Thursday, June 09, 2005

WIP Wednesday

What, it's Thursday already? Sheesh, that's me--always a day late and a dollar short.

Got two different socks trying to fight off SSS.



Is it just me, or does the color scheme in that bottom sock (which is Trekking XL) look an awful lot like Labradorable's Opal sock? What's up with all this colorway duplication? I have a skeing of purple and blue Magic Stripes that I'm going to knit up and gift away; it's so close in colors to my Regia socks that I'd end up wearing one of each instead of the pair.

Fiona's back--and what a set of fronts!


Mystery solved--at least for this week's clue



(Much nicer than what it used to be--a boring garter stitch square.)



Chunky Industrial Monkey is about twice as high as she was, but doesn't look much different yet. I'm thinking of leaving the handles off of her and using her as a basket instead. She's a very upstanding girl.

My baby (she of the depressed horse gift) made me a ceramic tea cup. With an orange inside, of course!)



In other news

From the world of fashion, a new trend, and from people everywhere a sigh of relief. Does this mean we're done with seeing body parts that ought to be reserved for one's bath, SO, or physician? Someone ought to make the case that the gratuitous exposure of too much flesh is a sort of sexual harrassment. Coming home from Florida there was a man who was sort of handsome. Interest quickly waned when he bent down, though. If I can tell how well you wipe without even laundering your underwear, you're showing too much.

In politics: Those of you who disapprove of Bush and his Homeland Security, be glad you don't live here. High Court: Disengagement Legal Despite Human Rights Violations.
Ten of the Justices ruled that the Disengagement Plan violates the human rights of "property, freedom of occupation and proper respect for the evacuees," but is acceptable in order to achieve political and security aims.

Read that again. I'll wait right here while you do.

Back? Good. Did you notice that little sweetmeat in there? It's acceptable to violate human rights for political aims. Once that starts, where does it end? Under this ruling, a politician could justify bombing an entire town which he knows won't vote for him. Getting elected is a political end, isn't it? And if you think I'm reducing things to the absurd extremes--in Israel, we perform 6 absurd extremes before breakfast.

I wonder if this means I'm allowed to violate someone else's human rights if I have a political motive--or is oppression strictly a government's right?

2 comments:

zibibbo said...

I wonder if this means I'm allowed to violate someone else's human rights if I have a political motive--or is oppression strictly a government's right?


HOT DAMN! I'm off to pillage and plunder ! My that is a rather fine slippery slope ya High Court created.

Anne said...

I'm humbled that you visited and read my comments yesterday - and agreed - and I loved what you said. You are SO right. AND I love your slippery slope comments here. May I add them in an update to my entry? AND your comment about Israel is hilarious. I want to know more about you!