When Everything Is Not As It Seems

Today, China got caught - twice - faking portions of the Olympic opening ceremonies. First it was the little girl who wasn't there, now it's faked fireworks. First the little girl who sang the Chinese anthem - but wasn't allowed to be there in person because her teeth were crooked:

A member of China's ruling Politburo asked for the last-minute change to match one girl's face with another's voice, the ceremony's chief music director, Chen Qigang, said in an interview with Beijing Radio.

"The audience will understand that it's in the national interest," Chen said in a video of the interview posted online Sunday night.

The second falsehood was the phony fireworks.

Beijing organizers confirmed Tuesday that some of the fireworks display featured prerecorded footage.

Fireworks that burst into the shape of 29 gigantic footprints were shown trudging above the Beijing skyline to the National Stadium near the start of the ceremony.

Though the footprint-shaped fireworks were real, some of the footage shown to television viewers around the world and on giant screens inside the "Bird's Nest" stadium featured a computer-generated three-dimensional image.

Prerecorded is being a bit too kind. Completely fake would be a better descriptor. The images were made up on a computer.

Beijing, the first CGI, lip-synced Olympics. (Actually, I'm quite sure that lip-syncing has been done before - though not for the same, lame reason. The CGI appears to be new, however.)

Don't you love the line: "The audience will understand that it's in the national interest." Remind you of any other statist rhetoric?

UPDATE: Once again, no sooner did I hit the publish key. Over at Memeorandum, a paean to the marvelous Beijing opening ceremonies pops up from HuffnPuffco. Prattling on about "the purpose of the greater". As I said, where have you heard that before?

Sorry, Old Chap….

….It will just cost too much to save your life. NICE, the increasingly Orwellian advisory body to Britain's National Health Service has ruled that there is not - and will not be - a "Rule of Rescue." What does that mean? Simple, if your health care costs to much, you're a deader.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Guidelines (Nice) has ruled for the first time that saving a life cannot be justified at any cost, in a review of its ethical guidelines.

The ruling - made by the board of the controversial organisation - contradicts advice it received from its own 'Citizens Council' which offers advice from a representative sample of the general public.

Nice is facing growing criticism over the number of drugs it is now rejecting which are available throughout Europe and in America. Last week, it refused to sanction four kidney cancer drugs which can double life expectancy.

It has now rejected the so-called "rule of rescue" which stipulates that people facing death should be treated regardless of the costs. The rule is based on the natural impulse to aid individuals in trouble.

In a report on "social values judgement" the regulator says: "There is a powerful human impulse, known as the 'rule of rescue', to attempt to help an identifiable person whose life is in danger, no matter how much it costs. When there are limited resources for healthcare, applying the 'rule of rescue' may mean that other people will not be able to have the care or treatment they need.

NICE isn't, is it? This is the logical outcome of socialized medicine. The decisions of the state are final and may not be appealed. Well, actually, there is a step further that I expect the folks at NICE to reach eventually. That will be to withhold care completely from those who fail to meet some arbitrary standard they dictate.

Such as disagreeing with NICE.

Still think socialized medicine is a ginger-peachy idea? Hope you never need extraordinary care.

Obama’s Weirdness

The interview on faith and religion I mentioned the other day is a gold mine of weirdness.  Let's look at what Obama thinks is going on when he is speaking to crowd as a political leader:

OBAMA: IT’s interesting, the most powerful political moments for me come when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth. I can feel it. When I’m talking to a group and I’m saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I’m just being glib or clever.

GG: What’s that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?

OBAMA: Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.

So, it seems clear that when Barack Obama feels strongly about something it is because he views it as touching something of the divine.  So, if you hold a different political position on one of those matters you are at best a fool and at worst evil.  Either way you are standing against the will of God, which happens to coincide with the political principles of Barack Obama.  Aren't we lucky?

Now, this I just found interesting:

GG: Who’s Jesus to you?

(He laughs nervously)

OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

So what have we got here?  Obama thinks Jesus is A) an historical figure, B) a bridge between God and man, and C) a wonderful teacher.  The truth is there is nothing particularly Christian about those views.  Muslims, for example, hold much the same view of Jesus.  It is Christians who believe Jesus is the son of God, the redeemer of our sins, the maker of a new covenant…in short the Messiah.  All of the specifically Christian views of Jesus seem to have escaped Obama's notice, or they have been rejected. 

Which is it?  I don't know, but it sure seems like Barry Obama is one weird guy.