Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001109.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/001109.php on line 91
March 19, 2004
Blogaround

Always read Avedon Carol, who led me today to Kathryn Cramer and the connection between that planeload of mercenaries and the supposedly defunct army-for-hire, Executive Outcomes.

And, speaking of mercenaries and private armies, read Juan Cole. (Edward at Fistful of Euros has an opinion about the situation.)

Also read Holy Warriors at Avedon Carol's site.

John McKay has a very interesting post up about "imperfect knowledge" when it comes to science versus, well, those who want to disprove what scientific inquiry suggests is true.

Chris at Back To Iraq has a good post up on the latest Baghdad bombing.

Riverbend is also talking about that and other Baghdad happenings.

Pandagon points out one of the tactics from the Bush Administration that should be making us all mad.

Always read Molly Ivins, too. She's the only writer I've ever read who manages to make Texas's problems funny.

Jane Galt talks about China trying to shut down Chinese access to blogs.

Via Eric Alterman's column today, we see what purports to be a collection of Park Service memos about funding and service cuts. Rather than focusing on what Alterman's correspondent saw as the inequity of the Park Service's attempt to mislead the media (and in turn the public) about services provided, I see this as proof of the Bush Administration's ongoing disinterest in and disdain for what most voters would see as a logical and proper function of government - the adequate administration of our public areas.

I'm just saying. You can't say they don't walk the talk. They said they didn't believe in 'big government' and almost everything they're doing, from tax cuts for the wealthy to under-funded education mandates to budget-busting Medicare 'reforms' is designed to achieve one goal - to break the power of the federal government and force the states to pick up the slack by raising taxes and providing new and expanded services.

Those of you who think there isn't any method in the madness are wrong.

For more wrongness, take a look at Andrew Olmsted today who points out an essential wrongness.

Acts of terrorism are going to affect any election in any country touched by such insanity. Calling for any candidate to bow out because of such an act...well, you're letting the terrorists win because you're letting them dictate who will or will not be allowed to run for office.

Besides, that, if it's appropriate for Bush to run based on what he claims he's doing to fight terrorism, then it's appropriate for us to vote based on the consequences of those actions.

David Neiwert is discussing domestic terrorism.

Winston Smith asks an interesting question. "What if Bush lied in order to get us to do the right thing?"

This idea occurred to me before, but I dismissed it as irrelevant because, as y'all know, I don't believe the end justifies the means.

Also? Based on the massive instability in Iraq, I'd imagine that it's becoming clear to anyone who supports this theory that the consequences of lying to achieve your ends, regardless of the merit of those ends, creates its own problems.

And you should read this article about the continuing squabble between the judiciary and the legislative branches over the latter intruding on the former's prerogatives and responsibilities.

Go, says TBogg.

Posted by AnneZook at 12:29 PM


Comments

I just want to thank you: your blogarounds and roundups save me immense quantities of time. Actually, that's not true. If you didn't do it, I probably just wouldn't read most of it, or I'd hear about it much later. My time in blogspace is limited by real life, and I make very efficient use of it here.

The handcuffing of judges is turning what should be a balanced and independent system into a more French (also Japanese) style system in which the administrative branch (unelected and not responsible to anyone except their political masters) prosecutors have all the discretionary power.

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at March 19, 2004 01:56 PM

Timeliness is everything in the world o'blog. :) My blogarounds tend to be skimpy compared to most, but I'm glad to hear I'm not just linking to things everyone has already read.

The administrative branch's tendency to try and steer the judiciary's horse isn't new and in fact I think that kind of tension between the branches is a good sign - it shows that no one branch has yet managed to co-opt the power of the others.

At the same time, too much of this kind of squabbling also leads me to fear that one branch is, in fact, making an attempt to co-opt the power of another. It's tricky.

That's the thing about a "balance of powers" isn't it? "Balance" is a fairly delicate thing.

The system we have is robust and can withstand a fair amount of tinkering but I honestly do think this Administration goes too far.

Posted by: Anne at March 19, 2004 04:10 PM