This is why I like Jared so much. Probably why I was thinking about him yesterday, and I couldn't make the connection.


Just a thought (this being Friday and all)...
Why don't enough people revere Jared ?
I know there are those commercials with the other people who did the same thing, but he did it on his own.
Not to mention, it's pretty cool that he did it all on his own.


Too bad you had to wait for an iPod.
I didn't need to wait. It was perfect for the cute little computer sitting on my desk, doing exactly what I want it to do.
And before it came all its cousins that did exactly what I wanted them to do, until I found it necessary to have them replaced.

Yes, it's true...I am the Stalin of Apple Computer.

Think Different.
Yay. Apple has finally release iPod for Windows. Yay.
Stop the presses! This is a huge deal!
What's going to happen?
See what I'm blabbing about...


TPM has an interesting post re: Bush/Gore 2004. His point, basically, is that because an election is a zero-sum game (which it, to a point, is), what hurts Bush helps Gore.

Okay, I can buy that. If someone in 2004 chooses not to vote for Bush, they will have three options. Stay home, vote for Gore, or go independant. With the media's harping on voter participation, staying home will not be that common. Likewise with going the third-party route; people who are Green are not going to have been converted, but I doubt that many people will really entrust their vote to someone who will not win when it has been proven (Florida again) how much each vote counts.

Ergo, we vote for Gore.

The only question is thus: does it really hurt Bush?

Andrew Sullivan reasons quite differently than TPM, thinking that the public will, eventually, realize that the roots of the fall lie not in Bush's corporate ties, but in Clinton's (and, therefore, Gore's) economic policy of the 90's.

And article [Retired Economist Unconvinced of Rally, paid article] in today's WSJ seems to support Sullivan's point. The economist in question, Charles P. Kindleberger, predicted back in the mid-90's that the stock market would come crashing down; he reasoned that the fiscal gains of the market did not equate with the actual increase of the market's size and that, should times change, the market would not have the tenacity to support its Himalayan prices. If one were to follow Kindleberger's ideas to their logical conclusion, it would become quite apparent that, if this could have been predicted back in 95, nothing Bush did would have been the impetus towards collapse. Quite the contrary: it would be whoever was in charge of the economy in 95. Cue Sullivan.

But the fact that this not Bush's fault is not the issue in question. The issue in question is whether this will help Gore in 2004. The Nation doesn't think so, doubting whether the Dems will have leadership able to turn this issue from low-grade mumbling into a lightening rod aimed at Bush's post-Sept 11. approval ratings.

"We have to broaden the debate...What we should be saying is that this whole debate is about a culture of corporate greed that has wrecked our communities, robbed our retirees and lowered the standards for ethical business behavior to a level that disgusts average Americans."

They're the ones that are correct. While political hacks who were scrutinizing Clinton's economic policy beyond the tech bubble might realize that it is not as seemless as it is was made out to be, most people -- the voters -- took it at face value and will not pin this crisis on Greenspan or Rubin; they will pin it on Bush and Cheney. That being said however, Daschle needs to show better leadership skills and rally the Dems around this issue. Will he?

Probably not. In his year as House majority leader, he has been entirely unremarkable. McCain would be a better Democratic leader than Daschle.

Gore better work on "letting it rip" on his own, for his comrads on the Capitoline Hill are doing him no favors.
Some good news from the State Department (for once). I appears that Bush might be ready to do something about Iran.

This could -- if the US goes about this correctly -- be the foreshadowing to something much bigger. If this US ceases pussyfooting around, it will not only succeed in overthrowing a morally corrupt government, it will show the Arab world that we mean action. And by Arab world I mean Iraq.

The fact that this comes at a time when it appears as if Iran is hoping in bed with Hussein makes it all the more imperative that begin focusing on Iran as a true ally. It's all well and good to call them part of the "axis of evil", but that alone cannot change things. To change things, the government must -- through diplomatic and military means -- take a proactive stance against Iran's actions. This means talking about their apparent funding of terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah. It means stepping in and doing something about this new alliance with Iraq. And it means doing it sooner rather than later.

That being said, take a moment to bask in the glow of this diplo-doublespeak:

"The official United States line is that we do not comment when people demonstrate," said Richard Boucher, Mr Powell's spokesman.

After Mr Bush had spoken, Mr Boucher said: "We support the process of change that [the demonstrators] are calling for."
Mugabe denounces the West. For what? For feeding the starving millions in Africa.

He says: "No one takes advantage of our stomachs to get to the soul of our sovereignty."

This is exactly why we, the US, simply cannot tolerate the ICC sticking its bureaucratic nose into our business. Although it is doubtful that the PA will win the case, this will turn into a lose-lose scenario for the Israelis: either they cooperate, thus opening their government's actions to hostile scrutiny (remember the Jenin taskforce?) or they do not cooperate and instead garner international criticism and suspicion.

This is the polar opposite of the Oslo Accords: instead of Arafat trying to use the UN as a tool for reconcilation, he is wielding it as a bludgeon. And to bludgeon Isreal past the point of healing is most certainly his goal.


One more thing about the good Rev. J...

Even he knew it was pointless to support Michael Jackson in his racism claims against Tommy Mottola.

To: Michael "King of Pop" Jackson
Fr: Becky F.

You may want to pick a race first.
Interesting use of the word "militia" there Rev. J.
(Warning: Gun control argument looming.)

We've all read the Second Amendment . There, the word is used to be like an army or police force. We've seen Jesse's reaction to the police, but if someone said that all those "Unarmed citizens" shouldn't have the means to protect themselves, what do you think Jesse would say?

Just a thought...
In Jesse Jackson's latest racist outburst, he draws a connection between US police and "militias". He says:

Unarmed citizens being beaten and killed by the militia is an act of terrorism.

He also alleges that the incarcerating of black men is "part of a growth industry that is making millions of dollars for non-black communities it is a criminal act against humanity."

Would someone inform Mr. Jackson that no, policemen are not "militias" and that no, non-black communities do not make money by throwing African-Americans in jail and actually spend millions of taxpayer dollars on prison costs.

This latest vitriol from the mouth of America's biggest racist is pathetic. And hypocritical. While constantly comparing US cops to terrorists, he complains that Bush is "playing the terrorism theme like a one-string guitar."


I found .this link via TPM, so naturally had to check it out. I must give the author of the article, the Times' David E. Sanger, credit. He has written one of the most brilliant leds I've seen in Raines' paper -- combining liberal bias, news editorializing, and Bush-bashing -- seemlessly into a coherent sentence.

I must say this, however. Part of Sanger's work was done for him by Bush himself.

President Bush today predicted that as stocks become a better value "you'll see the market go back up."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "market going back up" defined by stocks becoming a better value? Isn't that a bit redundant?
To: Mr. President
Re: Nation Building

Mr. President,
Although many in our purple-mountained nation believe wholeheartedly in our involvement in Afghanistan, a few would like to suggest that you focus your efforts more in the task of "Nation Building" and less in the task of showing off your big fancy armaments. It's not enough to prevent rogue wedding parties from toppling their new nation, and before you take on Iraq, you might want to finish the first project you began, starting with stopping the government from knocking off inconvenient ministers.
Becky...would you mind if I (or you) edited your last post re: Brit's thinking Bush's term is too emotional? That wasn't the point of the article at all; it was my own editorial comment. They weren't judging our government. I was.
President Bush has been lucky enough (or, if you prefer, unlucky enough) to have this much of his term defined by "emotional" crises: Sept. 11, Enron and the loss of 401(k)s for retirees, and so on.
Due to the media's love for shoving human-interest stories on the unsuspecting public, we see these activities as emotional. Perhaps these Brits, who evolved with their heads up their butts, shouldn't judge our government as too emotional, as much of the reign of the last Princess of Wales was centered around her being loved by the people.
This article is more proof how much we need to support Israel. Not only is it swimming in a sea of enemies, but it's swimming in a sea of un-democratic enemies. All these speakers have two things in common: their anti-Semitism, and the fact that they were on official government programming.

The Bush administration's main motive for suddenly talking tough on Iraq seems to be even more 'internal' than the pursuit of American votes. It comes from within the White House itself. It is primarily about giving the administration a self-image of purpose, a sense of mission and clarity.

A great article on spiked about Bush's new-found motivation for attacking Iraq. Only a Brit could write this article; Bush's entire presidency has been so driven by emotion, up to the point where un-biased reporting is nearly impossible.

Entire Mick Hume, stage left


So last night I was watching Keeping The Faith and for some reason, it got me thinking about Priests and sex, and priests in general. I started thinking about gay priests also.
I've come to the conclusion, that, since priests shouldn't be having sex, it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of a priest is. This is why we shouldn't be worrying about the homosexuality in the cases of molestation, but the fact that the church is losing touch with its members and its clergy.
And it's not that the movie has anything to do with gay priests, it's just funny, and it got me thinking.
You can't believe everything you read, OK?
However, everyone is allowed to have any opinion they want. If you want to believe that there is a secret gay agenda, then you have every right to do so. It's the same as if you believe that the government is hiding aliens in the New York City Sewer System.