Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000898.php on line 91

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/000898.php on line 91
November 04, 2003

Mostly these are follow-ups on things I've written about before. Because what's the point of having all of these news sources available to me if I don't get the one thing I've always wanted...the rest of the story once someone has dropped off the front-page headlines.

When you're calculating it, you need to figure in (via Hell for Halliburton) the dead and wounded. Yes, as this site points out, it's more difficult when the "civilian contractors" aren't counted. Tom Engelhardt offers more in "Everything is Private."

Mark Crispin Miller stays on top of the electronic voting problems. And (via Atrios), there's plenty of story left to cover. Check out Off the Kuff as well.

The scandal story of K Street and governmental influence is still alive and well in Mother Jones.

In my opinion, Andrew Sullivan is kind of a humorless twit, as he proves by 'fisking' Andy Rooney's mock-speech for Bush.

This is a prime illustration of why I dislike the fad of 'fisking' other people's words. Sullivan does what most 'fiskers' I've seen do takes more exception to the writing style than the content.

There's no understanding why this column sparked such a response from Sullivan. I mean...it's Andy Rooney, okay? The guy who muses over proliferations of paperclips in your office des. The man who weighs coffee to see which pound bag actually holds a pound.

Andy Rooney is Andy Rooney, Sullivan. He's an American Institution and nothing you say is going to make him appear to be the pawn of Satan, okay? Get over yourself and if you can't think of anything real to write about on a particular day, just keep quiet. (Happily, Josh Marshall gives us a timely reminder about the glass house inhabited by Sullivan's heroes.)

Finally, I'm sure I've written about porn (or, as friends have advised me to spell it to avoid undue public notice, "pr0n"), so I feel no shame in pointing you to this entry from TBogg.

Posted by AnneZook at 10:46 AM


Of course I followed your "pr0n"-link but by far more interesting was that it lead me to an article saying that CBS was going to scrap the Reagan mini series (se my earlier comment). Despite your explanatory comment, Anne, it is to me utterly incomprehensible how people over there can accept that political pressure is allowed to stop a TV-show! So what if it gives an unfair picture of the Reagan presidency? You have to fight that on an objective basis, not by censorship. I thought the letter from, the congressman was brilliant. At the same time, people who despise the Reagan years, cannot insist on having all those negative things covered.

I guess that I the reason why I have got a hangup over this is that no liberals (in the old--fashioned sense) seem to react. But, I mean, if you accept censorship, what is next?

Posted by: Bengt at November 5, 2003 02:36 AM