Scandal Rocks Textual Relations

This just in: Mr President has been accused of being a sweetheart. The scandal has rocked Textual Relations HQ, with Socks accusing Blofeld of leaking the story in order to discredit the administration. Apparently Blofeld has become increasingly jealous of Socks’s rising influence, although this remains unconfirmed. Mr President has released the following statement:

Now, I have to go back to work on my post for tomorrow’s blog. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the readers of Textual Relations. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman…

At this point the President realised he had the wrong piece of paper. After much scrambling around on the lectern for the right piece of paper, something which will undoubtedly give his political enemies even more ammunition, he continued:

It has come to my attention that I have been accused, in a very fine online publication, of being a sweetheart. These accusations are not only malicious, but they are unfounded, a cruel attack designed to destabilise my administration, and hurt you, the readers of Textual Relations.

I categorically deny that I have ever indulged in anything other than an entirely professional relationship with Ms d’Arcy, and suggestions that we are “very good friends” or that I have been at all helpful with the Mystery Topic Challenge are false. Whilst I have nothing but the utmost respect for her as both a woman and a scholar, that is where our relationship ends.

At present I will not be taking any questions, as I have a great deal of work to do for the readers of Textual Relations. Thank you.

Whilst there has been muted talk of impeachment, it appears to be premature.

Using A Machete For Keyhole Surgery?

With the UK government proposing a bin tax, that will add between £100 (a government figure) and £1000 a year (the media’s figure) to the taxes of anyone with non-recyclable waste (effectively meaning anyone who doesn’t recycle everything they consume will be hit), Mr President, defender of the downtrodden, asks if it’s right that we should force a lifestyle on people. Being “green” is a lifestyle, after all.

Clearly the tax isn’t to cover costs, as we already pay taxes for bin collection, and if anything it’s recycling that adds to costs (which would mean that those who recycle more would be taxed if it were cost-driven). It’s a punitive tax designed to force people to recycle. There’s an issue bigger than recycling here, and it’s an issue that affects everyone, not just UK taxpayers. Are things like this, smoking bans and forcing people to use greener cars the right way to behave in a modern democracy?

We hear liberals talking about the freedoms we’ve given up in the post 9/11 world, and how things like the Patriot Act or the erosion of civil liberties at airports are threatening true democracy, and yet they’re the very ones advocating things that arguably are even less democratic. They may argue that such measures have a “good cause” but the same can be said for anti-terrorism measures. The real question in both is not whether the goal is good but whether that goal justifies the means used to achieve it.

Bans and punitive taxes strike El Presidente as being a little Draconian and old-fashioned; they smack of “forcing people to be free”. That is certainly the sort of rhetoric used to justify things like a smoking ban or taxes on environmentally unfriendly activities; “it’s for your own good!” Surely intelligent adults in a free society can determine for themselves if something is in their own best interests?

Ultimately when deciding if the means are justified by the goals we’re seeking to achieve we have to see if the danger we’re facing is big enough. Of course those advocating such measures will talk up the huge dangers of climate change, and how polar bears are becoming extinct. Yet the truth, the case for anthropological global warming is, at best, unproven, and at worst already proven to be wrong.

Unlike the danger from terrorism, which is very real (how many 9/11s, July 7th bombings and Madrid bombings do we need to prove it?), these dangers aren’t backed up by the science. Can we really justify forcing this lifestyle on people? Even smoking hasn’t been proven to have a 1:1 correlation with cancer; it doesn’t “cause” it, merely appears to increase the risk. Whilst that’s still a danger, it’s less extreme.

Governments are increasingly using a machete when a scalpel would be better suited.

Wiki-Wednesday - Aleksandr Koshkyn

Aleksandr Koshkyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medal record
Competitor for Soviet Union
Men’s Boxing
Olympic Games
Silver	Moscow 1980	Light Middleweight
World Amateur Championships
Gold	Munich 1982	Light Middleweight
European Amateur Championships
Gold	1981 Tampere	Light Middleweight

Aleksandr Koshkyn (born June 13, 1959) is a retired boxer, who represented the USSR at the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, Soviet Union. There he won the silver medal in the light middleweight division (– 71 kg), after being defeated in the final by Armando Martínez of Cuba. Two years later he won the world title at the World Championships in Munich, West Germany.

Olympic results

• 1st round bye
• Defeated Salah Jassim Beden (Iraq) KO 1
• Defeated Nicky Wilshire (Great Britain) KO 2
• Defeated Detlef Kästner (East Germany) 5-0
• Lost to Armando Martínez (Cuba) 1-4

Shut The Heck Up!

On Friday Mr President reviewed Iron Man and in the comments he made reference to annoying people at the cinema who practically forced him out of the door, meaning he couldn’t stay past the credits. This, incidentally, was the least of their offenses, and initially he had planned to talk further about this during the review but he didn’t want to make that post overly long (see below).

So today he finally gets to climb up on his soapbox and rant about inconsiderate people at the cinema, although he’d be far happier if he could lock them in a room and make them listen to “My Heart Will Go On”. Those sophisticated torture measures they use in Gitmo have got nothing on a bit of Celine Dion. And to think it had started well…

When he’d arrived at the cinema there were no issues, everyone around him seemed fairly considerate, switching off their phones and keeping their conversations in hushed tones, as well as making it easy for him to get into his seat. Fair play to them. Then these three girls came in and left almost immediately, in a bit of a rush. He thought perhaps they’d gone into the wrong screen and were there for another movie.

The movie begins and lo and behold the three girls come wandering in again, and although often the beginning of films is quite slow-moving, anyone who’s seen Iron Man knows that’s not the case here. He hates it when people walk in once a movie’s started anyway, and says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Some of us know how to tell the time.

However despite this, he knows people do, and anyway, people should be allowed to leave to go to the toilet or get food or drink, so it’s unrealistic to expect people not to move around and distract you. Ok, so we accept them coming in late, but then he hears a mobile phone ringing. Guess who it belongs to? Yep, the annoying girls strike again.

Perhaps they didn’t remember switch it off as they were in a rush, you might think, but no, that’s not the case. How does he know? Because the girl answers it and begins having a conversation during the movie. She’s asked to be quiet and instead decides to leave the cinema, again walking right in front of people trying to watch the damn movie!

Upon her return (oh yes, she came back) she again blocks our views as she sat back down, only to receive another phone call. There was really no excuse for not switching it off this time, so clearly she couldn’t care less about disturbing other people, the selfish brat. Mr President was, by this point, fighting the urge to pull her out of her seat, take her out behind the cinema and shoot her, and her friends. He was enjoying the movie too much. Well, that and the fact he didn’t actually have a gun to hand. Pity really.

You see, every time she left she couldn’t do it alone, oh no, she had to leave with her friends, because clearly it takes four people to answer a bloody phone. Nor were these isolated incidents, they must have gotten up and left at least a half dozen times throughout the movie, so much so he wonders why they even bothered coming at all.

They can’t possibly have seen much of the movie, in fact they probably couldn’t even tell you who Tony Stark was, let alone tell you much about what happened. What he doesn’t understand is why people waste their money on coming to the cinema if all they’re going to do is talk? This is no isolated incident either, there are often chatty teenagers talking away at the back of the cinema whenever he goes. What’s the point?

Surely a cafe or bar would be more suited to their needs? It’s not just their money they’re wasting either, what about the rest of the paying patrons whose movie is spoiled by them? He doesn’t begrudge them going somewhere and talking, it’s a free country, but don’t do it in the middle of a cinema! Nor was this the end of the annoyance, oh no!

The final straw was when the movie ended. Being the considerate gentleman he is, the Presidential One got up to allow them to pass, rather than simply move his knees (which were blocking their way out). He could simply have been a jerk and done the latter, but by doing the right thing he ended up being shunted out of the cinema by the crowd and couldn’t stay during the credits as he’d wanted to. Why do people rush off at the end?

Damn them. Damn them all to hell, every last one of them. Even the nice ones.

Monday Meme - The Which Shakespeare Play Are You? Test

When Mr President saw a test about Shakespearean plays, he though it might be a bit of fun, but never did he think it would actually provide a really accurate insight into his personality. Who knew that a Shakespearean play could precisely map to someone’s character traits? Interestingly Julius Caesar is one of his two (the other being Macbeth) favourite Shakespeare plays.

He’d never really compared himself to Brutus before but the comparison is quite a good one, after all, not only do his friends come to him for advice but you, his loyal readers, practically can’t live without your daily dose of Textual goodness, and the advice and guidance that he provides you. Perhaps he should start an “Ask Mr President” section?

Your Score: Julius Caesar

You scored 47% = Tragic, 37% = Comic, 27% = Romantic, 41% = Historic

You are Julius Caesar. Set during the mid-March in Rome, Julius Caesar tells the story of the conspiracy against and assassination of Julius Caesar. While not considered one of Shakespeare’s Histories, Julius Caesar is a fictionalized account of a true story. What your score tells us about you is that you are most likely a complex individual who, like Brutus, may struggle between the conflicting demands of friendship, loyalty, and patriotism. However, also like Brutus, you are undoubtedly someone to whom your friends often go before making a big decision. You are their rock, and they wouldn’t think of doing anything without first asking you what you think. However, like Caesar, himself, your tragic flaw, might be that you don’t take advice or criticism well even if it is constructive. Take heed to listen to good advice when you hear it, and for gosh sake… beware the ides of March.

Link: The Which Shakespeare Play Are You? Test written by macbee on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test View My Profile(macbee)