Monday Shutters
Bond BLEEDS, apparently.
For decades, the debate among 007 fans has been who is the best Bond — Sean Connery or Roger Moore.
Now a new contender has arrived, in the shape of Daniel Craig — the blond 38-year-old, who despite being a cold-blooded killer, manages to fall in love with his Bond girl and show emotional vulnerability.
The critics were struggling to contain their excitement last night, ahead of the first British screening of the 21st Bond film, Casino Royale. And when they came out of the showing, they were thrilled.
I’m not a Bond fan, really. But I enjoy Craig quite a bit. And the trailer looks like a very different kind of film that the Brosnan ones. Or the Connery ones, as well. And look at this statement:
There is no sexual innuendo in this film; Craig’s Bond is more sophisticated than that.
Nice to see someone admit that innuendo is not sophisticated. As for the claim itself, I’ll have to wait and see. That would definitely be taking the films in a very new (and good) direction.
Novak has some interesting thoughts on the Talent-McCaskill race. (Sorry, couldn’t stay completely away.)
The x-factor, which we believe will cut decisively in Talent’s favor, is Amendment 2, the cloning and stem-cell amendment on the ballot. Whether it succeeds or fails, the balloting on Amendment 2 will be very close, and its opponents are much more motivated to vote than its supporters. More people may vote for it, but few will go out specifically to vote for it. Its presence on the ballot can only help Talent in a race that promises to come down to a few thousand votes.
He also has this on The Two:
Whether it passes or not — and there is very real doubt that it will — the margin will be so slim as to call into question whether embryonic stem-cell research is such a great issue for Democrats — and that goes double if Steele scores an upset in Maryland and Talent pulls out the victory in Missouri, despite the Michael J. Fox ads against those candidates on the stem-cell issue.
Michael Barone has a great POST. (Yeah, I know. Redundant. But I like to say it every now and then anyway.)
He makes a point that has been bothering me for a long time, though. And that’s why I find this post particularly good.
On the whole issue of WMDs in Iraq, I keep coming back to the thought that no responsible American or allied leader could assume, before March 2003, that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction. It had developed and used them in the past, and it refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors. If your duty is to protect Americans, what piece of intelligence could convince you that Iraq was not developing WMDs? In my view, there was no need to continue the inspection process in 2002 and 2003, and we evidently did so to get the support of Britain and other allies.
It’s tragic that the failure to find much in the way of ongoing WMD programs has been used to delegitimize the overthrow of Saddam. But that’s the prevailing meme in MSM.
Combination back-seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks. Of course, that’s why the whole “BushLied” approach is so important. Because if it really does boil down to Bush (and pretty much everyone else, no matter what Wilson says) being wrong, people are going to remember their glass houses.
Note to entire world: not finding WMD’s does not mean that the invasion was wrong. (If the invasion was wrong, it will not be for those reasons, no matter how hard folks try to re-write 3/2003.)
And HERE is something I started to write about, but had to stop. I was getting way too angry. And besides, a lot of other people have written on it, and much better than I can.
“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”
…
Joy Delhanty, professor of human genetics at University College London, said: “I would support these views. I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are then going to suffer many months or years of very ill health.”
Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, who has admitted hastening the death of two severely handicapped newborn babies when he was a junior doctor in the 1970s, said: “I wouldn’t argue against this.” He spoke of the “pain, distress and discomfort” of severely handicapped babies.
The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said.
Edna Kennedy of Newcastle upon Tyne, whose son suffered epidermolysis bullosa, said: “In extremely controlled circumstances, where the baby is really suffering, it should be an option for the mother.”
I agree with John Harris - at least the point he is actually making. Not, however, the one I suspect he is trying to make.
Sparta all over again. Just for all the wrong reasons. Could we try adopting the “detachment from earthly goods and pleasures” part of their system, and drop the “killing babies because we’re not happy with them” part?
Just a thought.
(HT: SOME HAVE HATS and Rob)
