Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000076.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/000076.php on line 106
June 30, 2003

For Kate, of course. A loss, indeed.

Makes me tired

Rove, no doubt seeing Bush's numbers tumbling, nudges his boy to the right for more wing-nut support.

And Nader, who publicly said he wasn't going to spoiler 2004 because getting Bush out of the White House was more important than showing his, Nader's, utter contempt for all things political in the USofA (okay, I probably did a little paraphrasing and extrapolating, but we know that's how he feels), might change his mind. (Seriously. I have nothing against Nader who has done some fine things in his life, but why is his party concluding, a year before the serious run-down to the vote, that the Dems aren't going to field a winning candidate? What's the rush?)

(Okay, I'll tell you what their rush is. As a nonviable third party, they're going to lose a lot of momentum if they bypass a presidential election. Apparently they're testing the idea that keeping their party alive is of more importance than consolidating the Left in 2004. Which is naturally their choice.)

Guns and Ammo

Gen. Clark, via Meet the Press (excerpts also available via a link at The Smirking Chimp) reminds us of Desert Fox. No, it wasn't a Bush initiative in the Middle East. It was that Zipper of Evil, the Right's biggest nightmare, Bill Clinton who struck, and by Clark's valuation, struck hard at all known WMD sites in Iraq. That's probably why we're not actually finding much now but it's also a reminder of just why this invasion was so unnecessary. (Of course, by questioning the Administration's methods and motives, I realize I've become part of the problem but I'm surprisingly okay with that.)

I found the transcription of the interview interesting in itself. There are things I never thought about before that I now find myself contemplating.

For instance, why does NATO have troops? I don't approve of NATO having troops, an idea that has occurred to me vaguely in the past but is now becoming increasingly important to me. I don't like this trend toward every group and their buddies forming an army, okay? How many blasted armies do those idiots in Washing think this country can support, anyhow? (And is there a term for a country that has not only imperial ambitions, but want to impose military imperialism on the rest of the world?)

(And what kind of hubris contemplates the countries of the world sending money and troops to use to be "led and trained" by us and, no doubt, used however we see fit? There are moments when I'm not sure which I find more frightening, the current Administration or the voters who watch what these guys are doing and approve of it.)

I wish this Administration would get the hate off of the U.N. I think it's quite suitable that the rest of the world doesn't fall into line behind the USofA. We're wrong a lot of the time, okay? A lot of the time. Also, the U.N., like our government and the governments of many countries, is a compromise solution and compromises aren't going to make everyone happy. Such an organization can hope, at best, to make everyone equally unhappy, and that's as it should be. Compromises are about balance.

Just because we find ourselves with a surplus of missiles and an out-of-control war department doesn't mean we have to find those people some place to use their bullets. We have to stop forming a new army every time the ones available don't do just what we want. Talk about your conspicuous consumerism....


I'm grateful that Josh Marshall is still on the story of the Texas redistricting. I'm bitter, but not surprised, that the fickle national media is now ignoring. it.

Also, I'm assuming that by now you're all read and absorbed Michael Totten's fascination comparison of conservatives and liberals and the way they approach international events? I don't agree with all of his points, but his central tenet of "builders" versus "defenders" has the ring of truth.

And I do understand why everyone's linking to the Krugman column pointing out the trend of this country toward one-party rule. Krugman paints a scary picture of a scenario that could well come to pass.

Nor do I doubt that the Right (in their role as "defenders" as listed above) would be quite pleased to build a Washington infrastructure obedient to their agenda, whether they were in power or not. I think that most of us on the "Left" would approve of doing the same on our own behalf but, of course, the difference is that we're altruistic and noble and those other guys are evil, larcenous, reactionaries, so that would be okay.

Sins of the Media

I am, as many of us are, becoming increasingly aware of the part that the media plays in keeping us misinformed on events. For anyone else interested in the topic, I might post a link to an interesting story from time to time. (This one's about right-wing hate-mongering in the name of profit.)

Posted by AnneZook at 11:07 AM