Directive from the Romulan High Command:
In future, Romulan agents posing as courtroom witnesses on Earth should refrain from giving themselves away via Romulan military haircuts and Romulan military jackets.
Props for keeping the tips of the ears covered, though.
Romulan Star Empire FTW!
P.S. – This message will self-destruct.
Madame Kovarian: Year One
To see two preview clips from tomorrow’s Doctor Who finale, click here and scroll down to “The Wedding of River Song: Previews: Reveal” – not to be confused with “The Wedding of River Song: Introductory Videos: Reveal.” (There’s other cool stuff there too.)
To say that these previews involve SPOILERS would be an understatement. In fact the mere still images displayed before the clips start playing contain spoilers, which is why I haven’t embedded them here.
Later tonight I plan to offer some speculation in the comments section here, so for those who find mere speculation spoileriffic, stay away from the comments section.
In the meantime, check this out if you dare. Its content isn’t spoileriffic (as it’s about 1970s Who), but my linking to it in this context might be.
– I’ve fought vampires before.
– These vampires are different.
– What’s different about them?
– They have … they have fangs coming out of their nostrils!
[montage of attacks by vampires with fangs coming out of their nostrils]
Nostrilvania: they have fangs coming out of their nostrils!
My BHL post on Ron Paul’s healthcare answer is receiving favourable comment from both Andrew Sullivan and the National Review, and less favourable comment from Matt Yglesias. (CHT Matt Zwolinski.) I posted the following comment at Yglesias’s blog:
This response is pretty drastically missing my point. Suppose there are two possible ways of helping a patient, one much more effective than the other. The better way, A, is forbidden by law; the question is then asked whether the inferior way should be mandated by law. The libertarian (or at least the good libertarian) says: “no, don’t mandate B; instead, stop forbidding A.” That hardly counts as saying the patient should die; on the contrary, the libertarian thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the patient is less likely to die if the government stops forbidding A.
Now what the conservative generally says is “don’t mandate B, but don’t stop forbidding A either.” So I think it would be fair to charge the conservative with being willing to let people die. But that’s just a different position.
Part of the problem here is that non-libertarians tend to treat “let’s do something about X” and “let’s have a government program for X” as equivalent, and so tend to hear anyone who rejects the latter as rejecting the former. By contrast, libertarians generally think of governmental solutions as the least effective ones, and so for them treating “let’s do something about X” as equivalent to “let’s have a government program for X” would be like treating “let’s do something about X” as equivalent to “let’s sacrifice some babies to the moon god in order to address X.”
I have a new post up at BHL: The Libertarian Three-Step Program. It addresses good and bad ways of answering the healthcare question that Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul.