"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
What's this?

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives

Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Polling Report

American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Peevish for PDA

Blog Directory


Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori

All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

August 09, 2004
What Do We Have Here?

Public schools seek private partners

States look for alternatives to fund improvements

Kojo McCallum's fourth-grade classroom has been infested by mice and the window panes have deteriorated to a cloudy, opaque tint.

Outside the Charles Carroll Barrister Elementary School in Baltimore, graffiti colors the walls and drug needles have popped up on the grounds.

Told you so. Billions for bombs, pennies for education? This is what you get.

I'm not saying our school system couldn't have worse problems but that doesn't make this situation any less of a national disgrace.

(Private schools are not the answer.)

To no one's surprise, the Chalabis are officially in trouble.

Iraqi prisoner abuse: It's not just for coalition troops any more, although the support of UsofA military leadership is certainly useful.

If you've been following the story about Darfur, you might be interested in this blog entry.

Are the western powers--US, UK, Germany, France--losing the war for public opinion over Darfur and Sudan?

And a review of the Arabic press seems to indicate that that might be true, although not universally.

(Actually, The Passion of the Present is just a good blog to read about the area.)

I missed this Washington Post article about the situation when it came out last week, so I'm linking to it now.

I guess it depends what's important, doesn't it? I mean, is it good if air marshals have a dress code that they think makes it easier for terrorists to spot them? Will that maybe scare terrorists away from airports?

Or is there no deterrent to the visual presence of armed guards? Should we be worried that air marshals think they're so easy to disarm that they're a walking invitation to potential terrorists? ("Don't need to bring a gun, we'll just pick up a few from the guys on duty.")

Should they be allowed to dress just any old how so neither we nor anyone else know who is carrying a gun? Will we someday find ourselves faced with having to take the word of some wild-eyed man that it's okay if he's waving a gun at us, because he's one of the good guys?

I'm not sure I approve of "outing" gay celebrities whether they will or no.

Not even politicians. (Though I have little sympathy for someone who poses for a "risqué" photo spread and later pretends he didn't "out" himself.)

I mean, obviously I disapprove of people having to hide their sexual orientation in the first place, but that's not really a practical response in this situation.

Outing has always been a unsettling tactic and Mr Aravosis has some qualms about naming people, but President Bush's declaration convinced him it was time to "stop being nice to the enemy within". It was Mr Aravosis who was behind a recent ad in the gay weekly Washington Blade, which declared the new zero tolerance. The ad ran: "For years our silence has protected you. Today that protection ends."

It goes farther than the gay marriage thing. Someone can be gay and still not support gay marriage, I guess. I mean, I can't imagine why but people hold a lot of weird beliefs I don't understand.

I guess I disapprove of "outing" people whose sexual orientation has nothing to do with their job but maybe I don't disapprove of it if they're in a public position and working against gay rights?

Stay Calm Everyone, There's Prozac in the Drinking Water The UK has a problem.

And here's a call for intelligent intelligence reform. I don't necessarily support what it has to say, but the basic point is that we need to think before we act, and I do support that. Here's another perspective that has me scratching my head. True, gathering data is only half the battle. Translation and analysis are equally important.

We need to fight that narrowness by creating more competition for ideas in the intelligence assessment world. The competition among ideas is improved when different organizations reporting to different bosses compete for better insights and perspectives. Bringing together the entire intelligence community under a single boss who exercises budget and personnel control would further constrain the constructive competition we need within the intelligence community.

Would "competitive analysis" produce better intelligence?

President Bush chose a different path. His plan would create a relatively weak DNI, whose power would come from managing a set of interagency processes and supervising a set of ill-defined new centers. Unfortunately, if unintentionally, this approach also diminishes the bureaucratic standing of the CIA.

To be honest, I don't think the Bush Administration has a lot of interest in creating a really good, definitively reliable intelligence source. The fuzzier the analysis, the more you can cook the results.

My opinion? Electronic voting machines aren't ready for prime-time. Personally, I'll never accept them until there are ten times the safeguards built into them.

But Rubin says he is not accusing Diebold of rigging elections. "I'm just saying that they could do it and that we shouldn't allow our elections to be under control of vendors when there are ways of designing voting machines such that the vendors don't have the control of them."

Precisely. It's very nice that the decisively partisan head of the company has decided to "get out of politics" but does anyone really think his fervent support of the Bush Administration is the real point?

Keep watching Florida. Yes, a lot of minorities and a lot of Democrats were disenfranchised but there were Republican votes lost as well. A bad system hurts everyone.

As do bad decisions by appointed officials. In case labor didn't know this already, the Bush Administration is not your friend.

You're always reading about the value of gifts given to Bush or other UsofA presidents, but where are the reports of gifts going the other way?

And here is today's giggle. The man Yale wouldn't have touched with a bargepole without his family's history at the university is speaking out against "legacy admissions" at colleges. Not that he seems destined himself to add much luster to the university's educational reputation.

It's nice to have a day off. There's so much I want to read and I have another book review or two to finish up.

Posted by AnneZook at 10:41 AM