Why greater censure; because Israel has higher relative wealth than Russia and in other contexts acts in an intelligent and rational way. How can we explain away Israel’s bad behaviour as though it doesn’t have other options? Melanie Phillips in The Spectator writes today of the west’s ‘pathological obsession’ with Israel, ‘Selective Moral Outrage‘. The thing is, when we discussing a state that is financially propped up by the US, one should hold them to a higher standard. It’s delusional and insulting to claim that all opposition to the actions Israel takes militarily is anti-semitic, as Bret Stephens implies: ‘As for the Chechens, too bad for their cause that no Jew will ever likely become president of Russia’.  Russia is no Israel and visa versa. This but what about argument just doesn’t hold water. As Johann Hari recently wrote in his article in The Independent – ‘How to spot a lame, lame argument‘: There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web, and is seeping into the pubs, coffee shops and opinion columns everywhere. It is known as ‘what-aboutery’ – and there was a particularly ripe example of it in response to one of my articles last week.

As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument – when you can’t justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands – you snap back: “But what about x?” You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it – hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

Can we back away from the distraction of comparing Israel/Palestine to everywhere else in the world and concentrate on fixing what is clearly going wrong with that conflict itself. Middle-Eastern peace won’t come because one day everyone realises what Russia does in Chechnya is worse, but rather when all sides are honest about they can, could and should do to end conflict and bring about a harmonious life for all. I still think this is possible, though the mindset and honesty from all parties required is some ways off.

Plus, basing an article on numbers of hits from a Google search is elementary-school level journalism.

Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal – Our Selective Moral Outrage – Why does Israel face more opprobrium than Russia?

David Attenborough has previous said:

…If whales could scream the industry would stop, for nobody would be able to stand it.

Then they give money to poor Caribbean nations for ‘fishing aid’. What is this, so that these countries create over-developed fishing industries that will be just outraged by the impact of whales eating their fish? It’s so false and underhand and just disgusts me. Can’t we show repeats of The Blue Planet on Japanese television continually until they beg us to stop and repent their horrible crimes. Japan and Norway’s tolls: 2,500 whales killed in the last twelve months. It’s disgusting.

WaPo: Pro-Whaling Nations Lose Early Vote
Guardian: Japan hits out at ‘polarised’ whaling council

YouTube: Unseen Al Gore Part 1
YouTube: Unseen Al Gore Part 2

via Gristmill at Grist Magazine

They think they can compete.

Venice: delightful if expensive city with beautiful canals, great art and a unique experience.

Birmingham: bland, rather tired looking, wishful-thinking with cheerful inhabitants but nothing to make it stand out from the grey.

BBC Birmingham Compares Birmingham to Venice

From The Times:

“We knew conditions were getting bad the night before when the magician had to cancel his act because his table kept sliding off the stage.” She said that they were given another cabin on the eighth deck.

The Times: Wall of water strikes giant ferry

I’d like to ask you, Mr. President — your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, (and the) wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime.

Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth — but what’s your real reason? You have said it wasn’t oil, the quest for oil. It hasn’t been Israel or anything else. What was it?

The answer she got, continuing while she attempted to clarify her question, didn’t go any way toward answering the question and instead, inexplicably, focused on Afghanistan. Her question was partisan and her answer was unclear. Though she was asking questions as a member of the press corps, she is in fact more a columnist, one with a great distain for George Bush and his international wars. She didn’t get a good answer.
Despite this her office received over one thousand roses from newfound fans as thankyou for her dogmatic persistence (The Hill.com: After grilling Bush, Helen Thomas gets thousands of flowers). According to The Hill’s article, Thomas shared the flowers with bureau colleagues but sent most of the bounty to wounded personnel at Walter Reed Army Hospital.

It could be seen that Bush was finally letting the least-likely-to-get-picked journalist have a chance at redeeming her credibility by asking a reasonable question. Perhaps he was trying to stop the drops in his polling numbers by reaching out to those who wouldn’t normally favor him. Bush’s approval ratings have been at record lows recently and he needs something to help revive them. He may, on the other hand, have chosen Thomas precisely because he knew her question would become the news of the day. While any other respectable reporter may have elicited a real response from him that may have caused controversy, Thomas was bound to create news herself. As television news anchors attacked her, (O’Reilly, others smear veteran journalist Helen Thomas over exchange with Bush), the news became not Bush’s feeble response but Thomas’s partisan position. The ‘liberal media’ as a whole was under attack and not just one elderly lady. By picking Thomas, Bush was able to discredit all journalists trying to find out really facts from an administration that has has remarkable success in information management, successfully putting a positive spin on events that don’t even make the news. Overall, the story has legs because it’s shows the current White House not as money grabbing and conservative hypocrites, but as manipulative and unclear. The right love it because it shows have repulsive the left really are, and the left love it because it shows that the right understand just how manipulative they can be, and seem to get away with it.

AP: President Bush’s Q & A with Helen Thomas
Helen Thomas: Bush takes potshots at messenger
Harpers.com: Give ‘em Helen [January 2003 exchange between White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and Helen Thomas]
NewsHounds: Special Report Attacks Helen Thomas
MediaMatters: O’Reilly, others smear veteran journalist Helen Thomas over exchange with Bush
SF Chronicle: Bush Tangles with Helen Thomas
National Ledger: President Bush Uses Helen Thomas to Embarrass National Press
Baltimore Sun: News Whiteout

Researchers in Connecticut said that global warming has led to a massive decline in the lobster population of the Long Island Sound; however, if the polar ice caps melt and sea levels rise 30 feet, colder water might bring the lobsters back.

see: The Stamford Advocate | CTV.ca

via Harpers Weekly Review 11-04-2006
Harpers Weekly Review

On one side of the barricade was girl carrying a sign that said, “Instead of porn, show us Godly relationships.” On the other, a woman held one that said, “I moved here to get away from people like you.”

SF Chronical: Evangelical rally in SF