Monthly Archives: March 2011

The irony of Republican opposition to intervention in Libya 1

This entry was posted in america middle east politics war and tagged hypocrisy libya newt gingrich republicans on by (updated 4394 days ago)

With republican heavyweights like Newt Gingrich and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen showing absolutely no reluctance to reverse course on policy in Libya as soon as President Obama actually began to enforce a no-fly zone, it’s worth looking at their opinions from another perspective.

Back in 2001, when former President George W Bush decided to invade Iraq, the decision was made on the pretense that Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction and providing material support to Al Qaeda. As many of us at the time said, neither assertion was true, and time has proven us correct. Nonetheless, Bush and his cronies sent American soldiers into Iraq and now nearly a decade later, tens of thousands of them are still there despite the fact that Iraq has never attacked America.

Now the question is what to do about Libya. We largely stood by and watched while the people of Tunisia and Egypt overthrew their entrenched leaders and we are doing the same now in Syria and Yemen.

Many republicans are now staunchly opposed to action in Libya even though they were all for it just a few weeks ago. What nobody seems to be mentioning is the fact that unlike Iraq, Muammar Ghadaffi actually has had his agents attack American interests including Pan Am flight 103 and a German disco frequented by American soldiers. Despite the fact that Ghadaffi actually has a history of attacking Americans (something that Saddam Hussien never actually did) Gingrich and Ros-Lehtinen are opposing action in Libya.

That’s not to say that U.S. forces should be involved, because the results of this are certainly unclear. My point is simply that the Republican leadership are just a bunch of political hacks and hypocrites who stand for nothing more than to oppose a Democratic president in order to further their own ambitions.

The definition of original

This entry was posted in TV and tagged bbc being human copying scifi syfy on by (updated 5009 days ago)

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a TV show successfully runs in Britain for three years and few Americans see it, is a remake original?

If the definition of original is “new, fresh, inventive” as dictionary.com says, the answer is obviously no. Nonetheless, SyFy channel is promoting “Being Human” as a new “original” series. While it is new to the American cable channel formerly known as SciFi, it isn’t even really new to American audiences that have been able to see it on BBC America for some time now.

There is nothing fresh about remaking shows from other countries with American actors and backgrounds. It has been done with varying degrees of success (mostly commercial vs artistic) for years now with the likes of American Idol and The Office on the popular side and Coupling and Top Gear USA garnering somewhat smaller audiences. Ripping off a successful concept goes back to the origins of entertainment, with most of Shakespeare’s classics being based on older tales retold. There is nothing inherently wrong with adaptation it if executed well and especially if adds something new when redone.

However, the way its typically done by American producers, original is not a word that should be connected with the practice. I haven’t seen the American version of Being Human and I probably won’t. The British version was a reasonably entertaining tale of a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost living together and trying to make their way in the modern world.  But did it really need a rehash? Are Americans too parochial to deal with British accents? Why not just show the real original to a wider audience here.

President Obama and ISS crew talk about R2

This entry was posted in technology and tagged discovery international space station iss obama r2 robonaut 2 on by (updated 5010 days ago)

Robonaut 2, better known as R2 finally arrived at the International Space Station last weekend after sitting packed aboard the space shuttle Discovery for more than four months. R2 is the first humanoid robot to make it into space and at this point he is still very much experimental.

The astronauts have moved the crate holding R2 into the station, but the robot hasn’t been unpacked and set up yet. That will be happening sometime in the next few weeks at which point the crew will start testing R2’s performance in micro-gravity and the engineers from the Johnson Space Center and General Motors will tweak the control systems. For now, the engineers on the ground have sent up a set of task boards that will be used for testing, but eventually R2 is expected to handle some of the more mundane tasks around the station like keeping the air filters and hand rails clean.

The other day, president Obama called the ISS to talk to the combined crews of the station and the shuttle and halfway through the discussion turned to R2. Check out the video above.  BTW, R2 has no legs at this time, just an upper body that is mounted on a pedestal.