The U.K. government is forcing the issue of a fox-hunting ban. Apparently, some people over there are incensed over the 'cruel' activity. It's too bad that 'cruelty' is so much more justifiable when it's to humans... On the other side, a lot of pro-fox-hunting folks aren't happy at all with Tony Blair over this. I wouldn't be, either. (Where does the U.K. government get off 'forcing through the legisation'? Isn't Britain supposedly something at least approximating a democracy?) Elsewhere (i.e., France), this seems like a straight-up feminist talking point. :roll: [Worth noting: foxes in Britain are considered vermin, as they are both plentiful and cause problems with sheep. Maybe we should steal the naysayers' mousetraps?]
Negative: September 2004 Archives
All of a sudden, with the questioning of these fakey documents from the Dan Rather CBS News bit, Democrats like Susan Estrich (the Fox News political commentator) are claiming they're more interested in the current situation than what happened thirty years ago. Which I'd applaud, if it didn't smell so much like the local fish market. Are they scared? I think they are. The defensive conspiracy-like theories suggested, off-the-cuff, by Estrich, suggest it. Paraphrased, as I didn't catch it on my DVR and had to type it from memory (material in [brackets] indicate portions where the wording is particularly likely to be incorrect, but I have not changed the spirit of the comments):
How do these bloggers know, 57 minutes into the broadcast that there's something wrong with the superscript? You hear [a lot about liberal conspiracy theory ...] a lot of my liberal friends think it's the Republicans [who did this]. I think liberal media was kind of set up.Oooh, the big media paranoia about bloggers must really be running high. I bet she has nightmares about pink slips with comments.
Stay out of my fucking bedroom, Mr. Bush.