"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

April 02, 2004
The Usual Trash

Yep, it's Friday. Let's see what got thrown out.

The highway bill passed.

The Virginia state government could shut down. They're fighting about taxes. Republicans want to raise them. They'll be voting on it.

Colin Powell says it's possible that those Iraqi trailers had nothing to do with WMD.

An additional 13 million tourists will have to submit to fingerprinting and possibly photographing if they want to visit the USofA this fall.

And we've sanctioned 13 foreign companies for selling Iran "equipment and technology that can be used with unconventional weapons" in the words of the sedate, Financial Times and "equipment and expertise that could be used to make nuclear chemical and biological weapons" in the words of the less-restrained Voice of America.

The Bush Administration seems to be firing a few shots of their own in that debate over whether or not the Administration is dismissing or distorting scientific evidence to support its own positions.

Hot debate continues over the proposed security fence for the Capitol. I hadn't realized they'd been discussing fencing the building in for the last twenty years? That would have been...what...the Reagan years?

Possibly fearing another PR disaster, the Bush Administration is already reversing itself and saying they 9/11 Commission can look at those withheld Clinton papers.

And the NYTimes offers us a "White House Memo" that says that maybe the Clinton Administration to Bush Administration transition was too simple.

There's the hint of a suggestion that just maybe some people in the Bush transition team didn't quite grasp some of the subleties involved on the kinds of topics that maybe could have let al Qaeda go on a rampage nine months later. Maybe sometimes an incoming Presidential transition team is too busy gloating that they won the election. The word "hubris" does appear, yes.

One odd thing I noticed as I started reading the article was the hotlinking of Bush's name which, if you click on it, takes you to a Bush campaign info page in the paper's Campaign 2004 section.

Because when talking about the Clinton - Bush transition in 2000, it's necessary to remind us that Bush is running again this year?

Well, it's not, no, so it was a useless link in terms of the story, but that's not actually what struck me as odd.

If you click on the main "candidates index" heading for theCampaign 2004 section, all of the Democratic candidates appear, even those no longer running, which is sort of handy, but there's no link to Bush from that page. The only way to get to the Bush page (that I could find) was straight from that one story.

Anyhow, the article didn't have much else to offer except a pointless anecdote about Bush I's ability to adjust a chair.

Beyond telling us that the Bush Administration wasn't listening when the outgoing Clinton Administration tried to brief them, I'm not sure what I was supposed to learn from that article.

Posted by AnneZook at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)
A World O'Blog

Heh. Looks like I'm not the only person finding odd and inexplicable things in their search referral logs. I say, you don't have much room to complain until you find you're getting multiples hits for a "depravity scale" or for "feminist white supremacists" neither of which topic have I blogged.

Someone came to my blog to learn the answer to the eternal question, "how do lemmings move about." I've always assumed the answer was, "on little lemming feet" but who knows?

(I was also graced by a visit from the person searching for enlightenment on "lemmings thrown over a cliff," As I understand it, the sacrifice is both voluntary and apocryphal.

I doubt such a substance as "iraq maple syrup" exists but I remain bemused by the number of syrup-related hits I receive.

I don't know where to find any "jewish knitters" and I know nothing about, "weird urban padlocks."

I've never posted "my last letter saying i'm leaving you my love because i'm going to brazil". I've never gone to Brazil, but I like the nuts.

But. Enough about me. Back to the land o'blog.

First, there's a move afoot for a new googlebomb. I'm not usually much of a joiner, but let me help out on this one. Jew.

I haven't seem much discussion of the story elsewhere, but Jerome at Bad Attitudes has a good one on the Bush Administration's shell game on terror.

David Neiwert has found what looks me me like the usual freeper freeping albeit with an unusual attention to spelling and grammar.

You really can't let the idiots get you down, guys. Let 'em shout. The freedom to be an idiot is sort of an unspoken component of what living in a free country is all about.

Via Matthew Yglesias, I got to this essay which articulates why I don't normally use as much quoted text from stories as many other, much more widely read blogs use.

First, almost everyone in blogdom is discussing the same stories at the same times and they're all quoting excerpts, so why should I waste space on the same material you've seen twenty times already?

Second, overquoting does not, to me, quite measure up to my private standard for "fair use."

(To be honest, I don't read many blogs where the style runs to ten paragraphs of quoted text and one line of blogger commentary. I don't find it interesting to read so naturally I don't write that way. I know it's a lot easier to write blog entries if they're 90% quoted material but I'd be uncomfortable doing it. In my own reading, I make exceptions for the blogs who, while relying heavily on quoted material, link to stories that not everyone is discussing.)

And I don't link to Burka because I assume everyone goes there without my encouragement but if you don't, do it now.

What the heck is going on and why hasn't Morford had a new column in a month? At first I thought it was some kind of unannounced vacation or something but it goes on and on and no Morning Fix arrives in my mailbox and the site doesn't say anything. I finally gave in and sent him a whiney e-mail.

I have no idea what's up with Tbogg these days, either, but I like it.

Call me crazy, but I suspect that, before the end of this election cycle, we're gonna see Underdog Bush fighting Washington Insider Kerry as a campaign theme. I dunno. Something to do with the numbers.

Here's one in the eye for nay-sayers who claim the Bush Administration didn't have a post-invasion plan for what to do in Iraq. They so totally had a plan. They had Chalabi. Ahmed Chalabi.

TAPPED is all new and sexy-looking!

Posted by AnneZook at 03:25 PM | Comments (2)
Friday Without A Theme

Soldiers for Hire

Those four 'contractors' killed and mutilated in Fallujah on Wednesday were mercenaries. They were Blackwater Security Consulting employees and "were hired by the U.S. government to protect bureaucrats, soldiers and intelligence officers".

We hire mercenaries to protect our soldiers?

The men, all employees of Blackwater Security Consulting, were in the dangerous Sunni Triangle area operating under more hazardous conditions -- unarmored cars with no apparent backup -- than the U.S. military or the CIA permit.

I guess we do.

The Fallujah killings this week resonated heavily among the dozens of companies providing security services in Iraq

Dozens? We've hired dozens of companies? No wonder Iraq is costing so much. How much of this war are we outsourcing?

Drug Trafficking

Can you call it that if they're prescription drugs, but not approved because they've been shipped from Mexico to Canada to the UsofA? The article doesn't say where the drugs were manufactured.

A Vancouver internet pharmacy company is openly selling Americans prescription medicines from Mexico, approved by neither Health Canada nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the drugs offered are generic copies of Viagra, Cialis and Levitra. These erectile dysfunction drugs are protected by U.S. and Canadian patents, and so it is illegal to sell generic copies in the U.S. or Canada.

It says they are "shipping American drugs from Mexico" which doesn't tell us much.

It also says that "Bulgaria, Pakistan, India and Argentina" have increased drug shipments to Canada, but doesn't go as far as to say UsofA prescriptions forward to Canda are being filled with drugs manufactured in Bulgaria or something. We're also not being told exactly where drugs "approved" for sale in the UsofA are being manufactured, but I promise you a lot of it's done outside the UsofA.

I love an industry-sponsored press release. Seriously. It's a relief to read something that's so open and up-front about its bias.

Mercury Uprising

Apparently the Bush Administration's love for doing business with big business has moments when it's just a wee bit hard for some people to tolerate.

About 40 Senators from both parties are demanding that the Bush Administration's plan for dealing with mercury pollution be withdrawn. It seems that the word-for-word copying from industry lobbyist memos and the . . . wait for it . . . here it comes . . . Bush Administration's decision to ignore technical (scientific) studies and the advice of its own federal advisory panel in favor of giving utility companies a nice present in the form of lax pollution standards was just a bit more than the Senate was prepared to put up with.

I don't see much coverage of this, but I've really noticed over the last five or six months that when Congress puts its foot down and puts a stop to some Bush Administration proposal, it's almost always the Senate doing it. Has anyone else noticed it?

When I get all kinds of spare time, I may go look up who's voting which way on these issues in the Senate.

Read Ellis Henican

Because I have a weakness for him, yes. Part of that is because I like what he has to say.

For A Lark

And, finally, via Dead Parrots, take a look at LarkNews.

It's sort of a religion-themed "Onion" and the bits I've skimmed so far have been entertaining. Today's headlines are Students start ministry to men with ponytails and Savior Scout relieved that peers consider him 'not as uncool as last year'.

You could also check out Teen seeks missions assignment where women don't wear clothes or Chronic loser nurtures Job complex and other stories in the archives.

You have to love a news parody site that offers separate links to "visually impaired" and "reading impaired" versions as well as a "bald men only" link.

And don't miss the horoscope link.

Posted by AnneZook at 12:12 PM | Comments (3)
Air America

Not everyone is happy about Air America.

I thought they might have a point, but when I read the article I got confused, as usual.

The story isn't quite what it seems to be at first glance. The Alternet blurb says the people are mad because Air America "knocked off the air one of the last remaining black talk radio stations" but when you read the article you discover that what actually happened is that Air America leased some broadcast time from the station during the day.

The rest of the day and during the night, the original programming remains in place except where changed by the station management who are not, I stress, Air America employees.

Still. People are unhappy about the change and they're saying it's racism. For one thing they blame Arbitron, which they believe, as near as I can tell, uses some racist system for measuring radio listeners. I have no opinion since I know nothing about the subject. For another, they're mad that white liberals might think their issues are important to non-whites.

“We’re angry that they think they can just turn WLIB into a white talk-station and then are arrogant enough to say that the issues they are talking about effect everybody. This is the Democrats,” [radio host and community activist Bob Law] said. “They believe that you don’t really need a Black voice because their [white liberal] concerns are everybody’s concerns.”

Well, I think I'll choose to believe Bob Law didn't actually express himself that well. White liberal concerns are, for the most part, everyone's concerns. The environment, the economy the jobs market, civil rights, education, these are everyone's concerns.

We might not all agree on the outcome we want, but they're everyone's concerns.

What I believe Law meant to say is that he believes the non-white community has other concerns that aren't addressed by white liberals. We'll never know because either he didn't enumerate any such concerns or the newpaper didn't choose to print that part of the interview.

Honestly, I'm having some trouble figuring out just what the problem is. It's not like the station was sold outright to the minions of evil. If the community feels that strongly about having Carribean and Black [sic] programming, they still have the opportunity to make that happen. The station is still there.

Right near the end of the article was an odd little reference to "this New Liberalism" that I didn't understand and a warning it might try to "trap" people. Anyone run into this before?

There's also a sort of dire warning against the Democratic Party that didn't make much sense to me unless it's tied up with the non-white community having decided that they've been abandoned or betrayed by the Party.

Posted by AnneZook at 09:45 AM | Comments (0)
April 01, 2004
Pointless complaint

You know what makes me tired? Two-faced hypocrisy. Lies, fraud, misdirection, and attack politics.

(And certainly with this Administration, obsessive secrecy. If they're not actually 'up to something' in the way that conspiracy-theorists think of it, then they're working awfully hard at giving the impression they are for some weird reason of their own. Whether it's incompetence or idiocy, they're making it very difficult for those of us inclined to consider both sides of issues to give their side a decent hearing.)

Keeping up with what's going on in Washington shouldn't take four hours a day for the average citizen. Consequently I'm suggesting that we voters band together and demand an end to the shenanigans. That we demand honesty, open government, and good-faith compromise where the sides disagree.

What happened to negotiation and finding common ground? Why is politics now like talk radio - a place of absolutes where nuances aren't welcome? Why is compromise so foreign? When did we become so all-or-nothing politically?

I'm not a utopian and I don't live in some fantasy world where politics used to be a clean and lovely and altruistic but surely it hasn't always seen the pointless sinkhole it seems to be today?

It's not that our elected officials are fighting with each other that bothers me. It's the perception I have sometimes that they don't really care that much about their fights…that some of this is being staged like 'reality' tv, to get headlines.

And the perception I sometimes have that they're not fighting at all but the media is making it look like they are just to sell newspapers.

You can complain all you want about the BBC but there's a lot to be said for a fully funded national news outlet that doesn't have to sell ads or subscriptions to stay on the air. Recent problems around questions of intelligence on Iraq aside, they have a world-wide reputation most USofA news outlets have to envy.

Also? As long as I'm complaining, let me say I'm getting sick and tired of having to read twenty news sources over the course of six months to find out if some politician's statement is true or false or just semantic fancy-dancing. And then waiting another year or more for 'historical context' to make certain that what we eventually decided they were trying to say was, in fact, what they were trying to say.

I'm equally tired of having to read ten different news sources to find the full text of a story. Each outlet publishes only those bits it prefers. Is the media that biased, or do they just leap to whatever conclusion they think will sell the most newspapers in the next 24 hours? (Don't answer that. I have a few illusions left.)

If I had any reason to believe the dogged determination to discover misdeeds and uncover criminality was really on my behalf, instead of in pursuit of a front-page byline, I might feel differently, but I don't. Believe that, I mean.

I've just seen it happen too often over the last year or two. Time and again a story hits the new cycle in screaming headlines and then a few days or weeks later, we learn the rest of the story - and discover that it's not what we were originally told. (And it's hard to find those clarifications. I know I rely on the people reading twenty news sources over the course of weeks or months, to find those tiny, follow-up stories that prove the original treatment was, to be charitable, incorrect.)

I'm tired of the media today.

I'm tired of being treated like someone who slows down at accident sites to look for bodies, watches "Real Police Chase Videos" in the hopes of seeing gunfire, and turns on very variation on the "Survivor" show in anticipation of seeing people humiliated. I don't do any of those things and if any of my friends do them, they're ashamed enough of it not to mention it to me.

I do understand that millions of people are like that, or those shows wouldn't continue to draw huge ratings and those media outlets wouldn't continue to draw millions of viewers/readers.

I'm tired of all of those people, too.

Which just goes to prove, once again, that if you spend too much time wallowing in negativity, it's going to color your world. I'm considering going on a one-week campaign to link to and discuss nothing but good news. Or at least to stories about people honestly trying to do well.

In the meantime, I'm taking a very dim view of the future of humanity and whoever it is who emptied the building's junk food machine of all the chocolate is going at the top of my list.

Posted by AnneZook at 04:43 PM | Comments (1)
White House Inc. Employee Handbook (Wooden, Bradley, Devore, Harper)

I adore reading humor It takes talent to write humor, particularly parody. Don't let the deceptive simplicity of Dave Barry's prose fool you. It's not as easy as it looks and it takes a lot more talent to translate a knack for satirical paragraphs into a sustained, book-length treatment of a topic than most people suspect.

I didn't find much evidence of that kind of talent in the pages of this book.

Jokes that might have been funny as stand-alone gags on a website or in a column come off as bitter and malicious when you pile them up by the hundreds. Page after page of sarcasm becomes mean-spirited and petty if you don't leaven the 'humor' with some more solid content.

Anyone who doesn't already agree with the authors isn't going to change their mind reading this and a lot of people who do agree with the authors may be made uncomfortable by the relentlessly bitter, angry tone.

The book reads like a series of in-jokes between the rabid followers of a particular point of view. There's almost no context for the opinions and little explanation of why each subject was chosen and why we're supposed to find the authors' jokes on the subject funny.

I even tried treating it the way you would any 'employee handbook.' I looked up topics of interest in the table of contents and read only that information. Still didn't find it funny.

Not recommended unless you're a huge fan of one of their websites and just want their opinions in handy book form.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:58 PM | Comments (0)
Depressing

I can't say that reading this started my day out particularly well.

Maybe I should stop reading the news for a while? There are days when it seems like this country is filled with psychos just waiting to go off the deep end.

Posted by AnneZook at 08:10 AM | Comments (0)
March 31, 2004
Talk, Talk, Talk

I'm glad there's going to be a Left/Liberal talk radio network and I'm not that worried about the inexperience thing. I just wish I could hear it in Denver.

But if it fails, I predict it will fail because the Talking Left can't offer what the Talking Right has to offer.

Right-wing radio boasts racism, sexism, and bigotry, all packaged up in emotionally charged rhetoric that pretends the listener is in some way superior to all of "them".

(Amazingly rude paragraph about the fear-based mentality and emotional immaturity of right-wing extremist supporters removed from this spot. No charge for the self-censorship. A loser is a loser, in any decade and these listeners are cannon fodder for the extreme Right. They either don't know that, or don't care.)

All the Left can offer is a desire to openly debate the issues and to come to a mutual understanding that benefits the most possible people. It doesn't quite offer the same excitement, does it?

In a nation of adults, it would be enough, but we seem to be a national of emotionally and mentally stunted adolescents. Not, you know, as a majority of the people, but as a majority of the people who bother to speak out.

There are a few voices developing on the Left who can match the Right's media voices in wild rhetoric and outlandish accusations (not that I'm saying that's a good thing), but it doesn't seem to come naturally to the Left.

I don't know. People seem to feel that right-wing talk radio needs to be countered, but I'm not sure.

Let's be serious. How many real people listen to that stuff? I mean, sure, granted, there's a core of (searching for polite words here) disgruntled misfits dying to be told that they're really, really special, but outside of them, is anyone who has a mind to think with and the sense to honestly weigh two opinions a regular listener of hate radio?

Okay, now that I've pretty much offended everyone, let me point out that I'm saying "right-wing radio" on purpose. That's so as to distinguish it from "conservative talk radio" which is not hate programming.

Conservative talk radio includes a fair amount of religion. You know. God stuff. I understand there's a lot of programming around that that will please you if you're Protestant.

And then there's the more rational stuff, the political programs with Conservative commentators and the news programs with Conservative biases. These are perfectly acceptable fare and they're quite different from what I mean when I talk about "right-wing radio."

But let's face it, the "reputation" of Conservative talk radio, such as it is, is based on the Right-wing programs. You don't get one without the other because it's the extremist programs that draw in the audiences. Without them, the rest of the Conservative programs aren't likely to be robust enough to support an entire network.

(Side note. Are UsofA citizens so apolitical because they don't care or are they apolitical because the media started telling them they were apolitical, so they quit trying to make an individual difference?)

A couple of conservatives weigh in on the Left's radio network. They avoid discussing right-wing talk radio's more extreme programs, they just say that radio is no place for nuances, you have to be passionate and take an absolute stance. It's a sort of coded way of saying just what I said, but a reputable newspaper isn't going to print your column if you say that hate sells.

Anyhow. I find myself wondering if the bit about nuances being out of place on the airwaves is really true.

After all, we're the "intellectuals" aren't we? Maybe the willingness to consider nuances isn't a drawback? Maybe the Right's experience of listeners mainly interested in simplistic, one-syllable ranting, isn't really applicable to the Left?

Couldn't it be that a more rational, reasonable approach is likely to draw a wider audience, whether "liberal" or "middle of the road" or even "moderate conservative"?

I don't think the "voter base" for each party, as they describe it in the column, is particularly relevant, by the way. There's a bit of apples and oranges going on and in any case, the Left tends to be more individualistic and less inclined to become part of a herd than the Right. (I'm dismissive and condescending today, aren't I?)

And the Left does vote. More people voted for Gore than for Bush in 2000. The DNC's list of donors may have shrunk, but I don't think that means the majority of voters aren't going to be dancing to the Left in November.

Anyhow. To get back to my point and I did sort of have one, I don't know if talk radio will work for the Left. I don't see inexperience or funding as the big problem, either.

I see the big problem being that we need to accept that there are few in power on the Right who are open to compromise or negotiation on the issues we feel most strongly about, so it's time we all stopped asking to sit down at the table together.

It's time the Left, Democrat, Progressive, Green, and the rest of us, came up with its own solutions to these problems and started explaining them…maybe via talk radio…to everyone they can get to listen. It's up to the Left to actually present some viable solutions to what we consider the country's problems.

(The "moderate middle" is bigger than either party but if most of them cared enough to care deeply about anything, they'd be on the Left or the Right, and not in the middle of the road waiting to get run over by an oil tanker.)

Posted by AnneZook at 01:21 PM | Comments (2)
Headlines and Stuff

Contrary to what "resistance fighters" or whatever they call themselves in Iraq might believe, things like this don't make me (or, I'd imagine, most of us) think we should bail out on Iraq. They're not speeding up the process of bringing security to the country, either, so the end result of their behavior is to prolong the occupation they say they oppose.

A conference just opened in Berlin to encourage countries to aid in rebuilding Afghanistan so that it doesn't fall back into the hands of criminals and druglords. From what I understand, large parts of the country have not yet been removed from those hands (the BBC has a lot of good info), so this might be a tad premature, but I applaud the continued commitment.

An oil company is in trouble. Who'd have thought?

OPEC is cutting oil production by 4%. I paid $1.99 to fill up the other day and there's at least one place in Denver where gas is at $2.15. I'm just saying. Those living on the edge of poverty and homelessness are going to be in big trouble.

Defecting and telling the world that your home country is engaged in human rights abuses around weapons development is a good thing, but you have to use some sense. Defecting to China, for instance, probably isn't wise. They might send you back to face the music.

Speaking of facing the music, to what extent are Republicans becoming disenchanted with the Bush Admininstration's spending?

Soldiers departing for Iraq should stop worrying about body armor. The army says it has armor for them and soldiers will be issued the armor before they're in any danger in Iraq.

Molly Ivins thinks Bush might lose in November because of. . . birds.

And the debate continues over whether jokes about WMD, from the man who sent soldiers off to die to find them, are appropriate or not. (I know I argued that the jokes weren't so much evil as just stupid, but I admit that if someone I loved had died in that search, I'd be livid right now.)

Space should be a weapons-free zone. Period.

And freedom of the press has to be honored, no matter what the press is saying about you.

I'm sorry, but in what alternate reality does a restaurant employee actually believe they have the legal right to strip-search a customer?

How To Keep A Big Secret

Posted by AnneZook at 09:42 AM | Comments (8)
March 30, 2004
Surfing the Headlines

By the way, before I forget, I heard on NPR* yesterday that Condaleeza Rice's story that she wasn't going to testify publicly because no one in her job ever did, was untrue. First, she was talking about testifying before Congress, which isn't the same as testifying before the presidentially appointed commission. Second, it's happened twice before. During the Carter and Clinton Administrations, the National Security Advisers testified publicly. So she was just, you know. Mistaken or something.

(*Also, a few weeks ago, I heard a story about a guy who has invented a gizmo to let rifles shoot around corners. But it's okay. As he explained, the device is expensive, so he's just sure criminals won't be able to afford it while our police and military will.)

What do I think about Rice? I suspect it was a shell game. The media jumped on the Rice story and suddenly no one was discussing Bush's insistence on a closed-door, one-hour session with just a few commission members any more. I think Rice was the sacrificial goat. Others might be coming to the same conclusion.

Elsewhere in the world, people are still finding the James Yee story troubling. As am I.

People are finding the whole military tribunals process troubling, too.

And I'm sorry, but I find barring someone from speaking their native language just ridiculous. Could we be making ourselves look any more helpless and inept? (I wonder if the military, and the Bush Administration, ever stop to regret the homophobia that made them bar the few Arabic speaking translators they might have been able to use in Guantanamo?)

On the other hand, I hardly think an editorial investigation, no matter how rigorous, compares to Guantanamo Bay and that is exactly the kind of over-the-top, inappropriate rhetoric that drives me nuts in the press. (On the other hand, I can't say I'm impressed by stories of secret investigations, so I'm not supporting the BBC's behavior at the moment.)

Here at home, do you know where your waste goes?

Yes, Presidential Bush the First had a gold mine and if we were really faced with a dominant, liberal media, you'd have heard all about it fifteen years or more ago. But an interview with Greg Palast is always worth reading, so read all of this one. (I'm not saying I blindly believe every word he says, just that he makes me think.) (By the way, did you know that Adolph Hitler owned a large range in Eastern Colorado? Yep, he did.)

How strong is the Taliban in Afghanistan these days?

I'm assuming you already read this but maybe you didn't and so I'm linking to it today.

And let's stick with some more humorous stories.

Silly election facts is one.

And have you read about The Great American Man-Dog Marriage Panic yet?

I totally feel this way much of the time.

Posted by AnneZook at 09:28 AM | Comments (2)
March 29, 2004
Thinking fast

Stories like this make me want to give it all up and go live on a deserted island somewhere.

Of course, so did yesterday's unexpected snowstorm, an unwelcome shock to a city previously basking in the warmth of an early spring.

And what about this?

"I would like to outlaw contraception...contraception is disgusting – people using each other for pleasure." -Joseph Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League

You really can't have a reasonable discussion with someone that disturbed.

I'm disturbed about why this man is at the head of a quasi-serious political group instead of in therapy.

I'm not as worried by the radical appointments. After November, we can hope the new president will accept the resignations of these people.

I don't know if the expansion of NATO will turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing in the long run, but it's oddly moving to me to see these former Soviet satellites as a part of the organization originally formed to oppose the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, Condaleeza Rice says she can't testify in public because no one has ever done it before. She doesn't seem to see herself as a trendsetter. (Mind you, I'm not convinced she should testify, but it's an issue worth considering.)

Also, the Bush re-election campaign thinks it's wrong to politicize the bible but what semantic trickery they use to convince themselves that's not what their guy is doing is a mystery to me.

I told you so. I told you they'd done it in the past. I told you they were probably going to do it again. And now, it seems they're doing it (Anyone who thinks Nader hasn't become a ridiculous pawn in national politics, think again.)

And now, I must start my hour-long drive to my two-hour training session before I make the one-hour drive back to the office and, in passing, let me thank the dimwit who scheduled this in the middle of the day, forcing me to miss lunch and spend half the day in my car. Let me know if I can do the same for you one day.

Posted by AnneZook at 09:13 AM | Comments (1)