Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000037.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000037.php on line 106
July 24, 2003
Oh, pits.

I hit the wrong button and lost my original entry

What was I talking about?

I know I said that it's always good to read Molly Ivins and I enjoyed her biff, bam, pop! story on legal ethics.

I know I also said that while Hightower sometimes goes over the line, I appreciated his update on the Nike Swoosh case as the corporate do-badders struggle to convince the world that their lies about the use of sweatshop labor were politically motivated and had nothing to do with advertising.

I also appreciate his words on the increasing corporatization of our schools. It's an embarrassment, the kind that should bring down leaders in high places, that we have the money to invade two countries in one year and we give millions of dollars back to already rich people, but we can't afford to fund our schools properly.

I remember wondering how many of you would pay an expert to write an article or a series of articles on topic of major interest to you.

George W. Nixon? That one made me snicker, but Meyer is rightly incensed that it appears the White House blew an undercover CIA operative's cover in an attempt to at political retaliation.

In a story that doesn't seem to have made the front pages here, Chicago police compared a wanted fugitive to rapper Ice Cube. (why won't these people use real names?) I think more than just an, oops, sorry! is called for.

I went on at some length about each of those topics but fortunately for you, I don't intend to key all of that in again. Let's move on.

Do you know that Congress, in response to hundreds of thousands of faxes, calls, and e-mails from voters is working to strike down Michael Powell's relaxation of media ownership regulations? Of course you do. Do you know that if Congress does what the voters want, the White House is threatening to veto the bill? William Safire covers the story.

W. House Nuke Defense Shifting That's the CBS headline.

You know, what weirds me out about "those people" is the way they fight against just standing up and saying, "made a mistake, sorry."

If George W. Nixon Bush had just stood up and admitted that they'd messed up in the beginning, none of these stories would be getting traction today. But he doesn't say that. Do they think it makes him appear weak to admit a mistake? They're quite wrong. It just makes him look like an out-of-the-loop dolt who hasn't been given permission to take the blame yet.

Even as the entire world realizes they were just plain wrong, they fight to find another way to say it, or send out underlings to take the blame or something. It really is Nixonian, okay? For those of us who remember Watergate, it does have a very familiar flavor.

Which makes it a relief to turn to reports saying that Wolfowitz is admitting that a lot of their pre-invasion planning was just plain wrong. For two seconds, I think, I'd vote for that man but then of course I remember more about him and withdraw the offer. Still, having the courage to stand up and admit the things that everyone in the world knows to be true seems to be a rare quality in the Bush Administration and I applaud Wolfowitz for his brief tango with honesty.

When I read the words, "AFTER SEPT. 11, even George W. Bush's harshest critics credited him for leading" I know I'm not going to like the article. I was far from one of his "harshest" critics (although I was pretty harsh), but my memories of 9/11 are tied up with the leadership Giuliani showed on that day. My memories of Bush include only my wonder and growing annoyance that he was hiding instead of leading.

And, speaking of things we should be rabble-rousing about, how about Guantanamo? Louise Christian is quite right when she says, "There is no defence for Guantanamo." There isn't. Let's see at least 50 percent of the "yellow cake" outrage directed toward the situation in Guantanamo, okay?

Detainees are incarcerated in wire cages 8ft by 6ft 6in, with no privacy and with the lights on all night. They are allowed out for exercise only twice a week for 20 minutes in a small, enclosed exercise yard. These are conditions which would challenge anybody's mental health. During this time the detainees have been intimidated and coerced into speaking to interrogators without a lawyer being present. The situation is already one of grave abuse of human rights.
By not faxing, e-mailing, and phoning your government to protest this, you're an accessory, okay?

Read it and think.

If Deanna Wrenn is telling the truth, and I have no reason to believe she isn't, she's been wronged. More, as a reporter, she's been damaged by the horribly biased re-writing of her story by Reuters. (I've already removed ABC from my "regular reading" list, although I still check their site occasionally, because of their overtly sensationalist approaches to storytelling. I may have to stop checking Reuters, too.)

Texas Democrats are still fighting redistricting and, surprise, surprise, DeLay's name is all over the problem.

These people continue to frighten me.

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.
There are so many lies embedded in that statement that I don't know where to begin.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
If for no other reason, I'd fight against the current crop of "neo-Conservatives" just because they're reportedly affiliated with this bunch and share their aims. What these guys, they're offering a rose-tinted view of what Cheney, et. al., want the world to become. (I have to say, when George Will announces that Conservatives are going astray....) (Ed. Further reading, of course, proves that he's dissing them not for being a bunch of nutcases, but for not sticking his his preferred line of nutcasedom. Still, it's clear that even to his highly biased eyes, they've gone off on some weird tangent of their own.)

Posted by AnneZook at 10:13 AM