Kailash “Kalau” Singh replaces bathing and brushing his teeth with a “fire bath” every evening when he stands on one leg beside a bonfire, smokes marijuana and says prayers to Lord Shiva, according to the Hindustan Times.
“It’s just like using water to take a bath,” Kalau was reported as saying. “A fire bath helps kill germs and infection in the body.”
I’m not sure what he means when he says “using water to take a bath,” but I’m pretty sure he was doing it wrong.
Apollo posted this at 12:20 AM HKT on Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 as Those Wacky Foreigners
“A wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him.” – Niccolo Machiavelli, “The Prince”
Jamie posted this at 2:19 PM HKT on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 as Philosophy
Jay Nordlinger praises Texas’s Ted Cruz. You should read it because Ted Cruz is a name you should remember. He will hopefully be my next state attorney general, but, as Nordlinger points out, Cruz’s future’s so bright he oughta wear shades.
I’ve had some very mild contact with Cruz through my law school. Before presenting his [winning] argument to the Supreme Court last year in Medellin, he did a moot court in front of some law school professors. He was not only practicing for the argument, but he turned it into a wonderful teaching experience for the students there. I’m extremely skeptical of the usefulessness of oral arguments in appellate cases, but an oral argument from Cruz is something unique. There were multiple levels of persuasion going on with every sentence he said; he was simply brilliant.
I briefly met him on a couple other occaisions. I don’t pretend to be a great talent evaluator, but I’ve never met anyone who made such a powerful impression in such small periods of time. He’s as smart as they come, personable, and an ideological conservative (and his wife with to CMC!). In the years to come, conservatives are going to be very pleased that he’s on our side.
Apollo posted earlier about a kid who, after making bomb threats, went to prison several hundred miles from home because of the Patriot act. There’s been some follow up (H/T) and it looks as though things are more complicated:
[A] new report by Wired News suggests that, not only was the teenager an online superstar in rogue tech communities for his prank phone calls, but his mother may have known all along that the boy was conspiring with others to make bomb threats.
Lundeby, known online as “Tyrone,” allegedly had progressed into selling his services as a threatmaker, charging schoolchildren from across the country $5 apiece to place threatening, Internet-based phone calls that would cause administrators to shut down their schools, Wired News reports.
“I heard the prank phone calls he made,” his mother, Annette Lundeby, said in the Wired report. “They were really funny prank calls.”
On top of that, the U.S. Attorney’s office handling the case says her story about abuse of the Patriot Act was false.
. . .
“Tyrone” allegedly moved on to bigger things, according to Wired News, which says he began calling in bomb threats and pretty soon was being paid for them via a PayPal account.
Moving the teen from North Carolina to Indiana might be a bit much, but it sounds as though the mother has a few screws loose: thinking prank bomb threats are funny and then claiming that the U.S. Attorney’s office was using the Patriot Act to prosecute her son? If her son was getting paid to make bomb threats, then there’s good reason for the federal government to get involved—how does anyone know, say, that it’s only other kids paying him to shut down the school and not someone more sinister?—and the mother might well be charged as an accomplice.
No more time travel. And, if that request is too much, at least don’t tell us that time travel is what happens when you go into a black hole. It reminded me of that scene in one of the Spidermans where they put out a fusion reaction by putting it in water. I understand that it’s too much to ask that you have even the vaguest appreciation of the science you deal with, but perhaps you could run these things by a high school physics student once before the script goes to final production. Along those lines, if you blow something up at the event horizon, the light from that explosion will not escape the black hole. That’s because light from an explosion – even a really, really big one – does not travel faster than light.
But that’s just being nitpicky The main point is this: NO MORE TIME TRAVEL.
Apollo posted this at 1:35 AM HKT on Monday, May 11th, 2009 as Film Rants
In a world where a former coke head smiles at jokes about others’ drug problems, you’d think more people would point out that the former coke head was, well, a former coke head. Yet I think it’s still considered downright rude to refer to Obama’s drug history.
It is, of course, completely unsurprising that Obama smiled and laughed through such a thoroughly offensive and unfunny series of jokes. By now we’ve grown quite accustomed to mainstream people on the left saying unconscionable things without being called on it; Obama has been part of this culture for decades. I picture him having a similar smile on his face during Jeremiah Wright’s jokes. Sykes, like Wright, has a valid point!
Apollo posted this at 10:41 AM HKT on Sunday, May 10th, 2009 as That's Not Change!
Every once in a while numbers leak out from universities showing the reality of racial preferences. Here’s some numbers from Duke. This one is super special, because it doesn’t just show the differing criteria for admitted students, it shows the different GPAs once the students are admitted. There’s half a point of GPA between Asians/whites and blacks.
The actual paper seems to cost $5, which is about $5 more than I’m willing to pay for an academic paper. It seems to be making the point, which anyone in their right mind realizes through common sense (thus college administrators are able to feign ignorance on the subject – we presume they have neither a right mind nor common sense), that admitted students with inferior credentials tend to do less well.
Apollo posted this at 3:10 PM HKT on Thursday, May 7th, 2009 as Edjamacation, Race
As a general rule, I’ve got no beef with the Patriot Act, but perhaps the fact that they put this guy in juvenile lockup should be a sign that he’s not really the sort of terrorist the law was designed to be used against.
Though he is being held several hundred miles away from his home. Perhaps it’s the juvi equivalent of Gitmo?
Perhaps “love” is too strong, but Reid sure knows how warm the cockles of a right-wing heart with how he’s treating Snarlin’ Arlen:
In a unanimous voice vote, the Senate approved a resolution that added Specter to the Democratic side of the dais on the five committees on which he serves, an expected move that gives Democrats larger margins on key panels such as Judiciary and Appropriations.
But Democrats placed Specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this Congress, which goes through December 2010. Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter’s seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year.
“This is all going to be negotiated next Congress,” Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said tonight.
Specter’s office declined to comment.
Without any assurance of seniority, Specter loses a major weapon in his campaign to win reelection in 2010: the ability to claim that his nearly 30 years of Senate service places him in key positions to benefit his constituents.
It looks as though the Democrats don’t want to keep Specter in their caucus longer than they have to. Perhaps Specter can tell us the Scottish law term for “dunce.”
One of Nixon’s pieces of advice to every president was to get your own people in control of the CIA and the Justice Department, because those were the agencies that could really wreck a presidency. Many of the big scandals that have damaged presidents—such as Iran-contra, Lewinsky, torture memos—bear out Tricky Dick’s advice.
The CIA’s war against President Bush was motivated by ass covering, or by political partisanship. But with President Obama, it’s personal.
Many are furious about his disclosure of explicit details of the interrogation methods used on some al Qaida bigwigs, and his waffling on whether or not those who employed them will be subject to prosecution.
Others are incensed by his decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and to let some of those incarcerated there (17 Chinese Uighurs) loose in the United States.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held two hush hush meetings with CIA Director Leon Panetta and Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee last week.
“Her fear and frustration have apparently given way to panic after word reached her of the CIA’s reaction to the damage she, President Obama and other Democrats have done to the spy agency in the last three months, wrote Jed Babbin, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, in Human Events May 1. “Pelosi learned that her actions and those of President Obama have so damaged CIA morale that the agency’s ability to function could be in danger.”
The upshot of the meetings was an unprecedented letter from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex) to Mr. Panetta, making a quasi-apology. Rep. Reyes asked the CIA director to “disseminate it to the CIA workforce as soon as possible.”
But the CYA nature of the letter, and Mr. Reyes’ pledge of more oversight are unlikely to mollify many at Langley.
Presidents come and go like morning glories, but bureaucracies are like oak trees that last. Disagreements with Obama aside, he needs to get Langley on his side, since right now it looks like it’s on its own side. If Kelly is right, the presidency—and by extension the nation—is in for a rough time. Not good.
Here’s Keith Olberman and Mike Musto providing America with a substantive entry in the national conversation about the Ms. USA controversy:
Yes, because when push comes to shove, the best way to fight for equality and equal recognition is to make personal cracks about Carrie Prejan’s boobs. You keep things classy, Keith!
Gay marriage supporters — among whom I count myself — deserve to lose. Keith Olberman is a disease.
Tom posted this at 9:54 AM HKT on Tuesday, May 5th, 2009 as Kulturkampf
This list of people banned from the UK for their extremist views is up on Drudge. I guess if you’ve got your own country and you want to keep Michael Savage and Fred Phelps out, that’s your prerogative. It just seems like more trouble than its worth in their cases.
What’s interesting are the people about whom this list reveals precious little information. Putting out a list of people banned from your country seems like a worthwhile occasion for specifying what, exactly, is so unacceptable about their behavior. While it’s fairly detailed about the reasons for banning people with Anglo or European style names, the reasons for banning people with more interesting names is more opaque.
AMIR SIDDIQUE
Preacher. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs.
WADGY ABD EL HAMIED MOHAMED GHONEIM
A prolific speaker and writer. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glory terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to commit terrorist acts.
ABDULLAH QADRI AL AHDAL
Preacher. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence.
YUNIS AL ASTAL
Preacher and Hamas MP. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts.
SAFWAT HIJAZI
Television preacher. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by glorifying terrorist violence.
Preachers, you say. What church has such “particular beliefs”? Are they Methodists?
Charles Krauthammer’s column last week arguing in favor of torture under limited circumstances is far better than most on the subject. Not only is it well-reasoned, it’s actually willing to state clearly what it wishes to argue: that torture, without the quotation marks, can be justified under two circumstances:
The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent’s life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, “You do what you have to do.” And then take the responsibility.
Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don’t entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.
The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. (One of the “torture memos” noted that the CIA had warned that terrorist “chatter” had reached pre-9/11 levels.) We know we must act but have no idea where or how — and we can’t know that until we have information. Catch-22.
I whole-heartedly agree with his first argument and — for the same Krauthammer offers — would question the fitness of anyone who refused to waterboard or do worse under when confronted with a genuine ticking time bomb. As I have stated elsewhere, I am not aware of this situation ever taking place during the War on Terror.
I do not agree with his second conclusion that torture is (legally? morally? Krauthammer never quite says) permissible to torture or waterboard “a high-value enemy” simply by his virtue of being one. Why, for instance, should we not waterboard a medium-value prisoner, when his information could likely lead to the capture of his superiors? It’s too slippery, and it’s only going to got down hill. When it comes to torture, I think we should insist on the kind of black-and-white certainty Krauthammer mentioned earlier.
This is preposterous. Iran’s nuclear missiles have nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinians, and it’s just a pile of crap that the administration either a) believes the Arab claptrap that the Palestinians are the most important issue in the region, or b) is willing to blackmail our closest and most powerful ally this way.
Israel is an independent country, the ravings of some American anti-semites notwithstanding. The Israelis will do as they please, and if we do not help provide them with security, they will find security through their own means. That is, taunting Israel like this achieves absolutely nothing aside from making an Israeli strike against Iran more probable.
Peace is possible only when people feel secure. When you remove security, when you present Israel with the prospect that we will stand by as Iran prepares the weapons needed to destroy Israel, you risk war.
Apollo posted this at 8:33 PM HKT on Monday, May 4th, 2009 as Arafatistan, CHANGE!
There’s a Dodge Magnum that always parks near me at the school parking lot. I don’t much care for the car, but it’s somewhat distinctive, so I can understand why someone might like it.
With that in mind, I was blown away by these sales numbers from Chrysler. Last month, they sold 5 (five) Dodge Magnums. Nationwide. This is not an expensive or unknown car; it ranges from $23k-38k and has been featured in multiple nationwide advertising campaigns. Compare that to Dodge’s high end sports car, the Viper, which starts at $91k and is never, to my knowledge, advertised. Chrysler sold 29 of those last month. (Compare to 112 Bentleys and 116 Ferraris; hell, even the preposterously pretentious and overpriced Maybach sold 7.)
Obviously, all of those sales numbers from Chrysler suck, and they should really give second thoughts regarding the wisdom of saving this company through bailouts and by taking money from creditors and giving it to unions. But I was just blown away by the Magnum sales numbers. They’ve only sold 77 this year – that’s like 1.5 per state. And last year’s numbers were pretty crappy too, considering how much of an advertising push that car had behind it.
Apollo posted this at 2:20 PM HKT on Monday, May 4th, 2009 as Bailoutistan