Addiction again -

Thanks Dave ... I think.

Four jobs I’ve had in my life:
1. Draughting Cadet
2. Programmer/Analyst
3. Accounting Clerk
4. Chief Financial Officer
Four movies I Could Watch Over and Over:
1. Lord of the Rings (all three)
2. Support Your Local Sherriff
3. In my Father’s Den
4. Footrot Flats
Four places I’ve Lived:
1. Te Whaiti, Ureweras
2. Mangonui, Northland
3. Karangahake, Waikato
4. Howick, Auckland
Four TV Shows I Love/Loved to Watch:
1. Last of the Summer Wine
2. Govenor Grey
3. Short History of New Zealand
4. Wild South
Four places I’ve been on vacation:
1. Vanuatu
2. Cook Islands
3. Haast
4. Ohakune
Four websites I visit daily:
1. Dave Justus
2. news – google
3. NZ Herald
4. a.l.d..
Four of my favorite foods:
1. Home-grown steak (thanks Ruth, need some more sometime)
2. Chicken and salad on ciabatta
3. Fresh fish – butter and light herbs – with
4. BBQ’d leg of lamb.
Four places I’d rather be:
1. Opononi
2. Mangonui
3. Opononi
4. Te Whaiti
Four books I’ll read over and over again:
1. Anything by Pratchett
2. The Lord of the Rings
3. Escher Godel Bach – The Eternal Gold Braid
4. The Great Ideas - Brittanica

OK, I cheated on a couple. Particularly the "Great Ideas" 'book'... :D

Now, this I LIKE!!

Originally from NYT, but in view of the fact that there are at least three "probligo"s registered there now (I was to be number 4) I have taken this from Express India

Amid the dizzy year-enders, it’s best to do what the New York Times did. It tried to squeeze 2005 into a handy list of catchwords and phrases. The paper was not unaware that the exercise could turn out to be foolhardy. Words are wicked, they have hidden recesses and histories. Meanings flicker and change. Meaning also depends on who’s saying the word. Many have a gossamery lifespan. It was brave of NYT to put out a list.
...
But the most delectable, and most sobering, word on the NYT list is ‘truthiness’. ‘‘Not quite fact, not quite fiction, it’s neither here nor there. But it’s all over cable news’’ says the paper.

For all the self-conscious haze about its meaning, and perhaps because of it, truthiness is a wonderfully portable term. It will look as much at home in public discussion in India as it is in Bush’s America. It’s likely to belong to 2006 as it did to 2005.

The "definition" that granny Herald gave was "...the truth, not as it is, but as we might like it to be."

As in here...

The American Dialect Society, in its 16th annual words of the year vote, has happened upon the word its says best reflects 2005.

The term? "Truthiness" -- which the panel of linguists defines as the quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts. It was reportedly first heard on the Colbert Report, a satirical mock news show on the Comedy Channel.

Yep, and we all know where that started.

I wonder what the question was...

From the TimesOnLine, and probably many many more...

PRESIDENT BUSH received some unusually candid advice on his handling of the Iraq war yesterday after inviting 13 former secretaries of defence and state to the White House.
After one of the most extraordinary gatherings of current and former powerbrokers to have sat around the White House Cabinet table in recent times, Mr Bush said that he took to heart a range of views from figures who collectively have served every US president since John Kennedy.



As part of a vigorous public relations offensive on Iraq Mr Bush spent more than an hour with former defence secretaries including Robert McNamara, the Vietnam-era Pentagon chief under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Harold Brown, who oversaw the disastrous Iranian hostage rescue attempt under Jimmy Carter, and William Perry, Bill Clinton’s Defence Secretary, who advised John Kerry during the 2004 election campaign.

Others briefed by Mr Bush and General George Casey, the US commander in Iraq, included Madeleine Albright, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig and Colin Powell.

Scott McClellan, Mr Bush’s spokesman, said that the purpose of the gathering was a hope by the White House that the prominent figures would be persuaded that there was “a clear plan in place for victory in Iraq” and would spread the word.

After the meeting Mr Bush preferred to persuade people that it was he who had done the listening.

“Not everybody around this table agreed with my decision to go into Iraq. I fully understand that,” Mr Bush said.

Mr Eagleburger said after the meeting: “You’ve got several hundred years of antagonism between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. If you think anybody can predict success at this stage you are wrong.”

I can imagine -

GWB - "Now, as you all know, this is what has happened; this is what I done"

Discussion ensues...

GWB - "OK, now the reason why I called y'all here is really this. Y'all have had to haul your respect Presidents' asses out of the fire at different times. My guys are straight outta ideas.

How the hell do we get outta Iraq?"

Discussion follows...

Eagleburger - top marks for facing reality.

Ariel Sharon

I have for many years been very critical of Sharon among others of the leadership of Israel.

I spoke recently following Sharon's split with Likud that perhaps there was some hope at last.

Certainly since then he has had (at the very least given the appearance of) a far greater conciliatory approach in his dealings with the Palestinians. That might not have been to their benefit, perhaps, but at least there was some appearance of progress.

His major stroke, the probable end to his political career, if not his life, now puts that change into the shade. Where to now? That is in the hands of men to come.

Given Sharon's past, his term as "Minister of Defence" in particular, the rather irreverent thought passes through my mind -

...did Sharon foresee his stroke? Was the split with Likud, and the peace moves perhaps an intentional final reconciliation both with the Palestinians and with his God?

I will leave his God to judge him at the right time...

What a way to start the year...

Courtesy of granny Herald

06.01.06
By Phil Stewart


Forget the United States debate over intelligent design versus evolution.

An Italian court is tackling Jesus - and whether the Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2000 years ago.

The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, from the same central Italian town of Bagnoregio who went to the same seminary school as teenagers.

The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court this month.

"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli said.

He says Righi, and by extension the whole church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona", or impersonation.

"The church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala," Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman Army.

A court in Viterbo will hear from Righi, who has yet to be indicted, at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.

"In my book, The Fable of Christ, I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.

Righi, 76, sounded frustrated by the case and baffled as to why Cascioli singled him out in his crusade against the church.

"Since I'm a priest, and I write in the parish newspaper, he is now suing me because I 'trick' the people."

Righi claims there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of Jesus, including historical texts.

Even Cascioli admits that the odds are against him, especially in Catholic Italy. "It would take a miracle to win," he joked.

Says it all?