Global
AUSTIN, Texas -- Thinking about nuclear weapons is sort of like
looking directly at the sun: If you do it for more than a split second, you
go blind. Or insane.
Our government is now contemplating such a ne plus ultra of idiocy that it's enough to make one yearn for the dear, departed days of MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD was such a sane policy. Dr. Strangelove, report for duty immediately, the Bush administration needs YOU!
We are about to get a new nuclear weapons policy -- cute nukes. Teeny-tiny nukes. I was betting the Pentagon would name them "precision nukes," but I have once again underestimated our military's ability to obfuscate with mind-numbing language. The cute nukes are "offensive strike systems."
Our government is now contemplating such a ne plus ultra of idiocy that it's enough to make one yearn for the dear, departed days of MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD was such a sane policy. Dr. Strangelove, report for duty immediately, the Bush administration needs YOU!
We are about to get a new nuclear weapons policy -- cute nukes. Teeny-tiny nukes. I was betting the Pentagon would name them "precision nukes," but I have once again underestimated our military's ability to obfuscate with mind-numbing language. The cute nukes are "offensive strike systems."
There's a piquant contrast in the press coverage across the
decades of Billy Graham's various private dealings with Nixon, as displayed
on the tapes gradually released from the National Archive or disclosed from
Nixon's papers. I'll come shortly to the recent flap over Graham and Nixon's
closet palaverings about the Jews, but first let's visit another interaction
between the great evangelist and his commander in chief.
Though Britain has been blaring its support for America's "War
on Terror," there is public disquiet in the United Kingdom at one aspect of
the new era of freedom now prevailing in Afghanistan: the renewal of opium
cultivation, banned with unprecedented and near total success by Mullah Omar
in July of 2000. In order to receive U.S. aid, Hamid Karzai's coalition had
to make a pro forma announcement in January that opium cultivation is still
forbidden, but the extent of this renewed commitment to abstention from
Afghanistan's prime cash crop was almost simultaneously displayed in the
unceremonious ejection of Afghanistan's drug control agency from its offices
in Kabul, with the drug czar's desk being kicked physically into the street.
AUSTIN, Texas -- We're having a splendid political primary
season here in Texas, featuring several loopier-than-usual players and one
total gooney bird named John Worldpeace.
On the Democratic side for U.S. Senate, the two heavy-hitting, well-financed contenders are Mayor Ron Kirk of Dallas and Rep. Ken Bentsen of Houston. So, of course, a high-school civics teacher who's never been elected to anything named Victor Morales is in the lead in that race.
On the Democratic side for U.S. Senate, the two heavy-hitting, well-financed contenders are Mayor Ron Kirk of Dallas and Rep. Ken Bentsen of Houston. So, of course, a high-school civics teacher who's never been elected to anything named Victor Morales is in the lead in that race.
To the editor-
I am merely wondering why it is that we have confused the ideal of justice, with this immoral and detrimental notion of revenge. With the recent execution of John Byrd, the lines have become blurred, as they often are.
The concept of taking people out of society who cannot conform to the laws of society is necessary for the greater good, and that is what prisons are for. Once we have given ourselves power to take a person's life, we have attempted to take a position in which we have no right to, a position of God-like authority. In cases of self-defense, where it is inevitably one person's life or the other, there is justification in obtaining that authority, but once a person is imprisoned, there is no longer the threat that makes justification possible.
It is the fact that John Byrd no longer posed a threat to society that renders his execution unjustifiable, which only leads me to believe that someone has failed to differentiate between a desire for revenge, and the humane principle of justice.
I am merely wondering why it is that we have confused the ideal of justice, with this immoral and detrimental notion of revenge. With the recent execution of John Byrd, the lines have become blurred, as they often are.
The concept of taking people out of society who cannot conform to the laws of society is necessary for the greater good, and that is what prisons are for. Once we have given ourselves power to take a person's life, we have attempted to take a position in which we have no right to, a position of God-like authority. In cases of self-defense, where it is inevitably one person's life or the other, there is justification in obtaining that authority, but once a person is imprisoned, there is no longer the threat that makes justification possible.
It is the fact that John Byrd no longer posed a threat to society that renders his execution unjustifiable, which only leads me to believe that someone has failed to differentiate between a desire for revenge, and the humane principle of justice.
AUSTIN, Texas -- "Behind the ostensible government
sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging
no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to
befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is
the first task of the statesmanship of today." -- Theodore
Roosevelt.
It's hard to think how this could be any clearer: The headlines are "Bush Proposing Policy Changes on Toxic Sites: Taxpayers Would Bear Most Cleanup Costs." "Bush to Shift Toxic Cleanups to Taxpayers."
Katherine Seelye of The New York Times reports the Superfund was founded in 1980 under the slogan, "The polluter pays." Industry was to clean up its own messes, and special corporate taxes were used to fund clean-ups at "orphan sites, where the responsible party could not be identified or could not pay. The taxes were reauthorized under President Ronald Reagan and again under Mr. Bush's father. They expired in 1995, and while President Bill Clinton sought to have them reinstated, the House of Representatives, by then under Republican control, refused."
It's hard to think how this could be any clearer: The headlines are "Bush Proposing Policy Changes on Toxic Sites: Taxpayers Would Bear Most Cleanup Costs." "Bush to Shift Toxic Cleanups to Taxpayers."
Katherine Seelye of The New York Times reports the Superfund was founded in 1980 under the slogan, "The polluter pays." Industry was to clean up its own messes, and special corporate taxes were used to fund clean-ups at "orphan sites, where the responsible party could not be identified or could not pay. The taxes were reauthorized under President Ronald Reagan and again under Mr. Bush's father. They expired in 1995, and while President Bill Clinton sought to have them reinstated, the House of Representatives, by then under Republican control, refused."
Ironically, since his captors charged him with being an agent of
the American Empire and of Zionism, Pearl was not afraid to file reports
contradicting the claims of the State Department or the Pentagon or even of
the mad dogs on the Journal's editorial pages, whose ravings fulfill on a
weekly basis the most paranoid expectations of a Muslim fanatic.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page wrote, the day after news of Pearl's death was confirmed, that it showed "evil" was still stalking the world, "evil" being the current term of art for "awfulness beyond our comprehension." Now, these editorial writers have spent years writing urgent advisories to whatever U.S. president happens to be in power that the most extreme reactionary forces in Israel must be given unconditional backing. It would take any Islamic fanatic about 15 minutes in a clips library to demonstrate that if bombs are to be dropped on Palestinians, peace overtures shunned, just settlement rejected, then the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is on board.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page wrote, the day after news of Pearl's death was confirmed, that it showed "evil" was still stalking the world, "evil" being the current term of art for "awfulness beyond our comprehension." Now, these editorial writers have spent years writing urgent advisories to whatever U.S. president happens to be in power that the most extreme reactionary forces in Israel must be given unconditional backing. It would take any Islamic fanatic about 15 minutes in a clips library to demonstrate that if bombs are to be dropped on Palestinians, peace overtures shunned, just settlement rejected, then the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is on board.
The Office of Strategic Influence went from obscurity to infamy to
oblivion during a spin cycle that lasted just seven days in late February.
Coming to terms with a week of negative coverage after news broke that the
Pentagon office might purposely deceive foreign media, a somber defense
secretary announced: "It is being closed down." But for Donald Rumsfeld and
his colleagues along the Potomac, the inky cloud of bad publicity has a big
silver lining.
Orders to shut the controversial office came a day after President Bush proclaimed zero tolerance for lies from U.S. officials. "We'll tell the American people the truth," he vowed.
Orders to shut the controversial office came a day after President Bush proclaimed zero tolerance for lies from U.S. officials. "We'll tell the American people the truth," he vowed.
AUSTIN, Texas -- Another bad idea. What are they, cheaper by the
dozen? The Bush administration has decided to dump all the high-level
nuclear waste in America into some yet-to-be excavated tunnels at Yucca
Mountain, Nev.
Insomuch as you ever think about nuclear waste (a topic I prefer to avoid on the grounds that it's depressing and scary -- denial seems like a good tactic), you probably thought: "Good, Nevada. They'll like it there, and at least it won't be here."
Wrong on both counts. Not only are Nevadans predictably unhappy -- and also seriously irate, because Bush promised during the campaign he would make the decision based on "the best science" --- but this also brings nuclear garbage right to your front door. Or at least to the closest interstate highway.
Insomuch as you ever think about nuclear waste (a topic I prefer to avoid on the grounds that it's depressing and scary -- denial seems like a good tactic), you probably thought: "Good, Nevada. They'll like it there, and at least it won't be here."
Wrong on both counts. Not only are Nevadans predictably unhappy -- and also seriously irate, because Bush promised during the campaign he would make the decision based on "the best science" --- but this also brings nuclear garbage right to your front door. Or at least to the closest interstate highway.
Thomas Friedman has achieved another media triumph with the
debut of "Tom's Journal" on the "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." The
feature will be a "one-on-one debriefing of Friedman by Lehrer or
one of the program's senior correspondents," says a news release
from the influential PBS program. Friedman will appear perhaps a
dozen times per year -- whenever he comes back from a major trip
abroad.
Specializing in foreign affairs, Friedman reaches millions of readers with his syndicated New York Times column. And he's often on television -- especially these days. "In the post-9/11 environment, the talk shows can't get enough of Friedman," a Washington Post profile noted. He appears as a guest on "Meet the Press," "Face the Nation," "Washington Week in Review" and plenty of other TV venues. He even went over big on David Letterman's show.
Specializing in foreign affairs, Friedman reaches millions of readers with his syndicated New York Times column. And he's often on television -- especially these days. "In the post-9/11 environment, the talk shows can't get enough of Friedman," a Washington Post profile noted. He appears as a guest on "Meet the Press," "Face the Nation," "Washington Week in Review" and plenty of other TV venues. He even went over big on David Letterman's show.