![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Nov. 25th, 2005
fool me thrice?
Nov. 25th, 2005 03:15so, i was judiciously ignoring that little british bombshell about bush wanting to attack al-jazeera's headquarters last year, because it was published in the daily mirror, which is not what i consider a reputable news source. i waved it off as possibly a bad joke; bush not having the good sense nor taste to avoid joking about something like that. a foolish joke, considering the attacks that actually were made on al-jazeera stations in baghdad and kabul, which were never officially investigated -- accidents, supposedly. (i actually remember watching the baghdad incident on TV right after it had happened; everyone grabbed the al-jazeera feed.) of course it's possible that those incidents were accidental; even the palestine hotel got hit once, and that was full of western journalists. and al-jazeera has been a thorn in the US/UK side; i'd understand a little blowing off neocon-steam among leaders of allied nations, palling around. i say badly exaggerated things about fox news to the paramour (though i've as yet wished to bomb them, but maybe one makes different jokes when one actually can bomb somebody into oblivion?) -- anyway. i wasn't gonna hold bush's feet to the fire for a bad joke.
i am about to change my mind. i think he might've been dead serious, and the daily mirror might well be correct. because britain's attorney general has now threatened to prosecute anyone under section 5 of the "official secrets act" who publishes details of the document of which the daily mirror got ahold (which allegedly proves that bush had to be talked out of attacking al-jazeera by blair).
oh ho. now i am REALLY wondering what's in that document. and just how accidental the bombings in kabul and baghdad were. because if this is true, there goes one more nail in the coffin of "spreading democracy" and "winning the hearts and minds" of people suspicious of the US. and that coffin is about ready for burial as it is.
i am about to change my mind. i think he might've been dead serious, and the daily mirror might well be correct. because britain's attorney general has now threatened to prosecute anyone under section 5 of the "official secrets act" who publishes details of the document of which the daily mirror got ahold (which allegedly proves that bush had to be talked out of attacking al-jazeera by blair).
oh ho. now i am REALLY wondering what's in that document. and just how accidental the bombings in kabul and baghdad were. because if this is true, there goes one more nail in the coffin of "spreading democracy" and "winning the hearts and minds" of people suspicious of the US. and that coffin is about ready for burial as it is.
the naming of children
Nov. 25th, 2005 14:25somebody on my flist talked about the names she had planned for her children back before she even had them, and asked what we would name our potential children. my thoughts vered sideways from the question, so i didn't make this a comment because it could be misunderstood as being critical of her choices, which it isn't meant to be. besides, it says something about me that belongs in my own journal.
it's an interesting thought experiment, because i name animals after an impression i get of their personality (which means the strays i take in often go for a while without a real name of their own, being called "little black cat" or "mangy dogface"). with children i'd be expected to give them a name right away, before there is much personality. that seems all wrong to me. :) also, naming children after personality traits would be a) confining, and b) make them targets for unmitigated teasing. i have more sense than that.
i don't know that i ever played that game of giving names to my future children, but then i've also been decidedly child-free for the last 30 years. but even when i hadn't determined that this would be the right choice for me, i didn't play with names for children (i did so for myself). i was more worried about it than excited because names are important, and i didn't want to stick a child of mine with a name zie hated. i think now that i'd pick something with meaning to me and a hopeful meaning for the future of the child, a name that's not immediately easy to make fun of, a name that sounds good to me (aurally, i mean) -- that's how i picked my own names (minus the "not being easy to make fun of", because i don't care). and then i'd make it very clear to the child growing up that it was mostly a placeholder, and that zie could pick zir own name anytime.
there are names i like, but i don't know that i'd name a child that way -- it feels too much like i am trying to fit the child to the name, instead of the other way around. guinevere, for example, is a beautiful name, but man, i have it so strongly associated with artur's guinevere that i shudder at the thought of bestowing it on anyone, even a cat, *heh*.
it's an interesting thought experiment, because i name animals after an impression i get of their personality (which means the strays i take in often go for a while without a real name of their own, being called "little black cat" or "mangy dogface"). with children i'd be expected to give them a name right away, before there is much personality. that seems all wrong to me. :) also, naming children after personality traits would be a) confining, and b) make them targets for unmitigated teasing. i have more sense than that.
i don't know that i ever played that game of giving names to my future children, but then i've also been decidedly child-free for the last 30 years. but even when i hadn't determined that this would be the right choice for me, i didn't play with names for children (i did so for myself). i was more worried about it than excited because names are important, and i didn't want to stick a child of mine with a name zie hated. i think now that i'd pick something with meaning to me and a hopeful meaning for the future of the child, a name that's not immediately easy to make fun of, a name that sounds good to me (aurally, i mean) -- that's how i picked my own names (minus the "not being easy to make fun of", because i don't care). and then i'd make it very clear to the child growing up that it was mostly a placeholder, and that zie could pick zir own name anytime.
there are names i like, but i don't know that i'd name a child that way -- it feels too much like i am trying to fit the child to the name, instead of the other way around. guinevere, for example, is a beautiful name, but man, i have it so strongly associated with artur's guinevere that i shudder at the thought of bestowing it on anyone, even a cat, *heh*.