yonmei

Recent Entries

You are viewing the most recent 6 entries

November 1st, 2009

09:39 am: On striving to think the best of people
I read on Shakesville that Emma Thompson had signed the petition supporting Roman Polanski's right not to be prosecuted for raping a 13-year-old girl - an act which the petition claims (translate) is normally prescribed in Europe.

Opinions may honestly vary on whether bringing Polanski to trial for raping an underage girl is the best thing for Polanski's victim (see Avedon on the Sideshow) but the idea that Polanski has some kind of right to go free because he committed the crime thirty years ago and he is a famous film director who ought not be treated like a "common terrorist", as the petition advocates, is beyond reprehensible.

I wrote to Emma Thompson's UK agent: I'm striving to think the best of Emma Thompson )

Yes, I admit, I'm politely lying through my teeth ("I'm sure you didn't MEAN to do that!") and I bet she did sign it, even if enough fan mail could get her to take her name off it. And there are other actors on the list I really also now hate for thinking that Polanski ought to be allowed to get away with rape because he's so famous and such a great film director that the law ought not to be applied to him as if he were just one of the terrorists kidnapped by the US. (Not that terrorists kidnapped by the US have a trial to look forward to, nor are they arrested on a warrant for which there is evidence that can be shown in court.) But as the petition makes clear, signing it affirms your support for the idea it's wrong for Polanski to be treated as if he was a common person, and the actors and other celebrities who have signed the petition have made clear their support for a two-tiered legal system, as well as for the principle that a famous rapist ought not to be forced to stand trial for his crime.

Adopt one today! Adopt one today! Adopt one today! Adopt one today! Adopt one today! Adopt one today! Adopt one today!

Current Mood: angry
Tags: ,

August 14th, 2009

05:13 pm: Am HOME!
Priority Actions:
1. Hug Bob, because she's acting awfully unloved.
2. Open windows! 'cause the place smells awfully stuffy
3. Feed cats.
4. Pet Wolf's nose, because it's the longest I've ever been away in his LIFE and he had his 2nd birthday while I was gone and he's acting like he's not sure who I am any more
5. Change litter in litter trays, light incense and oilburner in bathroom
6. ...check e-mail! E-mail [info]solo to tell her I'd love to go bungee jumping with her and another slash fan in a couple of weeks.
7. Also, need to e-mail catsitter to tell her I'm home and catsitter's employer to ask her to bill me.
8. While hoping it will stop raining before I walk over to Tattie Shaw's, get involved with the retweet game on #welovetheNHS.
9. Realise it is Scotland, after all, and the rain is not going to stop, so go out anyway to buy fresh fruit and milk

Tags: , , , , , , ,

February 8th, 2009

09:17 am: More foolishness with dragons and cheese and Cramer
Kathryn Cramer claims Aliases Are for People on Wanted Posters, and kindly informs us all:
I made a rare use of my LJ account to preach the gospel of using one's real name. The LJ pseudonymous masses remain unconvinced. What most amuses (not exactly fascinates) me is the persistent argument that since one can't completely verify who someone claims to be, there is no real difference between using an alias and using one's real name. ..... Seriously folks, it does matter whether you use your real names. Aliases are for people on Wanted posters. Aliases are for con-men and crooks. Give it up. Come out.
Well, gosh wow. No.

I bought Camembert at the farmer's market with every intention of taking it to my friend's housewarming party, and indeed packed it... and then when I got there, it turned out that it was not the sort of party where you just drop food contributions in the kitchen and people eat them. I'd never been to a party he'd thrown before, and it was definitely more organized than most parties in our range of friends. Well. (I did, however, firmly present him with the cupcakes, despite the Key Lime pie on offer, since the alternative would have been throwing them out: they'd been baked Friday and were gluten-free vegan, and I find gluten-free cupcakes seem to keep less well than the regular wheat-flour sort.)

Adopt one today! Adopt one today! Adopt one today!

Adopt one today! Adopt one today! Adopt one today!

I'm having fun breeding my dragons now. Whee.

Current Mood: tired
Tags: , , , ,

June 4th, 2008

05:34 pm: Antiview
Ask me questions.
One question per caller, please, unless I hand you a cookie (good for one more question). I'll endeavour to answer as many questions as I can, although I reserve the right to pick and choose. And, more importantly, every answer will be a lie. How close to the truth the lie falls is, again, a matter for my whim; I might offer you something that's almost true, if I feel like it. But otherwise? Lies, all lies! Let the lies begin!
(meme stolen from Charlie Stross)

Current Mood: amused
Tags: ,

September 11th, 2006

11:13 pm: Road to 9/11: Letter to the BBC
I watched this "drama" with increasing bewilderment and annoyance, both yesterday and today, when the final part was broadcast.

As far as I can see, the BBC chose to broadcast a piece of Republican campaigning propaganda, which exonerates and honours President Bush, and denigrates President Clinton.

So far from being "based on" 9/11 Commission Report, it directly contradicts it in several places - in particular, the drama claims that Bush gave the order to shoot down a passenger plane before United 93 crashed, whereas the 9/11 Commission Report explicitly says that President Bush and Vice President Cheney did not *discuss* the shoot-down authority until almost two hours after the first hijacking and ten minutes after the last hijacked plane had crashed.

The *whole film* - all six hours of it - was packed with moments like that: dramatic "fictionalisations" - or, not to put too fine a point on it, outright lies - which made it look as if President Clinton had been spectacularly indecisive, and President Bush extremely decisive.

It is simply not acceptable for the BBC to show, on the fifth anniversary of a terrible tragedy, a six hour party political broadcast that makes political hay out of that very tragedy. No matter that the party for which it is broadcast is in another country: no matter that the disaster happened in another country.

It is disrespectful, and it shows the BBC as either gullible or biased. Didn't anyone at the BBC get a review copy and do fact-checking? If it was accepted for broadcast sight unseen, then that was a gullible mistake: if it was seen and the BBC decided to broadcast it anyway, that was an offense against the BBC's reputation for delivering unbiased news.

And the quick version )

Tags: , , ,
Powered by InsaneJournal