a chance Avigdor might get into cabinet as Labour's leader indicates his party can no longer deliver its whip on the budget vote. Also, a new tungsten-based weapon, delivered by drone, has appeared in the military equation in Gaza, where there was also an air strike upon the building of legislator Umm Nidal.

In a move urged upon them for months by TGA and this blog amongst others, the BBC and Foreign Office announce plans to stand up a Farsi language news network on the heels of BBC Arabic. And 35-year old Kiran Desai takes home a Booker.

As the grateful guest of Toynbee Hall, I was able to meet Tony Benn yesterday, who was charming, witty, eloquent, and spot wrong of course on all issues where we differ, yet delightful to be able to spend time with. I'll write up a few notes after I become more fully acquainted with the Arabic accusative. (I shall try somehow to include spurious use of 'j'accuse')
(4) opinions -- Add your opinion

Do bridal veils also suck?
Do nuns habits also suck?
Do dark sunglasses also suck?
I read the article in Haaretz.

First quote"
"The investigative team is the same one that exposed, several months ago, the use by U.S. forces in Iraq of phosphorous bombs, against Iraqi rebels in Faluja."

That certainly makes me feel confidant that the story will be neutral and accurate....NOT!

Second quote:
" Dr. Carmela Vaccaio said that in analyzing the samples, she found 'a very high concentration of carbon and the presence of unusual materials,' such as copper, aluminum and tungsten."

Third quote:
"It is believed that the weapon is highly carcinogenic and harmful to the environment."

Our old friend, the third=person passive voice.

It always raises questions with me, like: Exactly *who* is it that believes this, and why should *I* believe them?

Re-read the second quote.

Carbon - watch out for the soot!

Copper - in every wire in your house and the pennies in your pocket (well, in the US, at least).

Aluminum - check your cookware, folks, it's a hazard to the envioronment.

Tungsten - Every incandescent light bulb in your house.

"highly carcinogenic"?!!!

Who are these idiots, and how can they get paid to write this kind of bullshit?
The point in the article of identifying carbon, copper, aluminum and tungsten is that they are part of the signature of a DIME weapon.

And tungsten-alloys do cause tumors and cancer in rats. It's worse if it's aerosol.

The article was factually correct on this point.
Im confused about the veil debate--do they mean the veil that some women wear to cover their face, or the veil that the majority of practicing Muslim women wear that covers only the hair?
Post a Comment