Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000160.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/000160.php on line 106
May 15, 2003

Didn't quite a lot of people warn that an attack on Iraq would result in a dramatically increased threat of terrorism for the USofA? Looks like a few folks took that threat seriously and are keeping their eyes open. In other places, businesses haven't been so lucky, although the people were.

I don't have anything against Bugs Bunny, but wouldn't spending money to remove the land mines be at least as useful as teaching people to evaluate the risk factor?

There are interesting excerpts and a couple of links from the Institute for Public Accuracy.

Author of The Newest Explosions of Terrorism and professor of international relations at California State University in Chico, Grosscup said on an Institute for Public Accuracy news release on April 3, 2003: "The U.S. invasion of Iraq increases the likelihood of attacks against the U.S." He said today: "It would seem that this is the first shot fired from Al-Qaeda or other anti-Saudi monarchy elements since the invasion of Iraq, though it's curious that they have not claimed responsibility.... Just as the U.S. government backed Saddam Hussein during the height of his atrocities and the Taliban were deemed useful and politically acceptable business partners if they would make pipeline deals, so too might allegations of Saudi Arabia's ties to terrorist groups be used as a justification for military action against the Saudi monarchy if it doesn't co-operate with western oil interests in the future."
I'm wondering by Al-Qaeda hasn't claimed responsibility for the bombing yet. These terrorist groups aren't normally shy about taking bows. It's possible it wasn't Al-Qaeda at all. (They're not the only terrorists in the world, after all.)


I know I keep harping on this story, but it's important, okay? It may not seem that way to you if you don't live in Texas, but it is. A bunch of Democrats have taken a principled stand against the bulldozer tactics of the Republicans and the outcome of this is, I promise you, being closely watched by both parties.

This is one the Dems need to win to prove to the Republican Party as a whole that we're not weak, ineffectual, and disorganized.

Who would have thought that Texas would become the centerpiece of Democrat revolt against high-handed Republican partisanship? I'm impressed. And pleased that the people are planning to give them a hero's welcome.

They sent a letter saying that if the controversial redistricting plan was taken off the table, they wouldn't repeat their walk-out, even over other matters they disagree with during this session, which I think was the right thing to do. A walk-out is an extreme action and it's right it should be saved for extreme situations.

Of course, the Republicans aren't taking it quietly.

"Tell them to stay in Ardmore; they're getting the hell beat out of them. They are making fools of themselves," Richter said.
In fact, they aren't. And I'm pretty sure Richter knows it.

(The linked article is a good one, getting into some of the political fallout in Washington.)

This is not so good.

Republicans in Washington and Austin, Texas apparently used a Homeland Security Department agency to track Texas Democratic legislators who left the state to block passage of a GOP-backed Congressional redistricting bill.

This is the same Homeland Security Department that is supposed to be making America safe from foreign terrorists. It's the agency we were told would never be used for domestic political purposes.

Yeah, and we believed them when they said that!
Republican leaders in Texas and Washington are furious. They have called the Democrats, holed up in a Holiday Inn in Ardmore, "cowards" and "terrorists."
Sheer McCarthyism.

Sheer, frightening, probably precedent-setting McCarthyism.


Exxon is in the news.

U.S. energy giant ExxonMobil is now alone among the world's four largest oil companies in refusing to take meaningful action to lessen the growing risks to its share value posed by global warming, according to a study released Tuesday by a London-based investment consulting firm.

The report, "Sleeping Tiger, Hidden Liabilities," said that the three other major oil and gas companies--Shell, BP and ChevronTexaco -- are leaving ExxonMobil far behind in addressing the implications of global warming for their current and future operations.

The others are investigating these matters because their own corporate futures depend on them. Why is Exxon still playing blind?
"ExxonMobil is alone among its peers in continuing to deny the risks posed by climate change," said Mark Mansley, director of Claros Consulting and author of the report. "It appears to be relying on a hope-for-the-best strategy--one that works as long as the risk of climate change evaporates."
At least I've finally identified to my own satisfaction just which oil company Bush keeps denying the existence of greenhouse gases in aid of.

What a ghastly sentence. Sorry.

Posted by AnneZook at 08:59 AM