Men with the name 'Dave' are in for a pleasant surprise, for a poll has revealed that Brit women think that blokes with the title are the best endowed. But sad news for the name 'Ray', as it conjures up the most disappointing visions in the trouser department.
John Sewell, boss of onepoll.com, which questioned 1,000 British women to list the monikers, which sounded most, and least, likely to belong to a well-packaged man. "It is interesting to see women's pre-conceptions revealed," The Sun quoted Swell, as saying.
The list of 'big names':
1. Dave
2. Paul
3. Steve
4. James
5. Mark
6. Robert
7. Chris
8. Andy
9. Richard
10. Dan
The list of 'small names':
1. Ray
2. Brian
3. Nigel
4. Frank
5. Keith
6. Jeremy
7. Josh
8. Barry
9. Dennis
10. Nick
. . . In the years since its release the film has been taken up by Jews, Catholics, Evangelicals, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and followers of the oppressed Chinese Falun Gong movement. Meanwhile, the Internet brims with weighty philosophical treatises on the deep Platonist, Aristotelian, and existentialist themes providing the skin and bones beneath the film's clown makeup. . . . countless professors use it to teach ethics and a host of philosophical approaches. Several pastors sent me excerpts from sermons in which Groundhog Day was the central metaphor. And dozens of committed Christians of all denominations related that it was one of their most cherished movies.
When the Museum of Modern Art in New York debuted a film series on "The Hidden God: Film and Faith" two years ago, it opened with Groundhog Day. The rest of the films were drawn from the ranks of turgid and bleak intellectual cinema, including standards from Ingmar Bergman and Roberto Rossellini. According to the New York Times, curators of the series were stunned to discover that so many of the 35 leading literary and religious scholars who had been polled to pick the series entries had chosen Groundhog Day that a spat had broken out among the scholars over who would get to write about the film for the catalogue. In a wonderful essay for the Christian magazine Touchstone, theology professor Michael P. Foley wrote that Groundhog Day is "a stunning allegory of moral, intellectual, and even religious excellence in the face of postmodern decay, a sort of Christian-Aristotelian Pilgrim's Progress for those lost in the contemporary cosmos." Charles Murray, author of Human Accomplishment, has cited Groundhog Day more than once as one of the few cultural achievements of recent times that will be remembered centuries from now. He was quoted in The New Yorker declaring, "It is a brilliant moral fable offering an Aristotelian view of the world." . . .
Hey!
I got you babe
I got you babe . . .
"Let's live here! . . . We'll rent to start."
Posted by: Mike ||
02/02/2008 10:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Reports of its return have been greatly exaggerated
In the past few years Moscows increasingly assertive foreign policy posture has been underscored by signs of improvement in the military realm. Several pundits have argued that the Russian army is back, that it is once again an effective force, having endured humiliating conditions through much of the post-Soviet period. Some recent developments have undoubtedly supported this contention. After all, in 2007 alone Russia resumed regular long-range bomber missions after a 16-year hiatus, conducted a military exercise with the Peoples Republic of China and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (a.k.a. The Dictators Club) that included 6,500 troops and over 100 aircraft, increased defense spending by more than 30 percent, announced a new rearmament program, and began planning the reclamation of the old Soviet naval base at Tartus, Syria in order to reestablish a Mediterranean naval presence.
These events are in concert with the longstanding Soviet-Russian tradition of emphasizing the armed forces as the state s most important foreign policy instrument while designating lesser roles to diplomatic, economic, and other means. Still, those familiar with the magnitude of the Russian defense establishment s post-Cold War privations cannot but wonder whether it could have recovered quite so quickly. To be sure, the military s situation has improved in some respects in the past several years. At the same time, reversing the army s decline and regaining its former might will take many years, and the Russian armed forces will not be able to challenge America s military supremacy for decades. Indeed, my main argument here is that reports of the Russian army s imminent resurgence, like those of Mark Twains death nearly a century ago, have been greatly exaggerated.
Long piece in Policy Review; rest at the link. Different take on Russia than the one we usually have here at the Burg. Given that we exaggerated Soviet capabilities rather perversely last time, this is worth some thought.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/02/2008 00:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Historian Col. Albert Seaton:
The farther one is away from the Russians, the greater the tendency to underestimate them.
#2
Right. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than bitterly disappointed if we ever have to contend militarily with the bear...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/02/2008 8:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The key to an effective military is a damn good NCO corps. The social and political culture of Russia et al [read China] do not lend themselves to producing that particular key item. They can buy all the toys they want. They can mass all the fanciest techno bobbles they can steal. That's good for a one shot then negotiate strategy. If the other guy is going to stay in the fight, they're screwed. Other than that, they make good Palace Guards and look mighty pruty on parade. Oh, and it does impress chairborne CIA analysts a lot.
#7
If you get into the guts of operations in WWII you'll find that Russia overwhelmed the Germans not by particular skill. The body count shows that as does their operations in Afghanistan and Chechnya. The junior officers and NCOs at the end of the war were the typical Darwin adapters and survivors. They weren't motivated by their fear of Stalin as the blood hatred they had for the Germans and what they did in their homeland. Motivation is a great focus to one's work. The German's were originally welcomed as liberators in many parts of the country, but their own bigotry and behavior undermined that myth quickly. The shoulda, coulda, woulda times of history.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/02/2008 09:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why is any of this surprising? Why would anyone be desperate to be governor of Arkansas? Perhaps for the graft and corruption? Being POTUS allowed him (and the Hildebeest) access to even greater bribes. Kazakhstan was simply cashing in.
We get politicians like this is when the electorate votes for whoever they think will "give" them the most, a situation foreseen by de Tocqueville almost 200 years ago.
He was a crook when he was governor, a crook when he was president and a crook when he is.........oh please dear God let's not have Hildebeast in the white house. Its almost enough to make you want to register as a democrat just to vote against her in the primary.
Even amid the cut and thrust of a remarkably close election, Obama is also reflecting more on what his election could mean for the rest of the world. "You probably know better than I do that there's enormous interest in this race," he said when I asked about this in Los Angeles. "People have been distressed about the direction Bush and Cheney have taken US foreign policy."
His election would "signal a clear break" from the past, he added, hinting that the Clintons' return to the White House would not. "I would come to meetings with world leaders with the understanding that I was opposed to this war in Iraq from the start, that I had consistently described a US foreign policy that puts diplomacy at the forefront."
Just as his life is, in some sense, the personification of the American melting pot, his election would also send a message to enemies and allies alike. "As somebody who myself lived overseas [in Indonesia] for a time, the world would see me as a different kind of president, somebody who could see the world through their eyes.
Continued on Page 49
#2
Every iota of this original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact in the so-called redesign. That is why Congressman Tancredo asked the Park Service this autumn to scrap the existing design entirely. Instead of getting rid of the giant crescent as Tancredo demanded back in 2005, architect Paul Murdoch only disguised it with a few surrounding trees.
Also remaining are those damned 44 glass blocks on the flight path. (There were forty passengers and crew and four Islamic terrorists on Flight 93.)
#4
And no, I'm not advocating violence. But there has got to be some way to make this use of public monies, this travesty being erected in our name, accountable to us.
#6
lotp: Right there with you. It is not advocating violence to argue the blindingly obvious: At some point the patience of the general public is going to break and then there will be an almighty backlash. Not just against this evil travesty, the men who designed it and their enablers. At that point there will be violence, many innocent people including law enforcement doing their job as best they can are going to get hurt, and a great deal of the blame will reside with our elected officials, media and academic establishment who failed to act - who prevented action - when some resolution early on could have prevented the whole thing. I only see two ways out of our current situation. Either the West dies in a war of attrition against a resurgent Umma and civilization is left to China and India to defend. Or the West undergoes a German-style phase change, ultra-nationalist coalitions take power and an historic genocide takes place against tens of millions of people.
Several years ago I hoped President Bush offered the last best hope of a third way through: A democratized middle east and an Arab world that keep live in peace with its neighbors. I would not hold a candle out for his chances of succeeding now. He has ceded too many fronts in his quest for Saudi oil, temporary stability in the global economy and the good will of constituencies who will call him stupid and evil beyond the grave no matter how many times he grovels and calls Islam a religion of peace.
#7
At some point the patience of the general public is going to break and then there will be an almighty backlash. Not just against this evil travesty, the men who designed it and their enablers.
Already there. I advocate violence and lots of it. It is the only thing that is going to solve the problem and force the Left into hiding.
First the traitors, then the enemy!
Posted by: Graviling Dark Lord of the Welsh1001 ||
02/02/2008 10:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I've taken part in a regular blog burst on this... and it's quite clear that the designers (despite some cosmetic changes) have every intent on keeping the original design / purpose. Why resist so strongly in the face of overwhelming public outcry? hmmmmmmmm
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/02/2008 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Why?
The benign explanation: the designer is an artist and knows his vision better than us peasants, his patrons. After all, Michaelangelo knew art better than the Medicis.
The not-benign explanation: you already know that one.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/02/2008 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#10
If they build if knock down four of the blocks.
Oh and Gravailing Lord, I'm with you. When do we start?
lotp: Be a real pity if this thing got blown up every time they tried to build it.
Noboby accused you of advocating violence. And so what if they did? Why apologize for what you think and know to be right?
It would NOT a pity if Paul Murdoch, the designer of this piece of sh*t, were to be found dead with a bullet lodged in his brain. Then the apologists for muslim barbarity can build their crescent of embrace shame in his honor. Spit.
This "memorial" - as currently conceived - must be stopped by any means necessary. To start with, write your congressional representatives. Tell them to get off their asses and do something worthwhile: they still have a chance to put a stop to the desecration of the memory of the first 40 who fought back on 9-11.
#13
Well, who knows, it may be just the dhimmi thing, albeit I have a hard time to conceptualize or understand what would be compelling to be/become one.
#16
Unfortunately,the National Parks Service has not been helpful in this...and they are very insistent on moving forward with the design as is. Would be good to know the tax dollars were alloted to this project. Who makes that call?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/02/2008 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#17
That said, Flight 93 Advisory Commsion member Tim Baird is on record as admitting that the commission was well aware of the orientation of the memorial, and that since noone could prove "intent", they had inention of halting the project. You see, if us rubes visit the memorial without any knowledge that is desinged as a mosque, then no harm / no foul.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/02/2008 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
When the Museum of Modern Art in New York debuted a film series on "The Hidden God: Film and Faith" two years ago, it opened with Groundhog Day. The rest of the films were drawn from the ranks of turgid and bleak intellectual cinema, including standards from Ingmar Bergman and Roberto Rossellini. According to the New York Times, curators of the series were stunned to discover that so many of the 35 leading literary and religious scholars who had been polled to pick the series entries had chosen Groundhog Day that a spat had broken out among the scholars over who would get to write about the film for the catalogue. In a wonderful essay for the Christian magazine Touchstone, theology professor Michael P. Foley wrote that Groundhog Day is "a stunning allegory of moral, intellectual, and even religious excellence in the face of postmodern decay, a sort of Christian-Aristotelian Pilgrim's Progress for those lost in the contemporary cosmos." Charles Murray, author of Human Accomplishment, has cited Groundhog Day more than once as one of the few cultural achievements of recent times that will be remembered centuries from now. He was quoted in The New Yorker declaring, "It is a brilliant moral fable offering an Aristotelian view of the world." . . .
