Sunday, February 06, 2005

How socks can be a direct violation of human rights


Rumsfeld says there won’t be an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq, run by “a handful of mullahs” (yes, those mullahs are a handful), because “The Shia in Iraq are Iraqis, they are not Iranians”. He does have a way of stating the bleeding obvious in a way that makes it sound like bullshit.

Rummy says “the great sweep of human history is for freedom.” The Bushies are beginning to talk about history being on their side the way “scientific Marxists” used to.

An Israeli military court releases the captain who emptied his gun into a 13-year old Palestinian girl last November, after one of the witnesses, another soldier, recants. This is insane, there are recordings of the bastard saying “I confirmed the kill” and there are ballistics from the ten bullets he used in the confirmation process. Previous posts here and here.

I trust my silence up until now about the royal coup in Nepal hasn’t been taken as tacit approval or anything. In the unlikely case that you’ve been waiting to hear from me before forming an opinion on the subject, here we go: authoritarian rule bad, democracy good.

The now censored Nepalese press has taken to running editorials on socks, how there are many types of socks on the market but if someone insists on wearing “the same pair of socks day in and day out, not even bothering to assess the detrimental effect of the overpowering stench... Isn’t it a direct violation of human rights?” This could just be a metaphor. There have also been editorials against chopping down oxygen-producing trees, on archery, women’s cricket, and how to enjoy sunshine.

If you need help making up your minds about the coup in Togo, here’s a hint: authoritarian rule bad, idiot son succeeding father bad, democracy good, “Togo” funny name for a country.

A Hong Kong firm is making feng shui underpants.

No comments: