The Best Sherlock Holmes
/Give Jeremy Brett A Posthumous BAFTA Award
Give Jeremy Brett A Posthumous BAFTA Award. Most noticeably we have the support of many people and societies, some highly influential. To name but a few of them: actors Stephen Fry, Edward Hardwicke, David Burke, Timothy West, author Paul D. Gilbert, and several Sherlock Holmes Societies, including The Sherlock Holmes Society of London, the exclusive and upon invitation only Baker Street Irregulars Society, and La Société Sherlock Holmes de France and its chairman, Thierry Saint-Joanis, who, in 1993-1994, successfully campaigned to have Jeremy awarded the French Légion d’honneur.
The body of a Border Collie cross frozen in a block of ice, which was left in the yard of a Dawson Creek man, is under investigation by BC SPCA animal cruelty investigators. It's possible another animal ate part of the dog's intestines, but it appears the 18-kilogram (40-pound) dog was owned by somebody because it had a healthy weight. 
With the resumption of settlement construction in the West Bank yesterday, Israel’s powerful settler movement hopes that it has scuttled peace talks with the Palestinians, too.
No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.
Criticising this exploitation of the expertise of professional scientists, medical doctors and so on shouldn’t be taken as a denigration of rationality, of our ability to know how things are, whether it’s the increased risk of lung disease amongst smokers or the carbon emissions of different modes of transport. Rather it is to argue that this form of rational knowledge, when used by politicians, merges with their moral reasoning. They don’t just say how things are, they use (and abuse) it to say how things ought to be. And in doing so, they deprive us of our own reason, our own ability to make moral decisions about how we want to live our lives. Under the tyranny of expertise, the only rationality that matters is theirs.
“In a year’s time, Iraq will be, at a bare minimum, the least badly-governed state in the Arab World and, at best, pleasant, civilized and thriving.”
Despite the fact that it would be difficult to name a single area of Iraqi life which has improved as a result of the American actions, when the subject is Iraq and the person I’m having a discussion with has no other argument left to defend US policy there, at least at the moment, I may be asked: “Just tell me one thing, are you glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power?” And I say: “No”. And the person says: “No?” And I say: “No. Tell me, if you went into surgery to correct a knee problem and the surgeon mistakenly amputated your entire leg, what would you think if someone then asked you: Are you glad that you no longer have a knee problem? 
What is it that’s worth the deaths of half a million children? Their combined weight in oil that’s what.
