Jokes and Humour: "Tip: Hu?s on China?
Playwright Jim Sherman wrote this when Hu Jintao was named chief of the Communist Party in China on November 2002.
HU?S ON FIRST
By James Sherman
Shortly after Hu Jintao was elected Leader of China....
(We take you now to the Oval Office.)
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What?s happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That?s what I want to know.
Condi: That?s what I?m telling you.
George: That?s what I?m asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow?s name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya? asking me for?
Condi: I?m telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I?m asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That?s the man?s name.
George: That?s who?s name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of
China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That?s correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of
China.
Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don?t want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
(Condi picks up the phone.)
Condi: Rice, here.
George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?"
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Selections from Bertrand Russell at conservativeforum.org: "To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of democracy."
--- Bertrand Russell
--- Bertrand Russell
Sunday, August 07, 2005
BOOK TV.ORG: "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37)"
I watched the show on booktv a few hours ago. Hopefully, the video archive would be available next week on the website. I totally agree that we should be more judgemental toward our cultral environment, but the author's defense of President Bush and vice president Cheney seems not so convincing. He defended Cheney by claiming that the F-word was used in private. Right, a PRIVATE conversation on the senate floor.
The defense for Bush is based on the distinction between mistake and lying knowingly and that "I see no advantage of lying [about WMD]." Whether Bush lied has been discussed in a slate article. Whether we should call it lying or bullshitting, or a mistake, but the defense is rather weak. Nixon lied. Clinton lied. Lots of people lied. I do not think they lied because they saw or calculated the advantage of lying.
I watched the show on booktv a few hours ago. Hopefully, the video archive would be available next week on the website. I totally agree that we should be more judgemental toward our cultral environment, but the author's defense of President Bush and vice president Cheney seems not so convincing. He defended Cheney by claiming that the F-word was used in private. Right, a PRIVATE conversation on the senate floor.
The defense for Bush is based on the distinction between mistake and lying knowingly and that "I see no advantage of lying [about WMD]." Whether Bush lied has been discussed in a slate article. Whether we should call it lying or bullshitting, or a mistake, but the defense is rather weak. Nixon lied. Clinton lied. Lots of people lied. I do not think they lied because they saw or calculated the advantage of lying.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
A new look at ????
The Chronicle: 7/29/2005: Agnes Smedley, an Example to Whose Cause?: "Agnes Smedley was one of the most significant American women of the 20th century, a flamboyant journalist, feminist, and political activist who made historic contributions to letters and politics on three continents and had a celebrated roster of friends including Margaret Sanger, Emma Goldman, Mao Zedong, and Langston Hughes. Her enemies ranged from J. Edgar Hoover to Chiang Kai-shek, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and Robert Lowell. But nowadays she is largely forgotten."
The Chronicle: 7/29/2005: Agnes Smedley, an Example to Whose Cause?: "Agnes Smedley was one of the most significant American women of the 20th century, a flamboyant journalist, feminist, and political activist who made historic contributions to letters and politics on three continents and had a celebrated roster of friends including Margaret Sanger, Emma Goldman, Mao Zedong, and Langston Hughes. Her enemies ranged from J. Edgar Hoover to Chiang Kai-shek, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and Robert Lowell. But nowadays she is largely forgotten."
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
The New York Review of Books: The Terri Schiavo Case: An Exchange: "As the pathologists who performed the autopsy stated clearly, the diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state is clinical, i.e., based on observation of a living patient, and so cannot be determined by autopsy."
Sometims, it is amazed to how hard for people, very intelligent people in this case, to recognize and accept what they do not want to see.
Even though the point of the autopsy statement is that all the evidences supported the clinical diagnosis, but distinction between clinical and pathological is used to back the bias, and to imply that the right to ignore all the pathological evidences.
Sometims, it is amazed to how hard for people, very intelligent people in this case, to recognize and accept what they do not want to see.
Even though the point of the autopsy statement is that all the evidences supported the clinical diagnosis, but distinction between clinical and pathological is used to back the bias, and to imply that the right to ignore all the pathological evidences.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Who cares about the LONG run?
China Unpegs Itself - New York Times: "In the long run, the economic effects of an end to China's dollar buying would even out. ... But as John Maynard Keynes pointed out, in the long run we are all dead."
China Unpegs Itself - New York Times: "In the long run, the economic effects of an end to China's dollar buying would even out. ... But as John Maynard Keynes pointed out, in the long run we are all dead."
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
[quote]village voice > books > Wander Woman by Joy Press: "The word lost derives from the old Norse term for 'disbanding an army,' and Solnit fears that 'many people never disband their armies, never go beyond what they know.' In Wanderlust she delved into the shrinkage of public space, and here she pursues the idea that children's lack of opportunity to roam freely—'Because of their parents' fear of the monstrous things that might happen (and do happen, but rarely)'—will strip away our culture's sense of adventure and imagination. Wildlife has returned to many American neighborhoods because, '[a]s far as the animals are concerned, the suburbs are an abandoned landscape.'"[/quote]
Getting lost is a luxury!
Getting lost is a luxury!
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution - New York Times: "Mr. Ryland said the cardinal was well versed on these issues and had written the essay on his own."
The essay is encouraged (or misled), by the supporters of Intelligent Design, who claim that there is a scietific debate about theory of evolution, while there is none.
[quote] Mark Ryland, a vice president of the [Discovery I]nstitute, said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested to them that it was time to clarify the church's position on evolution.
The cardinal's essay was submitted to The Times by a Virginia public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, which also represents the Discovery Institute. [/quote]
I would be suprised that if a biologist, even a catholic one, would change his/her view on evolution because of this, but very likely their view on Church may change.
The essay is encouraged (or misled), by the supporters of Intelligent Design, who claim that there is a scietific debate about theory of evolution, while there is none.
[quote] Mark Ryland, a vice president of the [Discovery I]nstitute, said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested to them that it was time to clarify the church's position on evolution.
The cardinal's essay was submitted to The Times by a Virginia public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, which also represents the Discovery Institute. [/quote]
I would be suprised that if a biologist, even a catholic one, would change his/her view on evolution because of this, but very likely their view on Church may change.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/15/BL2005061500535_pf.html
[quote]
Josh Marshall is exercised about this front-page Washington Post article by Dan Eggen and Julie Tate.
"The upshot of the piece is fairly straightforward. In the push for the renewal of the Patriot Act, the president and other administration officials have been publicly and volubly claiming that the administration's tough anti-terrorism tactics have resulted in some 400 terrorism-related indictments, with more than half of those leading to convictions.
"Only, as Eggen and Tate point out, that's not true.
"The president is telling people his administration has nabbed some 400 terrorists. But actually the overwhelming majority of the cases don't involve terrorists in any way. They're people who got swept up in this or that terrorist investigation and then got nabbed for some immigration violation or false statement to investigators."
Marshall is concerned enough that he continues the conversation at his new TPM Cafe "The Post authors used the phrase 'misleading at best' to characterize a claim that really amounted to a deliberate misstatement of fact. In response I received this note from a staff writer at a well-known regional daily in the US. . . .
"This is a response to your criticism of journalists who don't call a lie a lie. As a journalist myself, I'm sensitive to this. I agree we can do better and not offer false equivalence, like saying there's a scientific debate over evolution and intelligent design when there is no scientific debate, only a political one. During the recent presidential campaign, reporters could have perhaps been more forceful in their language dealing with campaign statements and their factuality. But I think you're asking too much of reporters to label something as lies when its just misleading, even if highly so. In this case, George Bush's statement is factually defensible, but meant to give a false impression."
[/quote]
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/13/231126/424
[quote]Calling Lies Lies
By Joshua Micah Marshall
Section: Media
Earlier today over at TPM, I flagged a piece that ran in Sunday's Post and noted it as an example of the inability, within the current norms of newspaper journalism, to call lies 'lies'.
The Post authors used the phrase 'misleading at best' to characterize a claim that really amounted to a deliberate misstatement of fact.
In response I received this note from a staff writer at a well-known regional daily in the US ...
This is a response to your criticism of journalists who don't call a lie a lie. As a journalist myself, I'm sensitive to this. I agree we can do better and not offer false equivalence, like saying there's a scientific debate over evolution and intelligent design when there is no scientific debate, only a political one. During the recent presidential campaign, reporters could have perhaps been more forceful in their language dealing with campaign statements and their factuality. But I think you're asking too much of reporters to label something as lies when its just misleading, even if highly so. In this case, George Bush's statement is factually defensible, but meant to give a false impression. It appears that terrorism investigations have led to identifying 400 suspects, but that in the final analysis about half of the suspects aren't suspected of anything related to terrorism, and only one in 10 were convicted of terrorism activities. It's a sin of omission, more than commission. Bush did what politicians have done for years and phrased something in a factual, but highly misleading way. Newspapers routinely run ads that are of a similar nature because they are factually defensible, if only barely. The reporter could have perhaps tried to uncover information that Bush knew that his statement wasn't the whole truth. Then you could say he was intentially misleading the public. Calling such things lies is the job of pundits, editorialists and polemists such as yourself, not reporters.
On the specific word 'lie', I think the writer may have a point. It's a word deeply tied to motive.
But I think journalists shortchange the public, fail in their job, when they don't make much more clear than they now normally do when public officials are telling them things that are not only false but are knowingly false and conveyed in a way that is intended to deceive.
I'm curious to hear your opinion.
[/quote]
I would call it bullshit, or bullshitting.
http://www.slate.com/id/2114268
[quote]Calling Lies Lies
By Joshua Micah Marshall
Section: Media
Earlier today over at TPM, I flagged a piece that ran in Sunday's Post and noted it as an example of the inability, within the current norms of newspaper journalism, to call lies 'lies'.
The Post authors used the phrase 'misleading at best' to characterize a claim that really amounted to a deliberate misstatement of fact.
In response I received this note from a staff writer at a well-known regional daily in the US ...
This is a response to your criticism of journalists who don't call a lie a lie. As a journalist myself, I'm sensitive to this. I agree we can do better and not offer false equivalence, like saying there's a scientific debate over evolution and intelligent design when there is no scientific debate, only a political one. During the recent presidential campaign, reporters could have perhaps been more forceful in their language dealing with campaign statements and their factuality. But I think you're asking too much of reporters to label something as lies when its just misleading, even if highly so. In this case, George Bush's statement is factually defensible, but meant to give a false impression. It appears that terrorism investigations have led to identifying 400 suspects, but that in the final analysis about half of the suspects aren't suspected of anything related to terrorism, and only one in 10 were convicted of terrorism activities. It's a sin of omission, more than commission. Bush did what politicians have done for years and phrased something in a factual, but highly misleading way. Newspapers routinely run ads that are of a similar nature because they are factually defensible, if only barely. The reporter could have perhaps tried to uncover information that Bush knew that his statement wasn't the whole truth. Then you could say he was intentially misleading the public. Calling such things lies is the job of pundits, editorialists and polemists such as yourself, not reporters.
On the specific word 'lie', I think the writer may have a point. It's a word deeply tied to motive.
But I think journalists shortchange the public, fail in their job, when they don't make much more clear than they now normally do when public officials are telling them things that are not only false but are knowingly false and conveyed in a way that is intended to deceive.
I'm curious to hear your opinion.
[/quote]
I would call it bullshit, or bullshitting.
http://www.slate.com/id/2114268
Monday, June 06, 2005
Thursday, March 24, 2005
A lesson learnt in China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/international/asia/24orphans.html?pagewanted=print&position=
... each person interviewed said his or her illusions about North Korea had been shattered.... said one person who had been in China only a few weeks. "They spend all their time celebrating the leaders. There is one thing I have understood in China, and that is, as long as there is no freedom, we will never get richer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/international/asia/24orphans.html?pagewanted=print&position=
... each person interviewed said his or her illusions about North Korea had been shattered.... said one person who had been in China only a few weeks. "They spend all their time celebrating the leaders. There is one thing I have understood in China, and that is, as long as there is no freedom, we will never get richer."
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
The first corporate revolution - signandsight: "In fact the rulers in Beijing should relax. Mobile telephones and the Internet are not revolutionary per se, but only when they are in the hands of fearless people who already have basic rights. And this is not the case in China."
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Bertrand Russell's Ten Commandments
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it is from your family, endeavour to overcome it with argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do, the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that is happiness.
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it is from your family, endeavour to overcome it with argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do, the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that is happiness.
Friday, January 28, 2005
The Observer | Travel | How to play the French service game ... and win
The French have a saying 'le client est roi' - the customer is king. But we all know what they did to their royal family. The guillotined head of Louis XVI bounced across the Place de la Concorde as a few thousand Parisians laughed at it - and those chuckling spectators were the ancestors of today's French waiters.
The French have a saying 'le client est roi' - the customer is king. But we all know what they did to their royal family. The guillotined head of Louis XVI bounced across the Place de la Concorde as a few thousand Parisians laughed at it - and those chuckling spectators were the ancestors of today's French waiters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)