The Mail’s approach to the Internet was initially as wary as its politics. (Dacre still doesn’t have a computer in his office.) “A lot of people say that the Internet is the future for newspapers,” he declared in 1999. “Well, I say to that: bullshit.com.”
Until 2006, the Mail’s Web site was an embarrassment—five articles a day slapped onto a spare background, cut off by a paywall. “When the paper first took over, it wasn’t the world’s best website,” Martin Clarke, Mail Online’s editor, said recently. In April, 2006, the paper reconsidered the site. It would be free, with a stand-alone staff.
The site evolved on the fly. “We just decided to go hell-for-leather for ratings,” someone who was involved in the launch told me. “Anything relating to climate change, American politics, Muslims—we just chased the numbers very ruthlessly.”
“Hysteria, the medical historian Robert Woolsey writes, is a “protolanguage,” its symptoms “a code used by a patient to communicate a message which, for various reasons, cannot be verbalized.” As their parents and the media and town officials conducted a conversation all around them, the girls in Le Roy seemed to be sharing a language that maybe even they did not fully understand. That so many people in town were more preoccupied with environmental waste than the homes of the affected young people suggests that their message may have been hard for some of the adults to hear, too.”—
“Our troops and citizens have long shown what can be achieved when British and Americans work together, heart and hand, and why this remains an essential relationship — to our nations and the world. So like generations before us, we’re going to keep it up. Because with confidence in our cause and faith in each other, we still believe that there is hardly anything we cannot do.”—
I can expect to dribble my way into old age. If I am lucky I will acquire a life-threatening illness such as cancer so that I can refuse treatment and say no to those who would keep me alive against my will.
By all means protect the vulnerable. By vulnerable I mean those who cannot make decisions for themselves – just don’t include me.
I am not vulnerable. I don’t need help or protection from death or those who would help me.
[W]hy should I be denied a right, the right to die of my own choosing, when able-bodied people have that right and only my disability prevents me from exercising that right?
Back in October, Rush Limbaugh defended the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), led by Joseph Kony, the man at the centre of the KONY 2012 campaign by charity Invisible Children that has blown up over the past 24 hours.
Limbaugh seemed to think that the LRA are “fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops, to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. So that’s a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda.”
In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.
Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.
From this article by Cardinal Keith O’Brien in yesterday’s Telegraph.
I honestly cannot believe he is using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to defend his own denial of the basic right of all men and women to marry the person they love.
His defence is almost insultingly weak, too. Article 16 in full is: ‘Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.’ Nowhere does it define marriage as ‘a relationship between men and women’.
Surely his own views are defying the right of men and women to marry ‘without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion’.