"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

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

Books
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
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

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

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....
Phillipines

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
Archives
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


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
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
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
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

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

May 16, 2005
Lunch Break

Up until now, they've been "insurgents", those people fighting the USofA in Iraq. Granted, reports suggest a fair number of them have, in fact, been from outside of Iraq, but a lot of them weren't. Now I see the LATimes has switched to calling it sectarian violence and I find myself wondering if this is just an attempt to explain the conflict in baby-talk they think the USofA reading public can understand (it's all about religion) or exactly what the terminology change means?

Speaking of the insurgency, what's up with that, anyhow? And are the "Iraqi insurgents, as were the "9/11 terrorists" mostly Saudis?

Paul Krugman says things are going so badly in Iraq that you'd be hard-pressed to identify that "course" that Bush urged us to "stay."

And now Congress has decided women don't belong in combat. (Well, from my perspective no one does. But is this the Armed Forces offering recognition to female troops or a reflection of their much-reported recruiting shortfall and the suggestion that they're wondering if young women of color might fill their ranks?

Is Uzbekistan's leader worse than Saddam Hussein

Is free-trade a big threat to us? It's another step toward the whole One-World vision, so I guess much depends on how you feel about that. This deal is also highly favored by the Bush Administration and after the last four years, that makes me instantly suspicious. Besides, like a lot of Bush Administration initiatives, a closer look reveals problems.

For many years, I have supported banning competitive children's sports. Whatever kids might learn from them, what do learn is appalling.

Just how gay are those those guys running the Right?

Just how misguided are are the poor voters on the Right? Kevin Drum explains.

The only thing Kevin Hayden doesn't explain is just exactly what "work" the new American slavery system is get out of those millions of prisoners. I know some of today's "call centers", far from being outsourced to another country, are located in prisons. Is he meaning to suggest that we're trying to create our own pool of literal wage-slaves?

And I think a lot of us knew the government was secretly sterilizing "undesirables" up until the 70s (still could be, for all we know), but I'm sure it will come as a surprise to some.

Personal opinion? Drezner asking Liberals to sub on his blog is setting them up for abuse. (That entire comment was out of line and entirely uncalled for.)

I hadn't actually been reading the "Huffington Post Blog" regularly (had a busy weekend) but I heard Cronkite posted, so I went to look. It's barely a teaser, but enough to make me hope he posts again soon.

Eric Rauchway is back on Alterman's blog and, as always, he's interesting. I've bookmarked the entry. I'll have to think about it for a while this evening.

I also have to come up with answers for these questions.

Unless I'm Extreme Time-Shifting which is, I'll admit, my preferred way to watch television.

Or unless I find a copy of the current (I hope) New Republic on the way home, so I can read all of this.

And, finally, let's none of us forget, okay? If you have to go anywhere, remember to put on nice underthings first. Because everyone will be looking at them...and more.

... Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate subcommittee last month that he wants to employ the technology and doesn't want an "endless debate" over privacy issues.

Because, you know, stripping air travelers nekkid with technology is just No. Big. Deal. so shut up about it already.

So...whaddya wanna bet? How long's it going to be before celebrities start seeing themselves stripped bare on the internet? (No, I have no reason to think the machines to be used in airports will take pictures along with letting the TSA look at your nekkid body, but it's possible. And even if they won't, I still don't want strangers gawking at my nekkid body. It's a privacy issue, and one I'd imagine that the Religious Right and the Progressive Left might unexpectedly going to find themselves sharing.)

Posted by AnneZook at 01:52 PM


Comments