Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001003.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/001003.php on line 91
January 13, 2004
There's a name for that.

Like, when you're driving along and everyone slows to a crawl around you and right before you pass them all up, you realize they're V'd up behind a police car.

Over at Obsidian Wings, Von quite rightly points out that if O'Neill carried off classified documents, he's gonna be in trouble. (As I understand it, the GAO has already been motivated to start an investigation.) It's hard to believe anyone would be that dumb, but it's certainly worth checking out.

And Katharine from the same blog has an entry (actually, two angry posts) about the whole "extraordinary rendition" thing. You can make up all the bland, confusing euphemisms you want, but we all know what it means.

I'm waiting to see if the USofA government keeps insisting they didn't know Syria tortures people. I'm waiting to see how many of those folks on the Right think this is going too far. I'm waiting...but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm also waiting for the indignation, the outrage that really should follow the understanding that if they have a slick euphemism for it, that's because it's something they talk about a lot. Because, well, because they do it a lot?

For just exactly how long have we been outsourcing our torture work?

But, hey! We found a terrorist! And one that might, unlike almost anyone else we've arrested, might have been directly involved in 9/11. There are still a few loose ends, like the lack of any proof, but there you go.

Is this adoption or stalking? Either way, it sounds like a ton of work to me. Tracking, archiving, and analyzing every word a journalist writes?

Once again I find myself wondering why the journalists are the story. Couldn't we instead put this effort into making the full and uncut words of the candidates available to everyone, instead of the cut-and-pasted headline bits? That would serve a double purpose. Anyone who cared could review the actual words against what a publication reproduced and deduce the publication's bias. And anyone who cared could read what the candidate actually had to say, allowing them to make up their own mind about how to cast their vote.

Is the Army War College giving aid and comfort to the enemy by dissing Bush's invasion of Iraq? They're probably all treasonous libruls there at the college. Everyone knows what those elitist, ivory-tower types are like.

You know what's sad? What's sad is that CNN felt it was necessary to remind their readers that the USofA invaded Afghanistan in 2001 at the end of this story. They assumed USofA readers wouldn't remember.

We all know about the Grand Canyon, though. It's a big hole in the ground carved into the landscape of the West. Apparently there's a problem with that. A long-time guide from the area used to regale tourists with the tale of how the canyon was formed over millions of years. And then he got religion and decided god created the place a few thousand years ago. All of which is fine, except that he wrote a book on the subject and the Bush Administration allows his little fable to be sold at the government-run state bookshop which is, I'm pretty sure, yet another violation of that pesky state-church separation thing, and they won't let any actual scientists sell anything that refutes the pseudo-science of the 'god did it' group which is, I'm pretty sure, yet another violation of intelligence and common sense. Whatever.

John le Carré talks about politics with intelligence and experience and, even more interesting to me, has a new book out.

Kyoto is still being hotly debated, this time in Russia.

And things may be heating up in Iran. I've been following the story of their upcoming elections when I can find anything on it.

Oddly enough, Krugman's review of Suskind's book makes Bush look good. Not, you know, in charge of anything or intelligent, but even if just tangentially, good. Well, not good. Better than if he were some evil maniac in charge of everything, though. Clearly (as we've all speculated, or at least as many of us have over the past couple of years), he's not formulating policy. (Honestly, I haven't decided whether or not to buy this one yet. I'm already working on Krugman's latest and Molly Ivins' latest, with Al Franken's latest, John Judis' Emerging Democratic Majority and at least four more waiting in the wings.)

If I were a Republican, I'd be protesting Brooks' assertion that Republicans are solidly behind the Bush Administration. Except...his poll numbers say 91% of Republicans are solidly behind him, so those protesting voices I hear coming from the Right must be my imagination.

So, Roger Clemens is coming back to baseball. That was a short retirement.

(Also, if you're still watching Fox television? Don't. Reality television rots your brain.)

Posted by AnneZook at 08:56 AM


Comments

Once again I find myself wondering why the journalists are the story.

I actually think it's fair for them to be the story. Not them covering themselves (i.e., looking up their own assholes) as much as bloggers and others keeping their feet to the fire by insisting that they actually cover the story, stop taking quotes out of context, stop creating controversy where none exists, and get up from their bended knees and actually critique the current Administration. Honestly, Bush has nothing but contempt for them, what merits their subservience? Cheney? Please.

So, Roger Clemens is coming back to baseball. That was a short retirement.

I think it's mostly because the US national baseball team didn't make the Olympic cut. If they had, Clemens would have been in Athens. As they didn't, he's still hankering to play and being in his hometown is something of a consolation (and more $$ of course).

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at January 13, 2004 05:40 PM

Well, yes, you have a point.

It's just that I have the feeling that 'monitoring' the individual journalists is a lot slower than just bypassing the media and making the (real) story available elsewhere on-line.

That will do three things at once:
#1 Give us the information we want now, and not in some distant future.
#2 Show how the different news outlets are failing to provide full, unbiased coverage.
#3 Cut into their readership, which hits their bottom line, and gets their attention fast.

Posted by: Anne at January 14, 2004 09:15 AM