thu 05 jun 03
catcha on the flip side.
+ road trip to austin is on. i'm outta here in three hours, which means bum rush. if i don't get a chance to blog, have a great weekend folks ... and see you back again next tuesday.
+ ny times letters to the editor: iraq's weapons.
+ ny times: windmills sow dissent for environmentalists. aesthetics, bird kills, and environmentalists' back yards. if this issue were made a litmus test for 'environmentalists', what chaos there would be.
+ ny times: house bans partial birth abortion. how about "we don't need another law ... just enforce the laws on the books?" familiarize yourself with cephalic disorders. these are just a small percentage of the reasons why partial-birth abortion is sometimes, unfortunately, necessary - and humane. that partial-birth abortion may get used by 'late deciders' is very probable, but can't current laws take care of that circumstance?
+ of course, the big news is the shakeup at the new york times. the new influence had only been present for two years; no doubt the times can ride this bit of bad weather.
+ santa fe new mexican: looks like locals are getting behind dean in a grassroots fashion.
+ santa fe new mexican: columbia accident investigator amazed by enormous force of shuttle foam in impact testing. i have a hard time convincing myself that nasa hasn't seen scarring from foam impacts previously, or at least serious damage to wings worthy of investigation. i would expect nasa engineers are more realistic about the impact characteristics of foam chunks ... but maybe they're not high enough in the loop after takeoff.
later: the new york times article even has a photo.
+ reuters: "housework is good for you." well, if you're a chinese woman. no mention of household cleaners or other modern 'improvements' that might mitigate the study.
+ the wolfowitz article about 'the sea of oil' may be bogus. the guardian seems to have pulled the article, and we're waiting for context, retraction ... something. i'd like to see original transcript of wolfy's statements, now.
later: defenselink has the transcript here. it looks to be not so far off from the guardian's quotation:
"look, the primarily difference - to put it a little too simply - between north korea and iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. in the case of north korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that i believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with north korea is very different from that with iraq. the problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different."
no doubt, conservative and progressive interpretations will follow. the flavor is different - the implication to me is that economic sanctions could have no toehold because of iraq's natural resource, oil. but does that mean war was the only solution? anyway, read the whole thing, when you have time. extra points for further reading at 'project for the new american century,' keystone of the neocon philosophy - googled yesterday after trying to do some background digging into the guardian story.
come to think of it, what's to say that our intelligence on north korea is any better than what we got for iraq? food for thought.
ultimately, i've learned the same lesson again ... wait for an accurate transcript before philosophizing. interpreting journalists should have the link as a matter of course ... which would save us mounds of clicking time.
+ my mind was prepared to be driving today. instead, waiting for news. strange to be in limbo; feels like my flight's been cancelled, and i'm sleeping in the airport.