mattkeefe.com - Latest Comments

Re: First Impressions: Alice in Chains, The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here

JP — Mon, 27 May 2013 04:44:52 -0000

'The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here' quite like this track, and Love Hate Love was my first thought and I did check the player to make sure that I was still listening to the new album.

Re: THING, The Next Big

Greenfield — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:32:00 -0000

Oh dear, do I come across grumpy? No, I feel philosophical. Perhaps I need to work on my public persona.

Re: THING, The Next Big

Guy Haley — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:36:38 -0000

Good post Matt. Are you feeling a little grumpy at the moment?

Re: Now, then, Then and Now.

Fordy — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:57:26 -0000

Curiously, my mum (from Leeds) told me, before these allegations came to light but after his death, that it was common knowledge Savile was a 'weirdo' back when he used to DJ in small northern clubs. However, she didn't go so far as to suggest he was a paedophile - and knowing northern attitudes to nonces as I do, I'm fairly sure there would have been a lynch mob at his door, despite his charitable deeds and legendary status, had their been even a whiff that these allegations were true.
As to the crux of your article, I think you're comparing apples and oranges to a certain extent here. I don't equate how complaining about 'health and safety gone mad' has anything to do with keeping our children safe from people in a position of trust. I recently found out from a couple of town councillors that it costs them £200 to change a lightbulb on council premises. They can't change their own bulbs due to health and safety issues. That's £200 of taxpayer's money. To change a fucking lightbulb. Back in the 70s this would have been ridiculous. I don't see how complaining about this hampers child services or suddenly makes paedophilia permissive.
We've suddenly got a raft of celebrities coming forward and confessing they 'knew' about Saville all along. Fact is they didn't, or someone would have done something about it - an angry parent... any parent for that matter. Fact is, the only proof back then, and to be honest even now, is based on rumour, conjecture and, at best, anecdotal evidence. Is it true? Most likely. If we'd been more politically correct and health & safety concious back then would it have stopped him? I think that's pretty much impossible to say.

Re: A Testimony of Death

John Goss — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:50:38 -0000

Just to let you know I've started a Facebook group for writers opposing extradition to the United States because of its abominable human rights' record.

http://www.facebook.com/gro...

I also wrote a blog post when Adnan Latif died.

Re: Syriac: Typing & Writing

André — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 01:18:13 -0000

Sounds familiar. It was easy to find tables that show you how to write in Ivrit the handwritten letters, but boy was it hard to find a table that showed you how to write the printed letters. Handwritten and printed letters can look quite different and most of the times printed letters are used in very day use.

Re: 向左向右，错错错！ (or Left and Right, and Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!)

Greenfield — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 18:01:12 -0000

I've just updated with links to the covers of the books. They make for an interesting study in themselves.

The two new ones arrived on Saturday. Perhaps I'll post select translations later in the week. Can't wait for Level 2. I've seen one called After the Accident...

Re: 向左向右，错错错！ (or Left and Right, and Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!)

Graham — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 17:26:28 -0000

I think I'll wait for Hollywood's take on these. As for Left and Right, that's got to be pretty confusing. Is Left the one on their left, or our left? Could be a screwball comedy.

"Meet our sons, Left and Right."
"Hello Left! He-"
"Actually, that's Right."
"I know, you just told me."
"No, I mean that's wrong. That's Right, and that's Left."
"Oh. Why is Left on the right?"
"It's probably easier if you stand behind them."
"Okay. So which one's the eldest?"

Re: Wisner not wise

nickbiddlenoe — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:48:54 -0000

Just wanted to send you this"

Frank Wisner: Paid Lobbyist for Egyptian Government and leading “commercial families in Egypt”

http://mideastwire.wordpres...

Patton Boggs has been active in Egypt for 20 years. We have advised the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and have handled arbitrations and litigation on the government’s behalf in Europe and the US. Our attorneys also represent some of the leading Egyptian commercial families and their companies, and we have been involved in oil and gas and telecommunications infrastructure projects on their behalf. One of our partners also served as the Chairman of the US-Egyptian Chamber of Commerce, promoting foreign direct investment into targeted sectors of the Egyptian economy. We have also handled negotiation of offset agreements and managed contractor disputes in military sales agreements arising under the US Foreign Military Sales Act.

Patton Boggs maintains a correspondent affiliate relationship with one of Egypt’s most prominent firm of lawyers in Cairo, the law firm of Zaki Hashem.

WISNER:

Ambassador Frank G. Wisner provides clients with strategic global advice concerning business, politics, and international law from the firm’s Washington and New York offices.

Ambassador Wisner’s diplomatic career spans four decades and eight American presidents. He served as ambassador to Zambia, Egypt, the Philippines, and India during his extensive career in the State Department.

Nicholas Noe
Co-Founder
Mideastwire.com

+961.3.541.575 - Lebanon
***************
This email message, including any attachments, may contain confidential information. No confidentiality is waived or lost by transmission to any unintended or unauthorized person. If you are not one of the persons for whom this email is intended, please notify the sender, delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain or forward it.

http://mideastwire.wordpres...

Nicholas Noe
Co-Founder
Mideastwire.com

Re: The Conservatives do not have the answers.

Tommyj — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:07:49 -0000

Opening 30 seconds here....
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: The Conservatives do not have the answers.

Greenfield — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:53:58 -0000

Bloody marvellous, Tom.

Can I see the live version on YouTube?

Re: The Conservatives do not have the answers.

Tommyj — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:49:00 -0000

To put another way...To song of "An English Country Garden".

...How Many Bastards Make Their Buck, In An English Country Garden,
I'll Tell You Now Of Some That I know, And Those I Miss You'll Surely Pardon,
Politicians And Industrialists, Bankers, Bent Scientists, Chief Constables, Generals, All Their Gentry And Their Brats,
We'll Dance On The Wall When The Bastard Fall, In An English Country Garden

Re: Shi said.

Tom Jordan — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:07:26 -0000

Similar to :-)

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Re: Don't hospitals have the internet?

Greenfield — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:07:50 -0000

That's okay, Graham - it's perfectly understandable that you'd find the grot in your local hospital a more pressing matter than the books in Texas schools.

And, yes, I rather imagine they send some unfortunate to buy the magazines - probably a very junior nurse who never hears the end of it from the doctors.

Re: Don't hospitals have the internet?

Graham — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:09:14 -0000

I'm curious as to how the hospitals acquire these publications. Do they have a subscription with the publisher or does the work experience kid have to nip down the corner shop on demand? It must be difficult to cater for everyone's proclivities.

I'm also slightly ashamed that I felt compelled to comment on this post but couldn't think of anything to say about the previous one.

Re: Letters

Gav Thorpe — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:05:39 -0000

And the importance of letters as scrap paper, apparently...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

Re: Letters

mlynxqualey — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:40:17 -0000

Point taken; before email, I used to lavish attention on my correspondence. I certainly correspond no less (more, I'm sure), but hardly think of it that way. I will have to again.

And thanks for the link, too.
M.

Re: I Write Like…

Greenfield — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:04:32 -0000

James Fenimore Cooper wrote The Last of the Mohicans so I imagine most people would consider the comparison a good thing, though they'd probably be judging on the strength of the film. During his lifetime, James Fenimore Cooper's most popular work was The Leatherstocking Tales, which sounds a bit more up your alley, Ant.

Ragnar, you should see if there's an I Sell Like... site out there and see if the comparison holds.

Re: I Write Like…

Ragnar Karlsson — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:11:35 -0000

I'm not sure if I should be insulted, disappointed or perplexed but apparently I write like Dan Brown.

I am suitably amused by the final result there though Matt!

Re: I Write Like…

Anthony Reynolds — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:38:39 -0000

Oh, and apparently I write like James Fenimore Cooper... I don't know if that is a good or a bad thing.

Re: I Write Like…

Anthony Reynolds — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:37:30 -0000

Awesome. Nice post, Matt.

Re: The Edge Chronicles: The Lost Bark Scrolls

Greenfield — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:35:09 -0000

Yes, perfectly suitable, and well-suited.

Re: The Edge Chronicles: The Lost Bark Scrolls

melanie Burnett — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:55:56 -0000

are these books sutitable for a 11 year old girl?

Re: God is Not Great

Greenfield — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:37:02 -0000

I think Dawkins was simply born without a need of belief. Someone described Christopher Hitchens as lacking any curiosity as to what it feels like to believe. I think that’s accurate and I think both of them possibly are guilty of failing to observe the tendency as inherent in others, but I don’t really believe there’s a danger of anti-theism becoming a dogma in itself.

Hitchens, Dawkins and others like them might be caustic, they might occasion be flippant, insensitive, arrogant, belittling and whatever else, but they are still putting their money where their mouth is in that they participate in reasoned debate. You can take issue with some of their theories and positions, they might well continue to argue that they’re right, but they are genuinely living up to the assertions they make in that they do so in rational fashion. They clearly take great exception to religion and argue hard against its very existence, but in no way, shape or form do they ever threaten to take their arguments beyond reason and into the kind of tyranny that those convinced of revelation do. They do not take such offence at their opinions being questioned as to become violent - they make the reasonable, rational response and continue to argue the point.

That’s still the huge difference, and it’s why I don’t see even the most zealous anti-theists as equivalent to their opponents. Violence and intolerance begin at the point where debate ends; that debate only ends when one side decides they are in possession of an absolute truth that they will not discuss further. Hitchens and Dawkins might use the kind of stubborn language that suggests they believe themselves in possession of such a truth, but they don’t act that way - they continue to defend their opinions only rationally and have never even come close to declaring them sacred. Perhaps it’s an effect of the long centuries of religious supremacy that our language makes even reasoned argument sound dogmatic, but there is not a genuinely dogmatic attitude in their arguments themselves. That’s still an important and fundamental difference - I don’t like the way they do things all the time, but I know I can question that in a way that religion, sooner or later, simply does not permit. I do question some of their findings; they are as good as their word in terms of the method.

Re: God is Not Great

Gav Thorpe — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:08:39 -0000

All good points, but fundamentally people who read such books have a predisposition to the stance being taken. It is good that there is a venue for this sort of discussion, which wouldn’t have existed even half a century ago in the form it is now, but the debate about the Meaning of Life can’t be the sole preserve of a self-elected few.

Dawkins’ holier-than-thou attitude (see, I did it again ;-) )is as guilty of proclaiming Enlightenment as the Single Truth as any priest is for his religion. Though a scientist, some of his ’scientific’ arguments are less than objective and built upon presumption, and are shot through with a superiority that does his cause no credit at all.

By failing to acknowledge any kind of spirituality in the human condition, and the benefits that having a more holistic approach can bring, the sorts of arguments put forward by these types amount to very little except the desire for the intellectual elite to reign over the misguided masses. The alternatives put forward are usually as problematic as those in a religion-dominated society and quite frequently fail to account for the fact that science can be corrupted as much as any religion, expecially now in an age when information has become so mutable. It’s not really religion, nor science, nor philosophy, and is really only suited to people of a particular psychological make-up.

While it is always worthwhile to battle against ignorance, this is not the sole preserve of scientists. The biggest danger then comes full circle with anti-religion becoming a new dogma, a belief system (and it is still a belief system, no matter what some might claim) founded on the opinions of a privileged few who think that they know best.