Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/week_2005_05_15.php on line 23

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/week_2005_05_15.php on line 23
May 19, 2005
Until We Meet Again

Did I mention that I'm leaving town again?

A friend is scooping up her college degree this weekend and I'm off to the East Coast to applaud at the appropriate moments. I'll be gone from Friday through Tuesday.

On a whim, I've decided to travel sans computer. I'll probably go through blogging withdrawal, but I've been talking too much recently anyhow.

Try to get the mess cleaned up before I get home this time, okay?

Posted by AnneZook at 07:32 PM | Comments (2)
Other Headlines On A Thursday

Give 'em hell, Harry. He's taking on Bush and the Congressional Republicans. Frist is laying out some lame claim that not voting on extremist judges (regardless of race) is akin to fighting against equal rights for all races.

You're in good hands with Allstate...unless you make a claim.

Lovell Estell III is missing the point. We can't divide the people who use the N-word into bigots and non-bigots, into "dangerous to their fellow citizens" and "merely insensitive."

We want to eliminate racism if we can, eliminate the habit of judging people's capabilities by their skin color. We aren't (and should not be) the thought police. All we can do is create a society sensitive to bigotry and firmly opposed to it. Words matter. These are the sort of lessons we hope the next generation are taking to heart, even if unconsciously. Some things are wrong.

It's a sort of "moral values" thing.

I'm just a teensy bit annoyed that the mess we helped create in Haiti has dropped off the USofA public's radar. If you care, the page with the BBC's story on it has the usual links to recent news and in-depth background.

An hour ago, I'd never even heard of Myanmar and now I find out it's one of those places I should be worrying about.

And, speaking of places I'm worrying about, I read that Zimbabwe's Mugabe has finally said he'll accept food aid.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It was a lot easier to roll out of bed in the morning and face the world with a smile before I clearly saw what a mess the world is in. We are sorry animals indeed.

Health care. When should an employer's health policy cover a former employee?

For those looking for statistics, the NYTimes has an Op-Ed Chart comparing judicial nominees confirmations for the last 11 presidents.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:31 PM | Comments (4)
Wars, Prisoners, and Soldiers

I'm not sure it's precisely a smoking gun, but it sure is proving that pulling the trigger was never something we had any real input on. You think Bush will ever ever answer that letter? (I used to assume that the MSM didn't pick up stories like this because they knew something about them that we didn't. Now I just think they're frightened and irresponsible.)

Report: Muslim World Largely Anti-American. Some people are such ingrates. We've been killing Muslims for years now, to show them how cool freedom is. They don't seem to appreciate it at all.

The Newsweek thing. Colorado's Boulder Daily Camera gets to the heart of it. By focusing on Newsweek, we're all allowing the main issue, abuse and torture of prisoners in USofA hands to be lost.

From prisoner abuse to...child abuse, the military is under the microscope again. I'm waiting for the rest of the evidence to come in. I don't assume someone in the military is automatically more likely to turn into a child abuser. I'm more inclined to wonder if the increased abuse isn't, instead, a factor of the percentage of "displaced" and otherwise dysfunctional recruits the military accepts. There are a lot of problems around maintaining a huge standing army, especially in today's world.

And, speaking of armies, I haven't said a lot about this but that's not because I don't have an opinion.

I think if women are in the military, they should be treated like any other recruit. I don't approve of "reserving" non-combat jobs to keep women off the front line and I think it's insult to the women who have already trained and are already fighting alongside men to pass a law now to say they don't belong in the thick of things. They, like their male counterparts, signed up to be in the military. They can do the job. (The world moves fast today. They're backing off on the ban before I could even blog it. But it's still unequal treatment.)

(None of this, in my mind, contradicts my stance that the military needs to do something about the culture of silence around the number of rapes in the military. Contrary to what some of y'all might think, I don't believe men, even young ones, are mindless animals. The military has simply not adapted to the presence of women. They opened their ranks, but "adapting" takes more than that. You have to make cultural changes.)

Does anyone care that six people working on an anti-drug project in poppy-covered Afghanistan have died? It annoys me that no one talks about Afghanistan. You know how I feel. I think we were in such a hurry to go kill Iraqis that we didn’t finish the job in Afghanistan. The token military force we left there is doing the best they can. Many Afghans of good intent are doing what they can. A little attention from the rest of us might make all the difference in the world.

Today's well, duh entry from Iraq:

One senior officer suggested Wednesday that U.S. military involvement could last "many years."

You know, I'm pretty sure some of us non-military, non-experts, as well as some of us amateur-but-expert civilian types said that we'd have to say for years. In fact, we said it repeatedly, when we were trying to explain the consequences of invading Iraq to the general and poorly informed public. (The problem with blogging is that you spend 65% of your time preaching to the choir, 30% of your time fighting spam, and 5% of your time talking into a void.)

Posted by AnneZook at 10:15 AM | Comments (1)
May 18, 2005
Fili-THIS, Buster

I don't agree with Bradford Plumer at MoJo's blog. I don't think a compromise is a good plan. The public does not support changing the Senate's rules. These candidates are wingnuts who do not belong on the federal judiciary.

But there's more.

At any rate, Bush's picks for the lower and appellate courts are, to some extent, less important, since those judges are more or less constrained by precedent from the Supreme Court (although they're still important!).

As I think some of Bush's nominees (read: Owens, the woman who smugly ruled that labor laws about providing bathroom facilities for workers didn't say that workers had the right to use those facilities.) have amply demonstrated in the past, they'll be more than happy to distort any law or ruling that they don't agree with. Even when it fractures common sense. Or when someone's life is at stake. Or when it makes them look like a complete lunatic.

The Bush Administration has gotten a lot of judicial nominees approved. Thanks to the Republican Congress stonewalling Clinton's nominees, there were plenty of vacancies, so the Bush Administration has had a disproportionate influence on the make-up of the federal judiciary already. Enough. Is. Enough. Seven rightwing lunatics are being objected to. The Democrats need to stand fast against them. They've tried again and again to compromise with Republicans under this lunatic Administration and they've failed every time to bring the Right back to sanity.

It needs to stop here and now. (If you agree, why not send that $5 check right away, with a little note? And, since time is short, drop them an e-mail to tell them the check is on its way. With a little note.)

And while you're at it, write a second check and tell the Democrats you oppose renewing those Patriot Act provisions.

If a total of $15 isn't beyond your budget, another $5 with a polite note saying an abusive bully isn't the face we want to present to the world via the United Nations might be a good idea. I think we need to make it clear that we completely oppose John Bolton.

Eugene Robinson disagrees about Bolton (Maybe he's right. Let the Bush Administration stop shooting themselves in the foot and shoot themselves in the head.) but we're on the same side about the judicial nominees. And he goes into more detail on why the seven nominees are unsuitable.

And I completely disagree with Sirota.

I should have known Salazar would be on the train to compromise. What a wasted vote that was. ( called him and filed a complaint.)

I find Dick Morris's column condescending, arrogant, and a pretty darned good illustration of some of what's wrong with the Right. To dismiss a judicial nominee for Mississippi as some kind of second-class matter that no one cares about is bigoted. The country will, you understand, become "disgusted" that Democrats care so deeply about what happens in Mississippi. (The clear inference being that Mississippi is some low-rent district that doesn't matter to anyone.) Referring to pro-Civil Rights legislators as a "gang" is incredibly offensive. He also blew my mind by claiming that Clinton "forced" Republicans to shut down the government in the 90s.

Bring it on, Dick. Let's have an old-style filibuster, complete with cameras. Bring out Priscilla Owens and let's let the Democrats stand up in front of the nation, and the world, and read and discuss a list of her rulings, including her history with the Bush Administration. We'll see who the country is "disgusted" with after that.

Posted by AnneZook at 10:02 PM | Comments (0)
Other Topics

Is making the Patriot Act worse on the Radical Right's agenda?

Looks like Italy's price for participating in the "coalition of the willing" was an oil deal.

The budget. A bipartisan mess? (Thanks to Cursor.)

Eric Alterman didn't write or publish anything today that you don't really, really need to read, including discussing this speech.

I agree with Michael Bérubé. All else being equal, the Republicans are going to try and stay with the Bush family in '08.

Quote of the day, via Progressive Democrats of America:

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” -- President Dwight Eisenhower, Republican
Posted by AnneZook at 08:30 PM | Comments (0)
My World View
You scored as Existentialist. Existentialism emphasizes human capability. There is no greater power interfering with life and thus it is up to us to make things happen. Sometimes considered a negative and depressing world view, your optimism towards human accomplishment is immense. Mankind is condemned to be free and must accept the responsibility.







Cultural Creative










What's your World View? created with QuizFarm.com

Posted by AnneZook at 07:03 PM | Comments (4)
Variously Crazy

Republican talking points. Organized lunacy. (I thought newspapers were going to start paying more attention to this kind of scamming?)

(I'm going to miss Krugman when his column goes behind "the wall.")

Over at The American Street, Mary Ratcliff is asking if us NPR supporters are still planning to subscribe this year, based on possible threats of moving the whole Public Broadcasting Corporation to the Right. My answer? I'm going to send a check (I usually donate on-line) with a letter explaining that I support NPR as it is today, even though, on the average, NPR news programs cite more conservative sources than liberal ones. And I'm going to copy the main office of NPR, as well as Corporation for Public Broadcasting on the letter* and point out that since only 14.9% of CPB's budget comes from the government, they're a minority stakeholder and are not entitled to make unilateral decisions about the future of the Corporation.

US 'Backed Illegal Iraqi Oil Deals'. Well, duh.

I'm bemused by the Radial Right's support of Big Brother's ID card. You'd think those small-government, personal freedom, libertarian, and other Git offa my land! types would have been raising hell by now. This is overkill beyond overkill when it comes to "fighting terror." It's invasive. Obnoxious. Expensive. Sure to be abused. Doomed to failure.

We need a little outrage in the world o'blog, people. Where's the outrage? (Okay, there may be outrage. My daily reading list may have climbed to 116 blogs, but that's still just a fraction of what's out there.)

There is no good reason for the government of a free country to implement something like this. There's no possible way it could be of use in "fighting terror" and, like registered guns, criminals won't bother, so the only people getting the shaft are taxpayers...on both ends, as we're forced to pay for this ridiculous and unworkable piece of fascist garbage. What's next? Color-coded armbands?

Following the most basic adage of politics (Follow. The. Money.) I'm waiting to hear just who is getting paid for this one.

(I am loving these stories about Galloway taking on the Senate. The more details I hear, the better it sounds. Unfortunately, I haven't found a video clip compatible with the software on my laptop yet.)

Let's hear it for librarians for a free society. Don't mess with librarians. People who live among books are inclined to think about what's in them.

Hey, you Liberal Weenies! What happened? (Okay, the wingnuts may be buying the books but, seriously, how many of them are actually reading them?)

635 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20001

Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Attn: Executive VP & Senior Advisor to the President
401 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2129

Posted by AnneZook at 07:47 AM | Comments (0)
Iraq, Oil, Bush

George Galloway, British MP and apparent street-fighter took on the USofA Senate, told them what was wrong with their reasoning, their case, and their intelligence, and walked out standing tall.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people have paid with their lives -- 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies," he said.

You go, George!

We're trying just a little too hard to find someone...anyone guilty who lives outside the USofA. Wouldn't want the USofA national media spending too much time on stories like these, after all.

And lookit this. Anyone still think Bush wasn't going to invade Iraq no matter what?

Posted by AnneZook at 07:04 AM | Comments (1)
May 17, 2005
The Liberals Are Coming!

I know some people are terrified that if the Democratic Party coaxes the Liberals back in, all of the "moderate" voters will run to the Right, but that's just silly. You've let yourselves be brainwashed by the Right's false advertising.

Liberals aren't scary. They want clean air, clean water, and clean food. They want good schools, oversight of corporate shenanigans,a government no bigger than it has to be, worker protection, and a balanced budget.

Liberals do not want the military to have to hold a bake sale to build a bomber. They do want that military used when WeThePeople want it used. Liberals don't want their children, or anyone else's, sent off to die unless it's our last resort.

Liberals want more money spent on sustainable, renewable energy sources than on committing wholesale slaughter to retain access to Middle-East oil.

Liberals want Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, and other religions to have freedom to worship in their own way. They want those who don't choose to worship to have the freedom not to do so.

Liberals want a social and public setting that doesn't discriminate by posting the 10 Commandments on a public building, to the affront of Hindus, or putting "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to the affront of atheists.

Liberals want city streets that any citizen can walk down without undue fear of crime or false arrest. And that includes women, children, people with brown skin, and people whose consenting adult sex partners are no one's business but their own.

Liberals want tolerance.

Liberals understand that variety is not only 'the spice of life', it's the strength of our country. Liberals understand that democracy is not homogenous.

Liberals want honest science, untainted by superstition, personal crusades, or politicking.

Liberals want an honest (not a Leftist) judiciary. Liberals want a penal system that pours more money into rehabilitation than it does into bleak, concrete cells used for solitary confinement.

Liberals want a fair tax system that gives a little break to those who have-not by taking a little extra from those who have-a-lot. They want a government that offers a helping hand to those who have no other way to climb out of poverty. They want a country where everyone understands that economic opportunity is the best crime-fighting tool available.

Liberals want a country where more money is spent on education than on bullets. Where good teachers are cherished and supported.

Liberals want a country where more money is spent on social programs than on prisons. Where we try harder to keep people out of prison than we do to pass more and more laws to send them there.

Liberals want a country where funding is higher for health care than for nuclear weapons. A country where the Department of Defense doesn't work with game designers to produce ever-more violent games to warp the next generation into high-tech soldiers.

Liberals want a country where the future isn't being seen through the crosshairs.

I'm sure there's more, but those are the main, and obvious things. I can't see that there's much there that most people would find scary. Clean environment, safe food supply, good education, lower crime rate, oversight of corporate and government activities, economic opportunity, and fewer young people dying in multi-billion dollar wars.

What's to be afraid of?

Posted by AnneZook at 06:06 PM | Comments (8)
What's the Problem?

I wonder what's wrong with people, anyhow? Are we all really this cynical, or is everyone really just too worried about making it home quickly through rush-hour traffic to understand how federal policies affect them?

Speaking from my own memories of those long years when I was largely apolitical, I'd say it's both.

People are cynical. They've come to look on fraud, lies, and corruption from government as a matter of course. Today's generation had Vietnam, Richard Nixon, Iran-Contra, and Ronald Reagan. They're quite used to hearing they're being led by corrupt and dishonest politicians.

And they're largely indifferent to things that happen in D.C. Maybe because of those years of fraud and lies.

As I think I said before, I have a friend for whom it's always culture shock to visit any part of the USofA west of the Appalachians. She comes from the DC-MD area and where she lives, the doings of the federal government occupy the news every day, all day. When she comes out West, she complains that it's as if Washington barely exists. She can't find what she thinks of as "the news" anywhere.

So...do people west of Virginia not know or care about DC, so the regional media doesn't bother to cover it?

Or do people west of Virginia not know or care about DC because the regional media doesn't bother to cover it?

Granted, understanding the ins and outs of our Federal government is complicated. Is it the news media's responsibility to give us enough facts to educate us, or is it our responsibility to demand the facts so we can understand what's going on?

What came first? The media's censorship or our apathy?

I'm afraid the truth has to be Door #2. The media will cover whatever sells newspapers and gets viewers to turn to their channel on the television. If they're not covering the Feds, it's because the audience isn't interested.

So...when did we become uninterested? Was it, again, Vietnam and Nixon? Did people my age and those just a few years older "tune out" because they learned to distrust the federal government then and the Reagan years only confirmed our contempt?

If we'd gotten an honest, principled, straightforward administration in the 80s instead of the Iran-Contra Boys and Supply-Side Economists, would my generation have eased themselves back into the fold and tentatively reached out to be a part of the political process again?

Are we now so far out of the foreign policy and domestic situation that few of us have either the time or the inclination to try and pick up the threads?

I know I've spent three years on this political blog. During that time it's been a lot of work to go back and learn what happened during the years I was napping. It's been hard to pull together the threads, difficult to remember major events in the climate of the times in which they occurred. And I know I have a lot more time to spend on figure out what's been going on in the last 25 years than 90% of my contemporaries have. Expecting more than one in a million to do this isn't reasonable.

And yet, you do have to pay attention, to all of the major points of view. Opinions formed from listening to one side of the story are like opinions formed in a vacuum, neither balanced nor sensible.

So how do we convince them, that majority of the population who are some kind of Democrat, from "conservative democrat" to "liberal" to step back in and make their voices felt?

How do we explain to them that if we stand up to be counted, Democrat politicians, like any other, will court the voter base they can see?

Or, as the so-called Party leadership is thinking, do they start by restructuring the Party and hope they get it right and then all of those voters will come back on their own?

I have a lot of questions. If I were smarter, I might also have some answers.

I guess the best thing I can suggest is that we do both. Politicians know the "political reality" of how things work in Washington. Voters know what they care about. Everyone has to stand up and state their position.

Then the politicians can work to help us create the country we want to live in. (We can find different politicians. They'd have a harder time finding a new continent of different voters.)

Posted by AnneZook at 01:37 PM | Comments (0)

Just so we're clear on this, we do all understand that this guy Fred Phelps is crazy, right?

You know the guy. Fred "You can't preach the Bible without preaching hatred" Phelps. Disbarred lawyer, former drug addict, wife and child abuser, raving bigot, and all that?

When he finally loses it completely and starts wrapping his skull in tinfoil, they'll be able to lock him up for his own safety. Unfortunately, until that time, the current climate in this country means he can roam around becoming ever-more dangerous not only to himself but to everyone around him.

The worst of it seems to be how Fred "God doesn't hate them because they're fags; they're fags because God hates them" Phelps infects others with his madness, ratcheting up their own uneasiness to paranoid levels.

“People are upset. The paper that was submitted for approval had nothing to do with women in history. It had nothing to do with the intention of the assignment. But their view seems to be that she's gay and she's a woman in history. That (decision) speaks for itself.”

(The problem with human beings is that craziness is contagious.)

Under Florida's new state laws, the father of the little girl who wrote the essay could probably defend shooting Phelps down on the street. He's certainly likely to be a danger to this child.

Loudly and incessantly, he's a part of the new religious Right. The face of its extreme, maybe, but he's part of the spirit of hate pervading some parts of this country.

Fag Jew Nazis are worse than ordinary Nazis. They've had more experience. Jews stirred up the Romans to butcher 6 million Christians in the catacombs in the 1st century. The First Holocaust was a Jewish Holocaust against Christians. The latest Holocaust is by Topeka Jews against WBC.

Normally I say I'm not in favor of hate-crime laws because you really can't regulate what people think, but when I read this man's words, I'm inclined to change my mind. There are too many weak-minded, easily led people in our society only too eager to find a tangible enemy to blame the for the failure of their own lives.

The man sent a letter of support to Saddam Hussein. Why isn't he under investigation for being a possibly terrorist? Innocent bystanders who never did anything wrong in their lives except get born with brown skin find themselves under investigation these days but not Phelps. He's a white guy and talks about the bible a lot, so he's safe.

Admittedly, the Liberal in me reads about this man and understands that he's sick. He's got deep and traumatic mental problems that should have him in treatment and off the streets, but you're not allowed to lock people up for being that kind of crazy.

He's a monster. He beat the hell out of his children for years and no one cared. He walks the streets of this country preaching hate and advocating violence against people because of their ethnicity or their sexual orientation.

If he'd fixated on any group but homosexuals, he'd be in jail. For what he says about Jewish people, he'd be in court every day of his life, defending himself against charges of inciting violence (or even genocide) but just because the primary target of his rants are homosexuals, the establishment refuses to take him on.

Posted by AnneZook at 07:06 AM | Comments (3)

Have you read Professor Kim lately?

Read this and this and this.

And, thanks to Prometheus6, I was directed to the NYTimes series on Class In America. (I've bookmarked the How Race Is Lived In America story as well. My to-be-read list is getting out of control.) (Hey, congratulations on the American Street gig!)

Newsweek blinked, but the world o'blog isn't so easily bullied

Charles at Obsidian Wings tries to explain to the Left that we not only can't identify what we stand for, we're making no attempt to "sell" our positions to this country's moderates.

If I knew Steve Clemons, I'd drop him a note and offer to buy him dinner, as long as he's in town. His blog is one of my favorite stops every day. But I don't, so I'd better not act like a stalker. He links to a great editorial from a Denver paper. Subject: John Bolton. (Clemons has been sticking with the Bolton story and I'm assuming y'all read his blog anyhow and have read his past posts.)

And if you read James Wolcott, you may get a frightening sense of what the Bush Administration is up to.

Lauren on education.

cntodd at Majikthise points out that we're not being told about oils spills off the Alaskan coast.

And I'm following the conversation Alterman started on what Liberals believe.

Hugo Schwyzer posts some of the most courageously honest personal posts on the internet. I pick at him sometimes, but I really respect what he's about.

Sometimes I go read Hugo to just reassure myself that the crazies aren't going to win.

I've read this twice. The crazies aren't going to win...unless we keep stumbling over our own feet instead of standing up to them.

Sigh. I'm jealous. My blog isn't this pretty. Granted, I think the ribbed background should not scroll, because it gives a weird strobe effect, but I love the color-fading in the quote boxes and the banner is breathtaking. Maybe I could become a web designer in my spare time?

And do I want to switch to Firefox? I'm probably revealing my stupidity when I say I can't imagine what difference it makes what browser you use, except that I know Netscape users are being left behind.

And now...I have a meeting in fifteen minutes, so I'd better go get ready.

Posted by AnneZook at 06:26 AM | Comments (0)
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 (0)
Mellow Monday

Who's been picking on ABC's The Note? They sound very defensive this morning.

The public relations field seems to suspect that labeling fake news as, well, "fake" will hurt them where it counts.

Speaking of news...well, really, Op-Ed, who knew progressives had a syndicator?

Today, Bill Moyers is The Man.

Exceptionally good news for some cancer patients.

And I know I mentioned the kerfuffle over Microsoft backing out of supporting the Gay Rights bill up north (I sill think the rationale they gave was logical), so in the good news department, Bill Gates just doubled the amount of money he's giving to fight some diseases.

Do you know the Piano Man

And remember when I said that the problem with the "sin tax" approach to healthcare was that once you opened that Pandora's Box, there'd be no end to it? Told you so.

And, speaking of sin, it looks like the new Pope's influence is already contaminating spreading in our society. (Although, to be honest, I agree with the guy quoted in the article. You know the Catholic Church is a repressive, bigoted institution. If you don't like it, leave. There seem to me to be a bazillion other churches, many of whom don't institutionalize bigotry and oppression. Join one of them if you feel you have to have a church. I really can't see the big deal.)

Base Closings Could Harm Pols. Duh..

New Jersey could lose three smaller facilities and see operations scaled back at two more - a net loss of some 3,700 jobs and added pressure for Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine, who is seeking the governorship in November. State Republicans were quick to blame Corzine for the New Jersey installations on the list.

Color me so surprised.


Lawmakers often complained in previous years that politics played a role as the Pentagon compiled its hit list. This year's lineup stands as an equal opportunity cause of political heartburn.

I thought I'd copy that quote, too. Just to be fair. And to keep the mellow going.

I don't know how I feel about the Democratic Party maybe changing their system for primaries. I'll have to wait until I read what more intelligent people think.

Looks like another White House cover-up in action. I read this story carefully and can't find where anyone is saying that the desecration of the Islamic holy book didn't happen.

Things aren't good in Uzbekistan, either, but apparently we're not supporting regime change there because of the oil...ummm...torture...ummm...well, I don't know. Maybe we're claiming the terrorist government is helping us fight terrorists or something.

And the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate.

I don't even know who we are any more. Maybe I never did. I know I've suffered from a rose-colored-glasses view of this country in the past but the extent to which we fail to measure up to my expectations of us appalls me.

This is all harshing my mellow vibe, so I'm going to work.

Posted by AnneZook at 08:00 AM | Comments (0)