media girl tunes in

A new home

2004-11-13T17:27:00.000-07:00

I went and started a new site, mediagirl.org, and figure I may as well be posting there. It's a more open site, utilizing Drupal CMS, which means blogs, articles, forums, etc. I'm still tinkering with the look and feel, but the bones are there. I hope you all will take a look.

The Earth, is it flat or is it round?

2004-11-11T11:05:00.000-07:00

I thought it might be interesting to compare discussion of potentials for election fraud from two media sources yesterday. On Democracy Now, statistician Kathy Dopp discusses the mathematically curious and counterintuitive results of election results in several counties:

A group of mathematicians and statisticians that I'm working with, including people in the Statistics Department and Math Departments at Stanford University and Temple University and all the way over in England, we're planning a comprehensive statistical study of the 2004 election, and we plan to see if we can develop methods to pinpoint counties with large errors in vote counts and provide that evidence for others who would like to do Freedom of Information Act recounts to check our methods, and spend the next year or two uncovering problems with particular voting machine vendors. What we found was that in the touch screen machine counties in Florida, they all showed significantly positive percent changes in votes for both Republicans and Democrats. However, the counties using opt-scan machines of Diebold and EF & S showed significant positive change only for the Republican candidates, and so we hope to have in place by 2006 a system so that by the day or two after an election, we'll have this analysis available to candidates so they can know where to ask for recounts before conceding.

She does not draw any bold conclusions about fraud, but she does point up some causes for concern.

Meanwhile, writer Kim Zetter, in a Wired article titled, "Florida E-Vote Fraud? Unlikely," offers a different spin:

But according to academics, the internet pundits are reading the data out of context. Demographic figures and vote trends over several years show the numbers to be consistent with previous elections. According to University of California at Berkeley political scientist Henry Brady, the Republican vote share has been going up in Florida's rural optical-scan counties for years.

...and this proves optical scanners are reliable and immune to tampering how? To be fair, most of the academics quoted in the article express caution when it comes to drawing any conclusions. But that did not stop Zetter or the Wired editors, who label fraud as "unlikely" and, therefore, not worth thinking about.

Of course, what Zetter ignores altogether is the bigger question of how we ended up with private companies having such an inordinate amount of control over our elections. Radio host Thom Hartman said it best on Democracy Now yesterday:

The fact that of all of the commons, our road systems, the police, the fire, the air, our water, of all of the commons that we administer through our government, the most important of the commons is our government itself. That's what we collectively own, we, the people. That's the thing that's unique about our form of government. And the way that we, you and we the people, administer that commons of the government is through the vote. That's our direct route into the Administration of the commons. How we have set up a situation that we have inserted private for-profit companies into the middle of this process between you and I and our pushing the button or marking the mark, and then these corporations saying to the government, and here's the vote total, this in my mind is just absolutely the ultimate crime.

Hopefully we can address these concerns and reclaim (or perhaps claim for the first time in history) public control and accountability of our elections. But first it will take winning the public debate with the Flat Earth Society, who seem so eager to place election fraud questions into the Area 51 of public consciousness.

Big Bird whitewash

2004-11-10T22:21:00.000-07:00

One would think that after all the well-documented shenanigans on election day, the news media would pay a little attention. Of course, this has been a disappointment, so far. Yet anyone who is paying attention would know that the corporate media is very unlikely to engage in such a story that questions the operations of the establishment.

But when NPR's All Things Considered offers up the incredible whitewash by Pam Fessler, where she does a fair imitation of Karl Rove in dismissing reports of election fraud as so much ignorant misinterpretation of data, and Robert Siegel, who called people concerned about the very integrity of our democracy "conspiracy theorists." Their "sources" for information dismissing these "conspiracy theories"? Election officials! (Who are elected and often are leaders in candidate campaigns.) I'm left wondering: Are they stupid? Or were they bought? (Or pressured?) Probably the latter. It's no secret that Big Bird did indeed turn right under corporate pressures felt all the more after Congressional cuts in funding that began with the Contract on America. Still, it's shocking to see NPR line up with Fox News. (Happy birthday, Big Bird! So sad to see you go so soon!)

Thank goodness (or Goodman) for Democracy Now, who spent some time today (Wednesday) talking with statisticians, reporters and political observers about the irregularities and curious questions that have come to light in these past elections.

Meanwhile, on GE-owned MSNBC, Keith Olberman observes:

The election vote mess is like one of those inflatable clown dolls. You knock it down with your hardest punch, it goes supine, and then bounces back up, in the meantime having moved an inch or two laterally.

The big danger is the misplaced reaction. For example, Molly Ivin's advocacy of the suggestion she saw on Daily Kos that George Soros buy Diebold is hardly the answer. Do we respond to corruption and fraud with more corruption and fraud, albeit with the correct political view? Yes yes, she talks about then placing it into the "public trust." But I don't believe any multi-billionaire is the one to save democracy. It's going to take all of us. I'm a big fan of Molly's writings and humor (and Daily Kos, too, for that matter), but on this one she (and the Kos diarist she cites) struck out with me.

Is that a blip on the radar?

2004-11-08T00:27:00.000-07:00

Late Sunday, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann posted a rather intriguing (to say the least) blog entry that opens with the observation that "no Presidential candidate’s concession speech is legally binding."

This is mentioned because there is a small but blood-curdling set of news stories that right now exists somewhere between the world of investigative journalism, and the world of the Reynolds Wrap Hat. And while the group’s ultimate home remains unclear - so might our election of just a week ago.

He goes on to try to explain why the news media has fallen down on the job so many times in the past few years:

The only reason I differentiate between the blogs and the newspapers is that in the latter, a certain bar of ascertainable, reasonably neutral, fact has to be passed, and has to be approved by a consensus of reporters and editors. The process isn’t flawless (ask Dan Rather) but the next time you read a blog where bald-faced lies are accepted as fact, ask yourself whether we here in cyberspace have yet achieved the reliability of even the mainstream media. In short, a lot gets left out of newspapers, radio, and tv - but what’s left in tends to be, in the words of my old CNN Sports colleague NickCharles, a lead-pipe cinch.

Thus the majority of the media has yet to touch the other stories of Ohio (the amazing Bush Times Ten voting machine in Gahanna) or the sagas of Ohio South: huge margins for Bush in Florida counties in which registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2-1, places where the optical scanning of precinct totals seems to have turned results from perfect matches for the pro-Kerry exit poll data, to Bush sweeps.

This is coming MSNBC (aka GE [F-16 engines, nuclear bomb detonators] + Microsoft [you owe them money, by the way]), hardly a lefty anti-establishment corporate venture. Should be interesting (aggravating) viewing in the news this week.

Pachinko election, continued

2004-11-07T22:46:00.000-07:00

As the saga begins to unfold, it is my sincere hope that Republicans will recognize that potential election fraud is serious issue for all Americans. They would be well advised to recognize that any vote count rigging in the future could go against either party. To take a page from Republican rhetoric: Only people with something to hide would resist a transparent, open, comprehensive audit and evaluation of electronic voting machines.

Gating the internet?

2004-11-07T11:26:00.000-07:00

Some people are concerned that Microsoft may be about to assert IP rights over the internet.. That means claims to TCP/IP, among over 100 alleged patents. That means, in theory, everyone using the internet would have to pay Microsoft a toll. Rather alarming, if true. Something to watch.

A "better internet"

2004-11-06T09:42:00.000-07:00

Something seems to have slipped under the outrage sensors of the active posters at Slashdot, where a post warning about international efforst to control the internet has received little response. The post cites an article by Vinton Cerf where he advocates an open forum of "public policy issues" relating to the internet.

Considering that the internet has provided the means for the most free speech the world has seen, I consider the prospect of governments allying with corporations to restrict and control the internet rather alarming. Already we're seeing AOL ads with people wanting to "make the internet better." Better how? More centralized control. Let's not forget that AOL could serve as something of a model for other ISPs. It's already starting in benign ways. For example, Earthlink is blocking websites that some people may find offensive.

How "family friendly" do we want the world wild web?

Would you trust your money with these things?

2004-11-04T11:41:00.000-07:00

Bev Harris's Black Box Voting, a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit, consumer protection group for elections, has filed the largest Freedom of Information request in the history of the law, to obtain internal computer logs and other documents from 3,000 individual counties and townships. Says BBV:

The central servers are installed on unpatched, open Windows computers and use RAS (Remote Access Server) to connect to the voting machines through telephone lines. Since RAS is not adequately protected, anyone in the world, even terrorists, who can figure out the server's phone number can change vote totals without being detected by observers.

The passwords in many locations are easily guessed, and the access phone numbers can be learned through social engineering or war dialing.

This means the voting machines are virtually no more secure than if you left your laptop at the coffee shop, up and running. If you think there've been no problems before, think again:

The audit log is a computer-generated automatic record similar to the "black box" in an airplane, that automatically records access to the Diebold GEMS central tabulator (unless, of course, you go into it in the clandestine way we demonstrated on September 22 in Washington DC at the National Press club.)

The central tabulator audit log is an FEC-required security feature. The kinds of things it detects are the kinds of things you might see if someone was tampering with the votes: Opening the vote file, previewing and/or printing interim results, altering candidate definitions (a method that can be used to flip votes).

Three hours is missing altogether from the Sept. 14 Washington State primary held six weeks ago.

There's a 30-minute documentary viewable online. Watch it. On the BBV website, there are several documents that make for interesting (and upsetting) reading. There are real reasons for concern.

This is not about sore losers -- this is about making sure that the people's choice really is the people's choice, not a corporation's or a terrorist's choice, so that we the people maintain ownership and control of our own elections in the years to come.

The left forgot what's right

2004-11-03T11:46:00.000-07:00

imsmith responded to my rant about the need for a new Democratic agendaon ofbyandfor.org. It's an interesting response worth reading. I then posted this reponse:

The very assumption that morality = Christianity is what I question. The Dems have bowed to that equation, and allowed themselves to be painted into the left corner. The answer I'm suggesting is not dragging a secular humanist dialogue over to the right, but rather declaring moral rightness of many positions traditionally held by the left.

Reponding (loosely) topic by topic....

Where are the films about teenagers grappling with homosexuality, you ask? They're out there, at film festivals, online here and there. But you won't see them in the mainstream because the right has claimed the moral authority on this topic, and their fear that homosexuality is a choice, like choosing to be vegetarian, drives away any realistic discussion.

Yet traditional appeals to reason are not going to sway public views of homosexuality. Homophobia arises out of fear and sexual insecurity. Jon Stewart captured it well last night: "No more looking at dudes!" But the right's arguments are founded upon erroneous moral assumptions. Nobody really stood up and said, "Homosexuals don't threaten the sanctity of my marriage!" No, the Dems, including John Kerry, hemmed and hawed and tried to bargain their way around a moral position instead of facing it head on.

You're right, the Gay Pride circus doesn't help matters. By parading around in ridiculous costumes, they don't engage in the moral debate, they try to avoid it altogether with ostentatious I-don't-give-a-fuck attitudes, which makes them seem almost like screwy versions of pod people. Maybe they will become more savvy in the coming years. But when I look at gays, I'm no more threatened by them than by those RPG folks who dress up in armour and swing broadswords on the third Saturday of every month. I don't "agree with" or clearly understand homosexuality, but morally I feel they should be free to do what they will. And if they want to be stand-up citizens making lifelong commitments, I think that's great!

You say someone should say birth control is wrong, but it's not the government's job to ban it. I'm sorry, but that is spoken just like a man, someone who never has had to face the implications of unwanted pregnancy. Birth control is a right of women, helping us retain control over our own lives. Personally I don't think that the rights of just over half the American population should be sacrificed in the name of political expedience. Birth control is a moral issue: women are not chattel, women are not baby machines, women are not property of the Catholic Church, and it's time paternalistic attitudes behind such ridiculous positions by the right are questioned and exorcized from the public policy debate.

Regarding guns, I can't say I've heard any concise or compelling arguments either way, except for what Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine: [paraphrasing] Guns themselves aren't the problem. But in our fear-mongering culture, we Americans are just a bit too emotionally unbalanced for it to make sense to have so many guns around.

Having lived in a rural area, though, I understand the desire to "assert my second amendment rights." When you live a 30-minute drive from the nearest police station, out in a country of misogynist hicks, having a gun is a real line of defense. Even the appearance of having a gun provides some measure of security. In case you haven't noticed, 1/3 of all women in this country have been or will be raped in their lifetime. That's 50 million American women who have or will be raped. (Which takes us back to the birth control issue.) Not all of us live on West 72nd Street with 10,000 neighbors around to deter, stop or witness violence done against us.

As for health care, the 900-pound gorilla nobody is talking about is the insurance companies. Everyone talks about rising premiums, but nobody talks about who's raising them. Everyone talks about fears of government control over our health care, but nobody talks about the un-elected corporate control over our health care. The tone was truly set in the '90s, when the CEO of USHealthCare (I believe) merged companies and laid off tons of doctors and nurses. The company's board of directors gave him an $800 million bonus that year -- enough money to pay all those laid off workers for three years. Outrageous? Not to our politicians. Bush scored points in the debate by pointing out the obvious: The problem is that the consumers are not involved in the spending decisions. Ironically his healthcare plan is more of the same: Doctors recommend, insurance companies approve and deny, and patients pay pay pay. But Bush won just for pointing out what we all know.

Should everyone be entitled to health care? I think so. But it's a moral case the Dems never have really made. Universal health care in some form or another has been on the Dem platform since Harry Truman, but they have never won on this issue. Why? I submit that the public still is not convinced of the moral right to health care. It's a case that needs to be made. The problem needs to be clearly pointed out, not with numbers but with implications for everyone -- in self-interest terms and in moral terms. Is it right for a few old men to make millions of dollars at the expense of decent healthcare for the patients? What kind of society denies a child health care? Those are the moral questions.

I'm one of the people not expecting to see any Social Security benefits when I retire. The Dems lost on this one by not pointing out that this is a pay-as-you-go system, not a savings account. Sure, I would love to get a chunk of money to invest for myself; I feel pretty sure I could manage it better than your average knucklehead. But dammit, FICA owes me money! I paid in and I want to get paid, not some shell game solution of privatizing it all. Which companies will get to administer those billions of dollars? I wonder. Is it moral for a few private individuals and private (and even international) companies to profit so greatly from a public policy decision? How do we balance profits against dividends when it comes to a government-mandated program?

The moral issue lost here is the question of the role of government. I'm not for big government, but at least government is moderately answerable to the people -- presumably, that is (but I have many questions about these black box voting machines manufactured, programmed, managed and viciously protected by the lawyers of private corporations). What kind of government do we want? One that regulates the public realm and protects the private realm? Or one that rigs the public realm and regulates the private realm?

It's not a matter of moving towards the center. John Kerry was pretty centrist in his presidential campaign, but it wasn't enough. It's a matter of moral vision and clarity. Most people are voting on that these days, and when they look at the Dems, it's not all that easy to discern what that moral vision might be.

Thanks for responding to my little rant with such a thoughtful reply. I hope this kind of discussion happens inside the Beltway ... and in the homes of Democrats everywhere. I'm an independent, not a registered Democrat, but it sure is sickening to see blow-out after blow-out, where the Dems just seem lost and confused. Looking at the Red Sox, you could see in their faces that they knew who they were, and how good they were. Who are the Democrats? Do they know?

I welcome your comments -- here or at Of, By, andFor.

Pollyanna or Patsy?

2004-11-03T09:21:00.000-07:00

Washington Post writer Robert MacMillian writes:

Polling places across the Washington metropolitan region closed Tuesday night with no sign of the widespread problems with new voting technology that were predicted by some computer scientists and voting rights activists....

With no paper trail, no background checks of the programmers, no way to audit the code, how do we know there were no problems? We don't even know what the machines do! We're prohibited from knowing by claims of proprietary computer code on the part of the manufacturers.

A new Dem agenda

2004-11-03T01:18:00.000-07:00

Whoever officially wins this election -- at this writing, it's technically still a squeaker that could conceivably go either way, though it's looking like Bush's first election to office -- what is clear is that the Republicans owned the political agenda. I'm not talking about Iraq or terrorism, though those were significant issues. What I'm talking about is what got so many people to turn out and vote Republican on Tuesday: values.

It has been a long, meandering slide for the Democrats over the decades since the civil rights era, when the Democratic Party last was pushing the moral agenda forward. Some people point to the election of Ronald Reagan as the watershed moment for the rise of conservatism. For eight years, the Dems were rocked on their heels. But they still had fight. They still debated on values.

In 1988, it all changed. When Michael Dukakis was nominated, at first he seemed a hopeful candidate, the governor of the "Massachusetts Miracle." And George H.W. Bush, with his seeming lack of personality and problems with the "vision thing," seemed vulnerable. But it wasn't to be. One can point to any number of reasons why Dukakis lost the election. But there was one moment when the Democrats lost their hold on morality: When Bush the elder called Dukakis a "Liberal," spitting out the word like an epithet, and Dukakis sputtered and backpedalled and denied it, sounding like a guilty man.

And the Democrats were lost.

Bill Clinton regained the White House for the Democrats only with popular minority votes (in part thanks to Ross Perot), but he won on personality and intelligence. His capable management of the government, working with Congress to balance the budget, won him points. But let's face it, the Democrats suffered yet again on the morality question when he was caught with Monica Lewinsky. (Never mind that the Republicans managed to successfully ignore and quash any talk of George H.W. Bush's sexual escapades, which were well known in Texas society.)

Now, when people talk about morality in politics, they talk about the "sanctity of marriage" and "pro life" stances and getting creationism taught in schools. And nobody in the Democratic Party ever debates these questions on moral terms, or questions why people need an anti-gay-marriage amendment to stop them from turning gay, or why a party advocating small government weighs such importance in establishing government authority over a woman's womb, or why people fear their faith is so weak that government must enforce it.

Today, equal rights for all is not considered a moral question. Graft in government is not considered a moral question. Lying is considered "spin" and is considered morally justified. Educating our children is not considered a moral question. Executing innocent people is not considered a moral question. Killing 100,000 people in Iraq is not considered a moral question. Economic justice and relief for the growing poor population in this country is not considered a moral question. None of these things are considered moral questions. What passes for morality today is intolerance, bigotry, divisiveness -- all expressed in loud voices of outrage and privation.

The Democrats must realize now that they cannot roll over on these issues any more. And they need to realize that the old solutions aren't going to fly, either.

Everyone wants sensible government. What "sensible" means, reasonable minds can disagree. But the Dems have lost the heart of America. Dean knew it. Kucinich knew it. John Kerry seemed to realize it ... but too little, too late.

It's time the Democrats focus not on what's expedient, but on what's right.

To everyone who's choosing not to vote

2004-11-02T10:10:00.000-07:00

My little rant posted on the Slashdot Election Day Discussion, where a lot of wise monkeys expressed stay-at-home intentions and attitudes:

All of you cynics who are refusing to vote, congratulations! You're claiming all the rights of a citizen of Nazi Germany -- i.e., nothing! By staying home, you are doing exactly what many in power want. They want apathy. They want helplessness. Have you noticed that there are concerted efforts by certain parties to prevent people from voting?

The purpose of voting is to provide ballast against special interests. If everyone who could vote actually did vote, imagine the earthshaking implications -- not so much in this election (which I personally still consider EXTREMELY important) but in all elections in the future. If only a few people vote, then the powers only have to pay attention to them ... and not to you. You bitch about government not responding to your interests and needs, and you guarantee it by not voting. You whine about your vote not making a difference, and you prove it by not voting at all.

What can your vote do? Well, for one thing it can cancel out one vote of some dumb ninny who is out there voting against everything you're for (whatever that may be). Sometimes you just do your small part, take out one ninny vote, and you've made a difference.

I imagine many of you will go back to your RPGs and 1st person shooters rather than vote. And you know what? In 4 years you'll pull your heads back out of your backsides and see that the government still isn't doing what you want. And it will be your own doing.

Get your butt out there and vote. If you bothered to register, you must have some inkling of giving a shit. I don't care whom you vote for. (Well, I do, but it's not for me to say.) If everyone who can vote does vote, at least we start to get a government that responds to the people instead of the special interests.

And you guys who really really really really just don't want to bother -- you're the ones who should really motivate and get out there. There are a lot of rabid knuckleheads trying to steal our country. Stand up and be counted. Or sneer your way right into a police state, a welfare state, a fundamentalist state, whatever (it doesn't matter, because you chose not to care).

The promising (yet unpromised) land awaits

2004-11-01T14:28:00.000-07:00

Or: Hope for reasoned discourse

Once this election is over, there will be much navel gazing and hand wringing by the media punditry and party machines, and (I expect) befuddled introspection on the part of news editors in the mainstream media. How could they have been so wrong? How could they have been so clueless?

It doesn't take being a most-minor blogger personality to see that the mainstream media is -- and has been for quite some time -- rather out of touch with the realities of what we Americans think, want and experience in our day-to-day lives. Esconced in their corporate and corporate-sponsored thrones in front of the cameras, they cannot, do not, or simply never have thought to see, the world outside their windows. Like passengers in limousines speeding along freeways elevated and walled off from the neighborhoods they presumably connect, they see glimpses of people, the ones on high ground or briefly visible through gaps in the terrain, but all too often they see only the other cars in traffic -- they see each other -- and draw their conclusions about the world accordingly. They speak of fast lanes and lanes, of racing to milestones, of who's blocking whom and who's getting the honks of other drivers, all the while claiming to speak for the multitudes who live in those neighborhoods they have not seen. They speak out of ignorance, allowing for nothing but certitude, platitudes, and heavy doses of attitudes.

It's rather telling that it takes a comedian to get anyone to even discuss the possibility that the emperor has no clothes. The monkey shows on the networks and cable may make for valuable commercial time, but they don't advance the cause of understanding; they may serve the desires of the political machines who want to keep things simplistic, but they don't serve the needs of the people who elect them.

All this can change, however, when the saying machines realize that the people aren't serving their needs, either. What will they think when all their spin, prognostications, prevarications and pompous posings turn out to have little relevance to the reality out here in the electorate?

Perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps the answer is not in the idiot box, but rather on the desktop, laptop and palmtop. After all, the problem with the tube is that it's not interactive -- which means it's more reactive to its own shadow. Lost on the far end of a one-way cable feed, it has no way to feed back to the source. What an interactive medium like the net offers is feedback.

Discussion.

Debate.

Community.

What this means in the political realm is that the more moderate voices on right, left and center and behind can find traction and be heard.

And be appreciated.

Today you have to go to the more marginal shows on the more marginal channels to hear voices of true progressives, who are for smart and effective government, and true conservatives, who are for small and non-intrusive government (so oversimplify both "sides"). In the mainstream, these voices are lost in the grandiose, self-righteous posing of the reactionary Right and Left. While some of these more moderate (yet no less passionate) voices, especially the progressives, have taken advantage of the net, not all have. But once they do -- and you know they will, eventually, even if they come kicking and screaming -- the very nature of the medium changes the message.

When influential political dialog can happen with an engaged and interacting public on rational terms, where spin cannot easily pose as fact, our politicians win. Our nation wins. We the people win.

It can happen sooner, or it can happen later. (Or, if we let the centralizing forces bull right over us, it might never happen at all.) Each of us can do our part by reaching out and engaging on issues important to us.

But it will take real leaders to take our political discourse firmly into these greener pastures -- especially with the knowledge that this revolution certainly will not be televised.

Where will we find this man or woman?

Will it be you? If not you, then who?

Presidenterminator?

2004-10-29T11:04:00.000-06:00

Arnold Schwarznegger tells CBS News he wants to amend the Constitution so he can be president of the United States. This scary 60 Minutes interview will air oh-so-appropriately on Halloween. In it, he says:

With my way of thinking, you always shoot for the top.

I wonder how calling international leaders "girlie men" will strengthen our leadership of the world.

Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.

2004-10-29T09:46:00.000-06:00

The daily kos offers up this little bit of outrage this morning, found by Sierra Club's John Barry.

Note especially the last line. Just how low will the GOP go?

Draft? Nawwwww!

2004-10-28T21:38:00.000-06:00

If you want to see why so many young people are fired up about the issue of the draft -- why so many Americans are so fired up this election -- you must take a look at this stream of Congressman Tim Ryan's passionate speech in Congress about the Bush Administration, the Iraq War and the possibility of a draft.

9/11 "black boxes" found?

2004-10-28T20:40:00.000-06:00

This Philadelphia Dailey News article claims that 3 of the 4 black boxes of the planes that flew into the WTC were recovered. The Article by Will Bunch says, in part:

Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices - a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes - were ever found in the wreckage.

But New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a recent book -- self-published by several Ground Zero workers -- that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four.

His account is supported by a volunteer, Mike Bellone, whose efforts at Ground Zero have been chronicled in the New York Times and elsewhere. Bellone said assisted DeMasi and the agents and that saw a device that resembling a “black box” in the back of the firefighter’s ATV.

This is one of the aggravations of the internet. Is this really true? Only time will tell. And even the, we can never know for sure?

a pea hits her in the neck

2004-10-28T15:39:00.000-06:00

Big Brother is watching ... and reading blogs, as anniesj discovered. She offers a word to the wise. [slashdot]

Has your computer ever crashed?

2004-10-28T13:45:00.000-06:00

Verified Voting:

ELECTRONIC MISCOUNTS OF VOTES
ARE A FACT - NOT A THEORY

Technologists warn that electronic voting machines are flawed. They say we should "trust but verify." Others disagree. For example Florida's Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore counters technologists' analysis of electronic voting machine flaws with her claim: "It's just a bunch of lies." But Broward County is now unable to comply with Florida law because of the flaws technologists, Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), and many others have pointed out!

Many people are very troubled by the use of uncertified software in recent California elections. Many are concerned about the backgrounds of some programmers and managers who control the secret voting machine software.

Our primary concern is the threat that unverifiable electronic voting poses to elections in the United States. We have been concerned that without a paper record verified by the voter, there would be no way of knowing whether votes were recorded accurately and no way to do a meaningful recount if one is necessary.

Now we are seeing these predicted problems occurring in real elections. We are seeing election results that will remain forever in dispute because an audit was impossible. We are seeing that electronic miscounts of votes is no longer a theory - it's a fact.

What if the miscounts we know of are only the tip of an undetected iceberg of electronic miscounts? They might be. We have no way of knowing.

Let's pass H.R.2239/S.2437.

Verify your vote

2004-10-28T13:39:00.000-06:00

Today's advice from media girl: bookmark this site right now. Elections always have had their ragged edges, but now, in this tight election (or so they tell us), we the people can do something about it.

A Hole in the Heart

2004-10-28T13:01:00.000-06:00

The New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman writes, in "A Hole in the Heart":

American politics is so polarized today that there is no center, only sides. Israeli politics has become divided nearly to the point of civil war. In the Arab-Muslim world, where the moderate center was always a fragile flower, the political moderates are on the defensive everywhere, and moderate Muslim spiritual leaders seem almost nonexistent....

...The Bush-Cheney team bears a big responsibility for this hole because it nakedly exploited 9/11 to push a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate. When U.S. policy makes such a profound lurch to the right, when we start exporting fear instead of hope, the whole center of gravity of the world is affected. Countries reposition themselves in relation to us.....

...When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade.

Read the whole column.

Even Diebold may be better than this

2004-10-27T22:26:00.000-06:00

The American Constitutional Society for Law and Policy Blog has pointed to this nonsensical ballot in Ohio. Note how the numbers for the candidates are not in order. To vote for Bush, you are supposed to punch the red box. Personally I think this could go into the Mensa test.

But wait, there's more! ASCBlog shares a Cincinnati Post report of another Ohio ballot that just happens to be missing John Kerry and John Edwards.

That's not all! The Sixth Circuit Court reversed an Ohio trial court decision that would have guaranteed access to a provisional ballot in Ohio.

Thank goodness for electronic voting machines that never crash, never
have bugs, are always reliable, just like your home computer.

Wal-Mart campaigns for taxpayer subsidy

2004-10-27T13:18:00.000-06:00

At least that's the way I read this: Wal-Mart funds opponents of California ballot measure - Oct. 26, 2004:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Tuesday it will spend $500,000 in a bid to defeat a California ballot measure requiring larger employers to pay for health care coverage for workers.

Wal-Mart (Research), the world's largest retailer, said it got involved in the issue after supporters of the measure, called Proposition 72, featured the company in a television ad campaign.

"The ads attempt to make Wal-Mart a scapegoat, claiming we do not provide affordable health care," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Cynthia Lin said in a statement. "These are outright lies."

The television commercial, which began running last weekend, claims California taxpayers last year paid more than $32 million for health care for Wal-Mart employees "because the company won't provide affordable health coverage."

One doesn't have to be a liberal to recognize that the costs of living are the costs of living, and that low-paying jobs with no benefits end up costing the taxpayers money in terms of uninsured medical care at emergency rooms, often for non-emergency illnesses that would better be managed in clinical care. It's a rather bald assertion that Wal-Mart is costing taxpayers so much, but in this day and age, it seems to be the only way to get any traction with the public. We certaintaly cannot seem to count on the media to explore any of the issues.

Prison space goes up in smoke

2004-10-27T13:04:00.000-06:00

When you consider how much it costs to jail an inmate per year, this seems like a totally outrageous waste of taxpayer money: Marijuana Arrests Set New Record:

The FBI reported today that there were an all-time record 755,186 arrests for marijuana in 2003 -- vastly exceeding the 597,026 arrests for all violent crimes combined. As in past years, the vast majority-88 percent-of marijuana arrests were for simple possession, not sale or manufacture.

The new arrest report comes eight days before voters across the U.S. will consider a variety of measures to reform marijuana laws.

"With marijuana arrests exceeding 750,000 a year, it's safe to say that the drug war isn't preventing people from using marijuana," said Robert Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "It's time to acknowledge this reality by taxing and regulating marijuana. A responsible system of regulation will do a
better job of keeping marijuana away from kids and end the pointless persecution of adults who use marijuana responsibly."

Thanks to Common Dreams for picking this up off the wire.

She goes outside

2004-10-27T01:09:00.000-06:00

Former IRAA CEO Hilary Rosen has seen the light about Creative Commons, it seems, judging by her article in Wired, How I Learned to Love Larry.

Meanwhile, as I have long predicted, the music industry is slowly restructuring itself. Artist contracts are for shorter duration, and every facet of an artist's output is up for negotiation. Indeed, artists have more control than ever before, giving rise to, in some cases, business models with the artists as the central business unit, in effect buying the services of middlemen to execute promotion, recording, and distribution. Increasingly, free use and access are employed to stimulate sales. Prince signed a one-record deal with Sony Music that made sure he could give a copy of his CD to every fan who bought a concert ticket. Pearl Jam left its longtime label to release a live album through its fan club. It has also authorized multiple releases through a bootleg program. The band hires services from the labels, as needed. Given these changes, the industry ought to embrace Creative Commons as an agile partner providing tools for new ways to do business.

It's so refreshing to see someone in the mainstream media admit publicly that they learned something and changed their minds. I'm sure the RIAA tassled loafer boys are plotting their revenge. Maybe they'll go and wrap up her house with CD plastic seals.

Who said it?

2004-10-25T22:21:00.000-06:00

And now it's time to play the quiz game, "Who Said It!" Let's see how savvy of a political observer you are. See if you can identify what politicians said these quotes.

1. It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.

2. We enter [Congress] in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.

3. The [terrorists] have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

4. The most brilliant [spin] technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly . . . it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.

5. We must show them no mercy and no indulgence. This riffraff must be eliminated and destroyed.

6. You just cannot talk humanitarianism when dealing with [terrorists]. [Terrorists] must be defeated.

7. Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

8. Of course people don’t want war. Why should a poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best thing he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?

9. I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

10. Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the [country] as they call it.

11. If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things.

12. The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one.

13. Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

14. Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless.

15. Strength lies not in defense but in attack.

16. How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.

17. Let us never forget the duty, which we have taken upon us.

18. The world will not help, the people must help themselves. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it, we may wage the battle of our life The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty -- of Him who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward.

19. The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.

Answers:

Quotes 1-6: Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda for the German NAZI Party.

Quotes 7-8, Hermann Goering, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich

Quotes 1-19: Adolf Hitler

If you got more than 10 right, you scare me.

Smelling a rat

2004-10-25T19:42:00.000-06:00

From The New York Times -- The Billions: Top Army Official Calls for a Halliburton Inquiry:

he top civilian contracting official for the Army Corps of Engineers, charging that the Army granted the Halliburton Company large contracts for work in Iraq and the Balkans without following rules designed to ensure competition and fair prices to the government, has called for a high-level investigation of what she described as threats to the "integrity of the federal contracting program."

The official, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, said that in at least one case she witnessed, Army officials inappropriately allowed representatives of Halliburton to sit in as they discussed the terms of a contract the company was set to receive.

Her accusations offer the first extended account of arguments that roiled inside the military bureaucracy over contracts with the company.

In an Oct. 21 letter to the acting Army secretary, Ms. Greenhouse said that after her repeated questions about the Halliburton contracts, she was excluded from major decisions to award money and that her job status was threatened.

380 tons

2004-10-25T19:35:00.000-06:00

In case you missed it, here's the memo detailing the "loss."

"Huge" dynamite cache missing in Iraq

2004-10-25T01:08:00.000-06:00

This hit the wires a short while ago. The New York Times' James Glanz, William J. Broad and David E. Sanger write in their article, Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

Emphasis in these excerpts is mine....

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings.

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material, and larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. The other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain.

"This is a high explosives risk, but not necessarily a proliferation risk," one senior Bush administration official said.

Let me get this straight. Here we go in to Iraq ostensibly to nab the weapons of mass destruction, and when we find none we don't even bother to secure conventional weapons? Not even weapons that could be used as components in WMD? Oh boy!

Learn the quirks of your voting machine

2004-10-25T00:57:00.000-06:00

Verifiedvoting.org has The Verifier, a nifty tool where you drill down to your area to find out what kind of machine you will be voting on. You can get a sense of what to expect. If you're facing an electronic voting machine, the site provides linkes to government and corporate sites that explain how the machine works. It could be helpful. Check it out and see what you think.

You vote, the machine decides?

2004-10-25T00:53:00.000-06:00

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's news blog, Deep Links, reports about malfunctioning machines in Texas and New Mexico:

We're hearing that voters in New Mexico and Texas are trying to cast ballots for one candidate but finding that the machine lights up for another. This is happening to people regardless of whom they're voting for; voters who want Bush are getting Kerry and vice versa. Predictably, election officials seem to be blaming voters, claiming that they must have accidentally touched the wrong part of the screen or brushed up against it with their sleeves. But we've witnessed demos of touchscreen e-voting machines, and the machines may have more to do with the problem than voting officials are willing to admit.

Deep Links links to local papers on this appalling story, but then rightly point out that, even if this proves to be voter error, "You shouldn't have to have a surgeon's touch to vote in America."

They urge people to Proof Your Vote. You're the only person who can proof your ballot. Make sure it's right.

The New York Times endorses open source voting machines

2004-10-25T00:50:00.000-06:00

It's really quite staggering. Anyone who has lived in New York knows that the Times is quite the establishment rag -- not quite the liberal rag conservatives like to call it. But here they've caught me (and perhaps a few others) by surprise. In the 10.24.2004 Editorial, the editors said:

Mandatory safeguards, including a paper trail, for electronic voting. Election officials like to say that electronic voting is as secure as it can be, but that is false. Nevada regulators, for example, impose far more stringent checks on slot machines than any state does on electronic voting. Congress should impose much more rigorous safeguards, including a requirement that all computer code be made public. It should require that all electronic machines produce a voter-verified paper trail.

Quite a statement coming from establishment media. Do we dare hope? This issue was batted around on Slashdot just a day ago, and there was a lot of skepticism there expressed by code warriors who questioned how open source code even could be audited fairly, or whether that would do anything for sneaky uploads, wireless interference techniques and other potential problems. Still, I trust the public more than I trust Katherine Harris.

Since the mainstream media won't fact-check it....

2004-10-24T15:38:00.000-06:00

...re Kerry's charges made during the debates that the Bush-led military let Osama Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora, which Bush and Cheney have vehemently denied, I direct you, fair reader, to this Washington Post article from April 2002: "U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight":

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

Washington Post staff writers Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks continue:

In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters. [Army General Tommy R.] Franks did not perceive the setbacks soon enough, some officials said, because he ran the war from Tampa with no commander on the scene above the rank of lieutenant colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until three days into the fighting.. "No one had the big picture," one defense official said.

The Bush administration has never acknowledged that bin Laden slipped through the cordon ostensibly placed around Tora Bora as U.S. aircraft began bombing on Nov. 30. Until now it was not known publicly whether the al Qaeda leader was present on the battlefield.

But inside the government there is little controversy on the subject. Captured al Qaeda fighters, interviewed separately, gave consistent accounts describing an address by bin Laden around Dec. 3 to mujaheddin, or holy warriors, dug into the warren of caves and tunnels built as a redoubt against Soviet invaders in the 1980s. One official said "we had a good piece of sigint," or signals intelligence, confirming those reports.

Of course, the administration refused to admit any mistakes, even with 20/20 hindsight:

In public, the Bush administration acknowledges no regret about its prosecution of Tora Bora. One official spokesman, declining to be named, described questions about the battle as "navel-gazing" and said the national security team is "too busy for that." He added, "We leave that to you guys in the press."

But some policymakers and operational officers spoke in frustrated and even profane terms of what they called an opportunity missed.

"We [messed] up by not getting into Tora Bora sooner and letting the Afghans do all the work," said a senior official with direct responsibilities in counterterrorism. "Clearly a decision point came when we started bombing Tora Bora and we decided just to bomb, because that's when he escaped. . . . We didn't put U.S. forces on the ground, despite all the brave talk, and that is what we have had to change since then."

When al Qaeda forces began concentrating again in February, south of the town of Gardez, Franks moved in thousands of U.S. troops from the 101st Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Division. In the battle of Shahikot in early March -- also known as Operation Anaconda -- the United States let Afghan allies attack first. But when that offensive stalled, American infantry units took it up.

Another change since Tora Bora, with no immediate prospect of finding bin Laden, is that President Bush has stopped proclaiming the goal of taking him "dead or alive" and now avoids previous references to the al Qaeda founder as public enemy number one.

In an interview with The Washington Post in late December, Bush displayed a scorecard of al Qaeda leaders on which he had drawn the letter X through the faces of those thought dead. By last month, Bush began saying that continued public focus on individual terrorists, including bin Laden, meant that "people don't understand the scope of the mission."

"Terror is bigger than one person," Bush said March 14. "He's a person that's now been marginalized." The president said bin Laden had "met his match" and "may even be dead," and added: "I truly am not that concerned about him."

The arrogance of the film artiste (takes one to know one)

2004-10-23T03:46:00.000-06:00

I was a film student, and I was incredibly stupid! But watching for the
first time The
Independent Film Channel's show, "Film School," you get the idea
very clearly: these kids are stupid! (Am I unfair?)

Overambitious schooting schedules. Unrealistic budgets. Silly
arrogance and disregard for the crew members who are there to bleed for
the film, if necessary ... if only they're made to feel appreciated.

Were we all like that in film school? I went to one of the big ones.
And I'm sure we were incredibly full of ourselves. All
the more so because we were at a semi-famous one -- not
#1 by reputation so we had to make up for it in pretentiousness. We all
knew it, too. Oh my. But boy did we have fun! Several of my
classmates have had much greater success than I have so far. Emmy's,
Independent Spirit, Oscars, modest commercial success.

So here I am ranting on a blog while I work on a DVD project.

The most arrogant person in the show tonight, in my view, was Leah.
She's the one with war paint on her face. Yes, war paint. I don't mean
traditional Alphabet City eyeliner. We're talking pink stripes
diagonally across her forehead and cheecks. What-ever!

But you know, she's the only one IFC deigned to show actually directing
the actors. (Note to film students: Don't forget about your actors.
If they aren't real, it doesn't matter of the way kewl crane shot is
smooth.)

Now before the tomatoes start coming my way, I'd like to add that I'm
not so much the pollyanna to think that IFC can, should or actually does
show the reality of what's happening on those sets. They're using the
grit, the conflict, the ego trips, the dramatic moments. Hey, they need
viewership to justify their carry fee to the cable and dish companies,
right? So I'm seeing just a distorted presentation, about as real as
the 7 o'clock news.

But it sure was a nice break from the political hack parade presented by
the cable networks 24/7, with programming for free to attract the
programming for fee. Makes me want to scream like a film student.

Planning a trip? Be sure to check the Rapture forecast first!

2004-10-23T02:13:00.000-06:00

Concerned about Armageddon and having trouble planning your day? Concerned that the destruction of the World Trade Center was actually Biblical? Concerned that God's wrath may begin before the Rapture?

Not to worry! Thanks to the Internet, we have the Rapture Index. Such intangible tragedies like famine, pestilence, ecumenism (!), and the Beast Government have been analyzed, quantified, tallied and indexed into a reliable predictor of just how soon the world will be blown to crap. (Soon. Very soon. It's all there in the numbers.)

In case you're not up to speed on this, perhaps you should consult the discussion of The Rapture Categories:

1. False Christs
(Mat.24:24) Jesus talked about false Christs and false prophets. A
false Christ is anyone who claims to be equal or greater than God.
The realization that an individual is placing himself in the role of
deity is not always easy to discern.

2. Occult
There are two supernatural forces in the universe that are able to
affecting the natural world. God said that prayer was only valid means
of getting his attention, and he forbids using occultic devices. Who
do you think will answers the inquiries using taro cards, astrology,
or psychic phone lines?

* * *

8. Oil Supply/Price
Oil remains an economic and a political issue. We fought The War in
the Gulf because of its strategic importance. The final battle of
Armageddon may also involve a dispute over oil.

* * *

12. Drug Abuse
(Rev. 9:21) Everyone knows what drugs are today. The Bible also may
make mention of drugs. In the book of Revelation the word sorcery
has the Greek word pharmakeia as its root. This is where we get the
word pharmacy. When it says, "they repented not of their sorceries,"
it could mean they repented not of their drug use.

* * *

15. Moral Standards
This is the fabric which holds our society together. When a state of
disorder takes over, strong forces are needed to bring back control.
Civil rights are often the first casualty of this action.

16. Anti-Christian
(2 Tim.3:3) A bias or hatred of the bible believing Christian. The
media is the primary contributor to this category.

17. Crime Rate
An insecure society looks for a strongman. As crime proliferates, it
eats away at the nations moral and economic underpinnings. A nation
with a high crime rate will eventually have less freedom because of
the police state the unrest it brings on. High crime rates originates
from low moral standards.

18. Ecumenism
The movement to join all religions into one. This has been a goal of
the Devil for sometime. By having all religion unified, he could more
easily control their leadership.

19. Globalism
The breaking down of barriers increases the number of alliances, and
it making the world more integrated.

* * *

23. Russia (Gog)
(Eze.38-39) Gog is the ancient name for the land of Russian. In the
last days, Russia will make a move against Israel and be defeated by
a supernatural act of God.

24. Persia (Iran)
(Eze.38:5) Iran will aid Russia in attacking Israel before or during
the tribulation. Even now, Iran acts as a destabilizing force in the
world.

25. False Prophet
(Rev.13:12) The Antichrist will have a religious leader to aid him.
The present or future pope will have some connection because of the
large influence the pope has. The Antichrist and False Prophet will
be headquartered in the same area as of the Old Roman Empire.

* * *

29. Liberalism
It's not just a part of the democratic party. liberalism is what I
would call the "true conspiracy." The liberal media is 100 percent
control by the forces that bow to this humanistic ideology.

30. Peace Process
(Dan.9:27) This refers directly to Bible prophecy, where the state
of Israel signs a peace treaty with the Antichrist.

* * *

33. Beast Government
(Rev.17:12) The Roman Empire will revive under the leadership of Ten
rules. This revived Roman Empire will exist for only 7 years.
(Rev.17:13),(Rev 13:5) After the Roman Empire is revived 3 1/2 years
into a seven year rule, the Antichrist will take over and rule for
the remaining 3 1/2 years.

34. The Antichrist
(Dan.11:36-39) The most evil and destructive man who will ever hold
public office.

35. Date Setting
To create confusion ahead of Christs return, Satan will likely
continue to moviate people into setting dates. By being exposed to
date settings, I've noticed that non-Christians can made hostle to
the end-time message.

* * *

37. Earthquakes
(Mark 13:8) God used earthquakes to show his disapproval with man.
I look for more earthquake activity as the return of Christ draws
near.

* * *

39. Civil Rights
To have a dictator you must have a shortage of this. The time you
least expect your loosing your freedom is when you willingly give
it up.

* * *

43. Climate
(Mat. 24:7) Jesus foretold of an increase in the severity of weather
events as a sign of the end times. The extremities of nature are
difficult to measure. Any activity that goes beyond normal weather
patterns shuld be taken into consideration, whether God has a warning
behind it.

Bill Moyers talked a bit about this in his Address to the Society of Professional Journalists, made on the 9/11 anniversary this year.

These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative millions of people believe to be literally true.

According to this narrative, Jesus will return to earth only when certain conditions are met: when Israel has been established as a state; when Israel then occupies the rest of its “biblical lands;” when the third temple has been rebuilt on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosques; and, then, when legions of the Antichrist attack Israel. This will trigger a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon during which all the Jews who have not converted will be burned. Then the Messiah returns to earth. The Rapture occurs once the big battle begins. True believers” will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation which follow.

I’m not making this up.

And if God isn't bringing Armageddon upon us, we can sure work hard to do it ourselves:

When the President asked Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin in 2002, over one hundred thousand angry Christian fundamentalists barraged the White House with emails and Mr. Bush never mentioned the matter again. Not coincidentally, the administration recently put itself solidly behind Ariel Sharon’s expansions of settlements on the West Banks. In George Monbiot’s analysis, the President stands to lose fewer votes by encouraging Israeli expansion into the West Bank than he stands to lose by restraining it. “He would be mad to listen to these people, but he would also be mad not to.” No wonder Karl Rove walks around the West Wing whistling “Onward Christian Soldiers.” He knows how many votes he is likely to get from these pious folk who believe that the Rapture Index now stands at 144 --- just one point below the critical threshold at which point the prophecy is fulfilled, the whole thing blows, the sky is filled with floating naked bodies, and the true believers wind up at the right hand of God. With no regret for those left behind. (See George Monbiot. The Guardian, April 20th, 2004.)

I know, I know: You think I am bonkers. You think Ann Coulter is right to aim her bony knee at my groin and that O’Reilly should get a Peabody for barfing all over me for saying there’s more to American politics than meets the Foxy eye. But this is just the point: Journalists who try to tell these stories, connect these dots, and examine these links are demeaned, disparaged, and dismissed. This is the very kind of story that illustrates the challenge journalists face in a world driven by ideologies that are stoutly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. Ideologues – religious, political, or editorial ideologues – embrace a world view that cannot be changed because they admit no evidence to the contrary. And Don Quixote on Rocinante tilting at windmills had an easier time of it than a journalist on a laptop tilting with facts at the world’s fundamentalist belief systems.

I'm not worried that they might be right. Actually, God's Rapture would be a favorable scenario to the more secular version, in which we just fuck up so badly we blow the shit out of everything, and -- as Jonathan Schell put it -- leave behind nothing but a republic of cockroaches and grass....

It is as though life itself were one huge distraction, diverting our attention from the peril to life. In its apparent durability, a world menaced with imminent doom is in a way deceptive. It is almost an illusion. Now we are sitting at the breakfast table drinking our coffee and reading the newspaper, but in a moment we may be inside a fireball whose temperature is tens of thousands of degrees. Now we are on our way to work, walking through the city streets, but in a moment we may be standing on an empty plain under a darkened sky looking for the charred remnants of our children. Now we are alive, but in a moment we may be dead. Now there is human life on earth, but in a moment it may be gone.
"The Fate of the Earth"

Bush Signs Corporate Tax Cut -- I'm rich!

2004-10-23T01:43:00.000-06:00

Nothing like hitting the jackpot!Oh my, I can hardly wait! Now my small business can reap huge rewards and stimulate the economy!!

What's that? I have to be profitable to see any gain? How the heck am I supposed to do that in this economy?!

Looks like the big corps weren't too impressed with Bush's economy either. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 107 today. Actually, if you look at these trends, you will see the DJIA popped up when Kerry got a boost, and the market dropped when Bush did. Look at the graphs. I'm not making this up! The correlation is there. One thing nobody talks about is how the current lagging economy started around when Bush won the court decision and was appointed president.

As for causation, I don't know. But it certainly could be concluded from the NYSE figures that the business sector really doesn't feel good about Bush.

See Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan (D) on why people don't trust Bush

2004-10-22T17:39:00.000-06:00

I believe the video speaks for itself.

The other "media girl" ;)

2004-10-22T16:59:00.000-06:00

Creating a handle as pithy, original, distinctive and unique as media girl, I had to figure there'd be others out there. On blogspot, there's a media girl who made one or two posts and left it there, so I couldn't take that domain on blogger. I thought about going elsewhere, but I figured, heck, we're in the 21st century -- I could make a subdomain of a bunch of jibberish, it wouldn't matter since it's so easy to pass hyperlinks. It's not like I need to get a bunch of schmucks watching The Apprentice to remember the URL from a 30-second interstitial.

Anyway, having been up and actively linking and backtracking, I thought I'd ping a couple of search engines. And there I found....

DC Media Girl! I'm delighted to share this 'tudinal chick with you (although she probably has more web traffic). One little tidbit:

Truth be told, I simply don’t understand why Kerry is getting such a ration of grief FOR MAKING A TRUTHFUL OBSERVATION. The Cheneys have two daughters. One is gay. Excuse me, but who didn’t know that? It’s not as if the man outed her, for God’s sake. Mary Cheney did outreach to the gay community on behalf of the Coors company. She’s campaigning for her dad. She’s 35 years old, not a kid. So what’s the beef?

She also makes free use of the f-word. Though you don't see me using it (much) here, I appreciate that. Fuck is my favorite curse word.

British Army Infiltrated by Al-Qaeda

2004-10-22T01:52:00.000-06:00

The Sunday Times - Britain reports:

THE Territorial Army has been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda suspects, giving the Islamic terrorist group potential access to military bases, explosives and fuel dumps.

Five Al-Qaeda suspects are believed to have trained as part-time soldiers with the TA. At least one is now in custody.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed that other terror suspects have attempted to join the TA, but says they were rejected after undergoing security checks.

The connection with Britain’s Al-Qaeda network was uncovered in a series of wide-ranging investigations by MI5 and Scotland Yard’s Special Branch.

It is believed the terrorist suspects may have been taking advantage of military training as well as gaining access to bases and weapons.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory homeland security spokesman and a former army officer, said Al-Qaeda terrorists could use TA passes to penetrate security at key MoD establishments such as the permanent joint headquarters at Northwood in Greater London.

“This could have very serious security implications. Clearly in the war against terror you need to know who your friends are. The last thing we want is the enemy masquerading as our own people,” Mercer said.

Meanwhile, the AP reports the US Army General in charge of Afganistan as saying he has no evidence Osama bin Laden is in day-to-day control of al-Qaeda but suggested the long-absent terrorist leader is alive.

Thanks to Jihad Watch for the heads-up on these stories.

Bush strikes against women's health and equality

2004-10-21T15:24:00.000-06:00

Columbia Tribune: U.S. declines to endorse women’s rights statement:

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan wrote to organizers of the statement that that the United States was committed to the plan of action adopted at a 1994 U.N. conference in Cairo, Egypt, and "to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women’s fullest enjoyment of universal human rights. The United States is unable, however, to endorse the world leaders’ statement" because it "includes the concept of ‘sexual rights,’ a term that has no agreed definition in the international community."

Ryan did not elaborate on the Bush administration’s objections to the phrase "sexual rights," but at past U.N. meetings, U.S. representatives have spoken out against abortion, gay rights and what they see as the promotion of promiscuity by giving condoms to young people to prevent AIDS.

The question is: Did the President and his administration knuckle under to the Vatican? Or does he really believe that men and/or government own a woman's sexual parts?

Either way, I'm disgusted. This country could be doing so much good just by leading.

Why I blog, and why I hold out hope for the future

2004-10-20T22:26:00.000-06:00

Alan Nelson of The Command Post posted Full Text Of My Speech To AP Managing Editors, a wonderfully insightful piece that really says why media girl came into existence. In his speech, he says, in part:

Because information is increasingly transparent, and because many blog readers are mavens passionate about the content, any given blog post doesn’t have just one fact-checker … it has thousands … or in our case, tens of thousands.

Rathergate is a perfect example of this. To recount the history, shortly after 60 minutes ran its story about the Guard memos, and reader of the Free Republic weblog posted a comment doubting their authenticity. Other mavens then started to post about that question on their blogs, and some of the more active bloggers started contacting typographers, others were recreating the memos using Microsoft Word … and all the time they were linking to each other, developing information in real time … remember the law of the fast.

Before long, one blogger even traced the fax number on the memos to the Texas Kinko’s from whence it came … and learned from the manager that Bill Burkett … the ultimate source … had an account.

The Rather story illustrates all of these laws … the information flowed and CBS couldn’t control it … it happened very quickly, faster than CBS could keep up … and connected mavens drove the process as it developed, and ultimately into the mainstream.

But most of all, it illustrates the Law of the Many … that when a marketplace of tens of thousands of people considers a piece of information, the truth inevitably will surface with greater speed and efficiency than when only a few people consider that information … just as surely as an internet-driven a global market for diamond rings or interest rates drives price down and quality up.

It makes me feel good. Yet I still feel some inkling of misgivings about the future. Nearly a year ago, Bill Moyers expressed great hope and praise for the internet. But he also warned about corporate efforts to buy out and control access to the net:

We have to fight to keep the gates to the Internet open to all. The web has enabled many new voices in our democracy – and globally – to be heard: advocacy groups, artists, individuals, non-profit organizations. Just about anyone can speak online, and often with an impact greater than in the days when orators had to climb on soap box in a park. The media industry lobbyists point to the Internet and say it’s why concerns about media concentration are ill founded in an environment where anyone can speak and where there are literally hundreds of competing channels. What those lobbyists for big media don’t tell you is that the traffic patterns of the online world are beginning to resemble those of television and radio. In one study, for example, AOL Time Warner (as it was then known) accounted for nearly a third of all user time spent online. And two others companies – Yahoo and Microsoft – bring that figure to fully 50%. As for the growing number of channels available on today’s cable systems, most are owned by a small handful of companies. Of the ninety-one major networks that appear on most cable systems, 79 are part of such multiple network groups such as Time Warner, Viacom, Liberty Media, NBC, and Disney. In order to program a channel on cable today, you must either be owned by or affiliated with one of the giants. If we’re not vigilant the wide-open spaces of the Internet could be transformed into a system in which a handful of companies use their control over high-speed access to ensure they remain at the top of the digital heap in the broadband era at the expense of the democratic potential of this amazing technology. So we must fight to make sure the Internet remains open to all as the present-day analogue of that many-tongued world of small newspapers so admired by de Tocqueville. [emphasis added]

The pressures between the government and the citizens that purportedly own it are increasing. And we're right here in the thick of it, in the net, in the world of ideas, information and interaction.

Red Socks Win ALCS

2004-10-20T22:04:00.000-06:00

Will Boston's win help give the Kerry campaign momentum?

Of course not!

But you can bet dollars to donuts that more than one media hack will ask this question on television. My money is on Chris Matthews ... although he'll ask it with a wink in his eye. (Of course someone his panel of the moment will respond with sober speculation.)

Winds of Change

2004-10-20T21:48:00.000-06:00

I just stumbled across this site, and found some very interesting and in-depth discussion about the presidential race and how people are taking it. In The No Vote, Cicero says:

It does make me wonder how this will turn out---not the election so much, but the political aftermath regardless of who wins. Because no matter who becomes the president, the divide within America will deepen. Bridges will fall. Turmoil will increase. And our enemies will take full advantage of it.

I wonder if a Kerry win really would lead to a more divided country. Make no mistake, I don't look to him as a savior. But I also don't see him resorting to the sort of divisive rhetoric the Bush Administration and the religious right have employed almost as a rule. Pragmatism does have its uses, and all but the most zealous fundamentalists see the uses of pragmatism, don't they?

I wonder if we're approaching burnout on all this hate invective coming from the right. It can't last. And people can't keep putting up with it. Does John Q. Conservative really give a hoot whether Walter and Bill can get married in Massachusetts?

Right now the "debate" has degenerated into lies and name-calling, and the mainstream media are complicit in this, refusing to stray from horserace coverage to cover any real issues. And you can be pretty sure they never will pull back the screen and reveal the truth behind the Wizard's impressive show.

Where's Toto when you need him?

George Bush comes out worst in Economist poll of academic economists

2004-10-20T17:17:00.000-06:00

It's pretty telling when economists, hardly known for liberalism, prefer a John Kerry administration. According to an Economist poll:

More than 70% of the 56 professors who responded to our survey rate Mr Bush's first-term economic policies as bad or very bad. Fewer than 20% give positive marks to Mr Bush's second-term economic agenda, and almost six out of ten disapproved. Mr Kerry hardly got rave reviews either, but his economic plan still fared better than the president's did. In all, four out of ten professors rated Mr Kerry's economic plan as good or very good, but 27% gave it negative scores.

[pdf of complete poll data]

The article goes on:

The broad condemnation of tax cuts seems to be linked to the professors' worries about America's fiscal health and the looming retirement of the baby-boom generation. Although Americans overall seem relatively unconcerned about the budget deficit, a large majority of the economists rate it as a serious problem for the economy, with almost one in five describing it as a crisis. And they back Mr Kerry by a large margin (79% to 18%) to do more to promote fiscal discipline than Mr Bush.

Okay, confession time: I quite possibly would be a Republican if it weren't for the religious right and social conservatives. I believe in a tight, well-run government. I believe that government should not interfere in the daily lives of its citizens. I believe that the right to privacy is very important. I believe in fiscal responsibility.

But now it seems the Republicans have dumped even that. Now they are fiscally reckless, and save their biggest rhetoric for socially conservative issues, government enforcement of religion, and a wildly militant foreign policy.

AlterNet: The Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket

2004-10-20T14:09:00.000-06:00

Nobody takes responsibility in an election year. From Robert Scheer's AlterNet article today: The Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket:

The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the Congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

'It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed,' an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that 'the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward.'

***

'What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that,' said the intelligence official. 'The report found very senior-level officials responsible.'>

This is incredibly aggravating.

Democracy Now! | God & The Presidency: An In-Depth Examination Of Faith In The Bush White House

2004-10-20T13:11:00.000-06:00

Democracy Now has picked up today on a story covered quite well in a PBS Frontline Special, "The Jesus Factor [watch the whole documentary online] just a few months ago.

In a program entitled God & The Presidency: An In-Depth Examination Of Faith In The Bush White House [transcripts, mp3s & video], Journalist Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Lyalty and a very provocative article in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, talks with Amy Goodman about President Bush's born-again evangelism.

Does he really thing God wants him to be president? Does he really believe we're entering the End Times? After seeing the President twitching, blinking shouting and smirking in the debates, I've become more concerned about his emotional stability. The way he flew off the handle in debate 2, shouting down the moderator and whining angrily in the same note, gave me real concern. This is the guy with the "football" (the nuclear weapons launch control). If he truly thinks that he is the righteous Hand of God on this Earth, and if he has such a violent, unpredictable temper, is the President even Presidential?

"I would like to see the demographic and political breakdown of Kerry and Bush supporters, respectively."

2004-10-20T11:44:00.000-06:00

This is the question everyone is asking, including molly h. in The Regular's "Submit a Question" section. I can't prove this, but I suspect the answer is, "Nobody really knows." Certainly nobody knows in the mainstream media, or if they do they're not telling. Looking at the big stories of the past few months, what networks reported and the quite astonishing images we saw from the streets, presented by the ever-stronger Democracy Now, were presentations of two different realities.

Now let's not overreach. The huge crowds of 500,000 protesters, massive arrests, aggressive police tactics, possible corporate collaboration against the protesters, FBI intimidation tactics, horrifying jail conditions for arrested protesters, felony charges for protesters hanging a banner, prostitutes for delegates and other things that happened in New York in just a couple weeks are not major concerns for your average American.

But how much are we seeing of the average American? These are examples from just one independent news organization on a major event in one city. Aren't these stories news? Why was all this activity glossed over by the mainstream media?

What kind of credibility does the mainstream media have these days? Can we expect the media to tell us what any real demographic breakdown might be in this election? Can we even expect them to be in touch with reality?

Jon Stewart on Crossfire Follow-Up | The Regular

2004-10-20T00:35:00.000-06:00

I thought Tucker Carlson was digging his own hole last Friday, going after Jon as if he were some party hack. In-your-face confrontation, shouting down your guest is not debate. It's not journalism. It just plays into the same old "he said, she said" nonsense that teaches us nothing.

(I showed my mother the stream of Friday's show, and she kept saying about Tucker: "He's so stupid!" My mother's one sharp gal.)

But I guess Tucker's own handwringing follow-up on Monday worked, because now we have iFilm calling Stewart's monologue on Monday "spin," and intelligent people suddenly scratching their chins, thinking that Jon Stewart should make his Comedy Central show -- ("The show is fake!") -- more hard-hitting news-wise.

I don't know. If you ask me, the silly pseudo-news he presents has more Truth than the manufactured product coming out of CNN. (Tonight's bit about the President's speech was hysterical. Let's not discuss the vindaloo, though.)

I just wish more people in media could, or would be willing to, say that the emperor has no clothes. When it comes to politics, we're getting sold a bill of goods. And our news sources are in on the deal.

This land is NOT your land! (Not without permission, anyway)

2004-10-19T21:52:00.000-06:00

Wired's report on Attorney General John Ashcroft's new zealous war on media piracy has me feeling a bit uneasy. It's not that I don't value copyrighted material -- on the contrary, I have copyright material out there, and honestly I really would like to make money on it. But Ashcroft's various corporate allegiances make me suspicious, so when he says, "With the recommendations put forward by the task force, the department is prepared to build the strongest, most aggressive legal assault against intellectual property crime in our nation's history," I get worried.

Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says, "This report shows that they want to use copyright infringement as a mechanism for them to expand the scope of who they can snoop on. That's obviously something that we're very concerned with."

Yeah, no kidding. But don't just take his word for it. Ask the UCLA students who've been put in an electronic quarrantine.

With the Woodie Guthrie estate's recent threats over the alleged theft of his music in Jib Jab's siily political satire, This Land .

Jib Jab's lawyers struck first, asserting fair use rights that, until recently, were universally recognized when it comes to political satire. But what about you or me or the kid with the zits who can't get on the net in Westwood?

Big Hairy Monsters Unite!

2004-10-19T17:19:00.000-06:00

Just when HBO is puckering up to retain control over its contents, the NY Times reports a CNet News feed: Web Radio Gets $1.7 Billion Boost. They're going kicking and screaming, but the various parties in the music industry are starting to sort out how to function in this new online economy.

Still, it's not all smooth sailing yet:

Beyond programming royalties, a number of parties, including consumer groups, electronics companies and record labels, are squaring off in an effort to establish antipiracy standards for digital radio networks. In that debate, the RIAA has asked the Federal Communications Commission for legislation that would prevent listeners from archiving songs downloaded via the Web without paying for them--and from trading recorded songs online.

Have you ever seen War of the Gargantuas? [Rotten Tomatoes] [Stomp Tokyo] Two big ugly hairy monsters fight each other, wrecking much of Tokyo in the process. In the movie, the brown gargantua is good and the green one is bad. Given the age, it could be cheesy metaphor for the Cold War. But now it's a metaphor for the monstrous international conglomerates and big money interests fighting each other, stomping us in the process.

HBO Declares War on Patch Cables

2004-10-19T16:45:00.000-06:00

There was some discussion happening at Slashdot about HBO's brilliant (heh) decision to crack down on bad consumers who might be copying their programming.

What the megacorps don't get is that their whole marketing/sales paradigm is rapidly becoming outmoded.

If you own a mall and play music from the speakers in the mall, you have to pay ASCAP and/or BMI blanket fees to cover royalties for the publishers and artists. It's not a ton of money -- not so much that management is tempted to cheat. It's just not worth the hassle. The same kind of thing is going to have to happen in this digital age, or the whole media economy is going to choke on encrusted '60s-era business mindset placque in the revenue arteries.

Ultimately, if the price is right, people will pay for premium access to premium programming. And if reruns are affordable enough to access, then nobody will bother trying to copy things onto local media.

Alas, it will take a maverick success from the margins, some original thinking by the old white men in the board rooms, or a trainwreck before these monkeys will let go of the cookies in the jar.

Nobody got rich by disempowering the customer ... or not as rich as they might have. The customer is always right, even if wrong.

(As for what this means for the news, well, that's another story. Jon Stewart said it best last Friday.)

girl with a movie camera

2004-10-19T06:37:00.000-06:00

Somehow I stumbled across this blog. I don't know if her movie is any good -- I hope we'll get to see it someday -- but her writing takes me back to the days of film school, when we ate, drank and breathed film day and night. And her gumption makes me feel young again. (Okay I'm not that old!) She also has the prettiest wallpaper.

Media Girl is regular

2004-10-18T23:07:00.000-06:00

Not bad for the first time trying, is it? Of course they cropped 3/4 of the already-short piece. But you can read the little rant in its full glory just two blog entries down.

Blog Listings

2004-10-18T20:56:00.000-06:00

So here we are, trying to get listed. At least I don't have to play the monkey for Tucker Bowtie.

Weblog Directory
Wil's Domain is your comprehensive directory of great Weblogs.

URL: http://www.wilsdomain.com

http://www.globeofblogs.com/

http://www.scottishblogs.co.uk/about.php

The Regular | Hourly politics and news

2004-10-18T20:19:00.000-06:00

There's this new site, The Regular | Hourly politics and news, where they have an interesting pulse on world events.

I posted a piece there, which we shall see if they opt to publish. Perhaps it's a bit too opinionated for them. Opinions with any grist seem to be taboo these days.

Three days after Jon Stewart dressed him down on Crossfire, Tucker Carlson's attempts to spin the encounter were exceptional only in that he acknowledged that an encounter over the ethics and approach of his own show actually took place. Only weeks after Dan Rather's belated apology over CBS's bungling, and the wholly unsatisfactory mea culpas over utterly non-critical war coverage from The New York Times and the Washington Post, one has to wonder: Will the mainstream Media ever realize that it is not only not truly serving the public interest, but actually might be working (deliberately or inadvertently) to undermine the foundations of our Republic?

The increasingly outspoken Bill Moyers asked last Fall, "So what do we do? What is our strategy for taking on what seems a hopeless fight for a media system that serves as effectively as it sells – one that holds all the institutions of society, itself included, accountable?" His question is to members of the media, and he tried to sound hopeful.

But what of us, the citizens? With multinational media conglomerates treating us as consumers to dupe into buying soap, while seemingly working in concert with a government that, with every passing day, seems to view the citizenry as a threat to its sovereignty, can the people do anything? Without the information they -- we -- need, will we ever wake up to the loss of our political will -- especially in this day of fear-mongering and simple-minded public discourse?

Will the people ever find allies in the mainstream Media? Or will the monkeys continue to screech until we tune out and escape further into Kazaa and first person shooters?

Las Vegas SUN: Aladdin expels Ronstadt after political remarks

2004-07-22T19:34:00.000-06:00

This is just priceless. This is what conservatives feel is moral and right behavior? Read about what the audience did! Las Vegas SUN: Aladdin expels Ronstadt after political remarks

No further comment.

Washington Times Report Against the Administration?

2004-07-14T18:43:00.000-06:00

Who'd'a thunk it, the right-wing Moonie rag actually reports something Bush would have to defend -- that is, if he felt he were answerable to the people. Red Cross suspects U.S. prisoner stash - The Washington Times: World - July 14, 2004

Credit card fees become cash cow

2004-07-14T18:39:00.000-06:00

Corporate citizens. More like mercenary agents!
Yahoo! News - Credit card fees become cash cow: "Some card issuers are sending bills later in the cycle, reducing the time to meet the deadline"

The Number of the Beast

2004-07-14T18:35:00.000-06:00

No comment. The horror speaks for itself.
Yahoo! News - Chip Implanted in Mexico Judicial Workers

Bush Better Suited to Deal With Terror Threat, Poll Finds

2004-07-14T01:39:00.000-06:00

This only makes sense. After all, Bush is the one perpetrating the terror.

"There might be a terrorist attack somewhere at some time." Gee thanks. That's kind of like someone saying, "Look out!" You ask, "For what?" They say, "We can't tell you." Gee thanks.

WHY DID YOU SAY ANYTHING IN THE FIRST PLACE??? Grrrrr!!!

The Donald would fire Bush -- HA!!!

2004-07-14T01:26:00.000-06:00

This is just too funny.
Yahoo! News - Donald Trump Unhappy with Bush

If you can't see "Fahrenheit 9/11"

2004-07-13T17:14:00.000-06:00

There is plenty to view online at BushFlash.com. I like to pop in her every now and then just to buzz a little. The site is maybe a bit strident, but heck, this president makes me feel strident! The first one I saw was Grand Theft America, which goes down the line as to what went wrong in Florida -- and I don't mean wrong because the wrong guy got elected (even though he was), but wrong because the system was jimmied and slammed and ended up breaking down.

Supposedly morally righteous people were outraged over Clinton's affair with Monica. But looking back, that just pales in comparison to Bush's bungling of the "war on terror."

Does anyone remember when the entire world was lighting candles for us, for those whose lives were taken in 9/11? Does anyone remember the goodwill when America went directly after the perpetrators in Afghanistan? What happened there? Before the job was done -- maybe before the job was even started -- all attention went to Iraq. And then the snow jobs began.

Can you tell I am disgusted?

Did anyone notice when, for the first time in history, America went into a first strike nuclear stance on Bush's order?

I'm not just disgusted. I am scared.

Rational Commentary

2004-07-13T14:46:00.000-06:00

It's interesting, seeing what other bloggers do. I found some great stuff just with some random clicks on the fresh list blogspot to helpfully offers from its homepage. (Why is there no greater directory? Or is there one and I just have not yet found it?)

One site I find fascinating, if a little aggravating, is Rational Commentary. On the one hand, there are some well-phrased entries. But on the other hand, most of the blog is really just links to other pages, and on a dial-up I can tell you that a hyperlink is an invitation to take a coffee break or go pee. As I look at it now, the top entry is titled "Reading code is hard." Well so is reading hyperlinked thoughts. I will keep my bookmark for a while and see what develops, though. It sure beats reading about someone's adventures removing cat vomit stains. (Been there, done that, don't need to read about it!)

---

This will take some getting used to, ranting freely. I feel a bit embarrassed right now.

Yahoo! News - Fox dousing doc

2004-07-13T14:08:00.000-06:00

Yahoo! News carrying Variety: Fox dousing doc

Do I dare hope that people are starting to wake up? A year ago, a private little doc about Fox News Channel would not have gotten any notice in the press. And now AP and Variety both run articles on a private little screening of the film.

Shocking news: Fox is biased!

This just in: Bill O'Reilly is an obnoxious idiot!

Extra Extra: Fox editors set Bush cheerleading policy!

I've never been able to watch more than two minutes of Fox News, what with they way they pretend that war is nothing but a delightful patriotic exercise, the way they sneer at anyone who dares to criticize the actions of the government. But doesn't it seem like all the other media are doing a lot of the same thing? Who but the News Hour puts up pictorial memorials of all the US soldiers killed in combat? Who mentions anything about Iraqi civilians killed? Who offers anything but the video-game shooting war and administration polemics?

Fahrenheit 9/11 had its highlights and lowlights, but one of the most shocking and horrifying segments of that film was the footage with the troops in Iraq. The doubts they express. The adolescent pimples on their faces. And how they blast their goth rock during offensives, like Colonel Kilgore in Apocalypse Now. The only way these kids can cope, it seems, is by checking out, dehumanizing the "enemy" and blasting away.

Of course, that's what war is about, and that is what an army is supposed to do, right? I do not blame them. I blame the president for putting them there, for giving them a mission that does not fit their abilities. Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that the war has become such a mess.

And to see corporate America supporting the war with jingoistic propaganda makes my stomach turn. It's about time people like Moore and Greenwald are finding their voices heard. I fear, however, that the time may not be so far away when even popular, well-funded voices of dissidence will be quashed, as certain Republicans tried to do to Moore. In his case, money talked, and with over $80 million in box office so far, the gambit paid off. But what about next time? As mega-corporations -- most with the bulk of their investments in foreign lands -- buy up American television stations, radio networks, newspapers, cable networks and so on, where will the independent voice turn?

What happens when these conglomerates buy up the portals on the web and censor search engines? What happens when ISPs start blocking access to non-sanctioned sites? "It can't happen here," you say? I say read Sinclair Lewis' book of that title and tell me the fascists in that tale don't sound just like today's politicians.

Why start this blog?

2004-07-12T13:40:00.000-06:00

Don't ask me. I'm just looking for an outlet for my frustrations. Chalk it up to having too much time on my hands. As an overqualified chica, I'm between jobs. I can do only so much resume emailing a day. The rest of the time I'm lazing about, chatting with friends, or getting infuriated over the news. I'll think of more to say sometime soon. Meanwhile I'm going to poke about and see what this blogger interface has to offer. Ciao for now!