I am Moopheus, and I know a lot about you...

Someone put a lot of work into this flash animation, The Meatrix, that talks about the horrific treatment of farm animals - of course, it's a spoof of The Matrix. I'm not quite a militant fruitarian, but I do believe in animal rights - to a certain extent. I can't say I care about independent farmers vs. big corporations, but I think it's pretty sad that I force myself to stay ignorant about these horrific animal farm stories so I can still enjoy a chicken sandwich when I want one. Everyone has their own level of hypocrisy, I guess...

Who loves ya? ME loves ya!

This flash animation comparing George W. Bush and the Right Wing to Gollum and the Ring from Lord of the Rings. You *have* to listen to the soundtrack after the animation looks like it's over. Too funny.

It's the ring ring, and the bling bling, and the power thing, and the right wing.

Why you (not) frontin'?

It's a well-known conspiracy theory that Karl Rove can pull a headline out of his *ss whenever he needs one in order to offset any really bad news that might take the cover story of the next day's papers. Negative press about the war in Iraq, for instance, is major cause for concern, as is any announcement about any of the ongoing investigations of wrongdoing in the Administration (e.g. Plamegate). Yesterday I theorized that Rover would successfully bury the Helicopter crash and the Carnegie Report that concludes that Bush lied us into war. It seems that, in general, I was wrong? Not good. Well, I guess it might depend on your political stance, but decide for yourself.



The context is this - two potential lead articles for the next day's papers, both of which, by themselves, are devastating articles for the current Administration, but together, could actually wound - could actually make the press corps ask a couple of questions. From a previous post - the headlines are: 1) Copter crash in Iraq kills 9, and 2) Report: No WMD in Iraq. Now, given the importance of current U.S. foreign policy, I would think each of these headlines is massively important - but let's examine the implications of each, in turn:



1) The copter crash shows the escalating nature of the insurgency in Iraq. It is a severe indictment of post-war planning, or lack thereof. The cost of the occupation of Iraq is skyrocketing, and it's hitting American taxpayers in the pocketbook - whether they feel it just yet or not. The situation in Iraq is perilous, and getting moreso every day, it seems. The U.S. and British militaries have already promised to be there for years - the U.S. already making plans to establish long-term military bases there, a la Saudi Arabia. But how much will the occupation continue to cost U.S. taxpayers? How many more innocent Iraqi civilians have to suffer and/or die because of the occupation? How many more U.S. soldiers will be killed in what has become known outside the U.S. as an illegal war of aggression - either for oil or against Muslims?



2) The Carnegie Report concluding that no WMD existed in Iraq prior to the invasion is a devastating indictment of our our intelligence-gathering services, our Administration, or both. Are the intelligence services (e.g. CIA) competent? Was the Administration duplicitous in their bold and sure statements about the existence of Iraq's WMD? The only way the Administration has been able to avoid serious scandal is by owning the major media outlets and by owning both houses of Congress, but these facts don't make this report any less damning. Will the intelligence services be held accountable for their mistakes? Will there be major restructing? Firings? And how about the Administration - will they be held to account for their mendacity? Will there be firings? How about Cheney's covert pipestoving intelligence-gathering and influence-peddling operation inside the Pentagon and at Langley? Will he be held to account for greatly diminishing the profile of once-credible U.S. intelligence? What does such a bleak report on America's intelligence services say about our policy of pre-emptive or limited war? In other words, without reliable intelligence, how can we invade sovereign countries based on perceived threats? And what about that shaky policy of pre-emption? Will it stand the test of time? It's been proven a horrendous failure, yet it is still pimped by the current Administration. Will it be modified in any way, killed outright, or will intelligence-gathering become obsoleted - subservient to the political will of the serving President and his henchmen?



So, in short, I think these articles deserver front-page headlines today, and follow-on headlines every day hereafter until we get to the bottom of all of these issues. Foreign policy is the number one issue heading into the next presidential election - this stuff should be front and center every day.



In doing some research on this topic, I found what seems to be a list of the 'five national newspapers'. They are, in no particular order: The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal. Slate.com does a daily today's papers feature with a rundown with what each of these nationals is running, and where. It can be semi-informative on the nature of the editorial reigns at each of these important publications, and is usually accompanied by a catchy article title - e.g. in reference FDA's surprise decision to continue the ban on use of silicone breat implants, just a few weeks after an internal FDA advisory group said they were safe: 'Silicone Volley'.



At the bottom of this Slate.com feature is a glossary of terms used in the text that are apparently industry terms. It's informative, and useful if you want to talk about information placement.



Here are the ways these above-mentioned articles were covered on each of the papers' front pages, respectively, to the best of my knowlege:



Below I've ranked the coverage of these two major stories in each of the five majors. A grade of 'A' represents, in my opinion, the perfectly fair coverage - no more, no less.

Paper	Grade	Details
USA Today	C-	lead story is the FDA rejection of silicone implants - which I have to admit - is worthy, but above the fold (on the front page) is the Mars stuff - with a massive visual, with significant space dedicated to the copter crash below the fold. No mention of Carnegie Report.
LA Times	B	leads with the copter crash; no mention of Carnegie Report.
The Washington Post	C	stuffs the copter crash down into a tiny box at the bottom right-hand corner of the front page - but provides a picture; no mention of Carnegie Report.
The Wall Street Journal	C	how can anyone tell what the lead story is in this paper? - mentions the copter crash in a fairly prominent position near the top; no mention of Carnegie Report.
The New York Times	N/A	N/A

Those cover pages I did find were at Newseum.org - I can actually get pretty ready access to print editions of all these 5 majors, and should have - will next time for sure!



So, there's seems to be sporadic mention of the Carnegie Report on Iraq - most of the articles that I've found on the net that mention the Report are more concerned with Powell's assertion, like that of Bush's a couple of months ago, that there was no direct evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda, despite all the rhetoric. The headlines run something like 'Powell refutes report', or 'Powell says no link'. Powell maintained, of course, that the invasion was necessary.



The first associated press article I read yesterday of the helicopter crash that killed nine GI's was titled something like 'Helicopter forced to make emergency landing. 9 Dead'. Now, you tell me what's wrong with this. I guess eventually the folks at the AP saw the ridiculousness of the title and changed it to something about a 'crash'.

Timing is Everything

Check out the following stories that could be headlines tomorrow if Rove didn't own the media:

Copter crash in Iraq kills 9
Report: No WMD in Iraq

Double ouch. On the same day. That is NOT good news for Bush. More helicopters down, and MORE evidence that Bush lied us into war and is indirectly responsible for the deaths of 9 more American soldiers?? NOT GOOD.

But wait! Rove found a headline to take the primary headline tomorrow! I told you not to think the ridiculous meter was near the top yet. Check out the headline in tomorrow's newspapers:

Bush to Unveil Mars Mission

I'm not joking.

And not to pat myself on the back for prescience, but how good was my previous post on think tank reports never seeing the light of day?

Denial is not a river in Africa

In a story titled 'Powell Refutes Think-Tank Report on Iraq', he says:

"In terms of intention (to produce WMD), he (Saddam) always had it," Powell said. Of Carnegie's finding that Iraq posed no imminent threat, Powell said: "They (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) did not say it (the imminent threat) wasn't there."

Ummm, actually, sir, they did - in the very first 'key finding' of the report:

Iraq’s WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not
be ignored. They did not, however, pose an immediate threat to the
United States, to the region, or to global security.

Well done, Powell. You've disgraced yourself, your family, and your country. You were not only complicit in the illegal invasion of Iraq, you were an active participant. Bravo.

Powell reminds me of a quote by George Bernard Shaw:
When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.

What will his memoirs say?

Those Loser Border Guards

Having crossed the Canadian/U.S. border several times before and after 9/11, I've had the pleasure of many run-ins with the border guards - both U.S. and Canadian - who seem to take triumphant joy in humiliating and badgering all who dare to cross into their land. It's as outrageous as these 'guards' are pathetic. I ran across a good story that I would say is fairly typical.

Shoot, I remember one time I didn't think I was going to get back into the U.S. - and I'm a citizen! So, enjoy the reading. So happy that Brazil started badgering entering U.S. passengers. Hopefully the whole world will soon have to put up with loser border guards until someone of true power gets strip-searched, and things finally change. That will happen - it's just a matter of time - so let's hope it's some stodgy, old, rich, white guy from the Bush Administration who gets strip-searched and is revealed to be wearing women's panties. Doh! :D

UN-'Think'able?

Yes, very punny, I agree.

I'm curious how think tank employees/experts live their lives knowing that all their research might never see the light of day. I love the idea of a bunch of intellectuals getting together to try to make the world a better place by closely collaborating and attempting to form a consensus of ideas that will benefit all mankind, regardless of one's particular political stance, but the thought of all my work not being used by anyone - tough. Maybe this think tank stuff is not for me. It would be great, for a while, to sit around all day and read blogs and books and pat myself and my colleagues on the back for knowing the answers to all the world's problems, but I think that would only last so long - because we'd be watching the world accelerate towards disaster. Hmmm...

This story in the Financial Times and a similar one in the Washington Post comment on a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The report once again talks about the politicization of the intelligence process and goes on to call for a full study of the effectiveness of the UN inspections process.

I haven't read the full text yet, but let's take a quick look at the summary as I'm curious if there will actually be any new/useful info in this report. I've been curious about this CEIP organization as I like the name, I cruise by the nice building it owns in the Dupont area of DC about once a week, and found it mildly interesting that it is located directly next to the Brookings Institution - another left-of-center think tank.

Key findings of the report follow. Hold on your hat. Check out this link for access to the full report.

• Iraq’s WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not be ignored. They did not, however, pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region, or to global security.



• With respect to nuclear and chemical weapons, the extent of the
  threat was largely knowable at the time.



• The uncertainties were much greater with regard to biological weapons.



• The missile program appears to have been the one program in active
  development in 2002.



• It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden, or sent out of the
  country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons,
  dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production
  of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed
  were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity
  before, during, or after the major combat period of the war.



• How much radioactive and biological material have been lost and
  whether they have fallen into the wrong hands remain crucial unknowns.



• Prior to 2002, the intelligence community appears to have overestimated
  the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but had a generally
  accurate picture of the nuclear and missile programs.



• The dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October
  2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), together with the creation of
  an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest
  that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by
  policymakers’ views sometime in 2002.



• There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between
  Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda.



• There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred
  WMD to Al Qaeda and much evidence to counter it.



• The notion that any government would give its principal security assets to
  people it could not control in order to achieve its own political aims is
  highly dubious.



• Today, the most likely source of a nuclear terrorist threat would be
  from theft or purchase of fissile material or tactical nuclear weapons
  from poorly guarded stockpiles in Russia and other former Soviet
  states, including Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. The security
  of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, including technology and know how, is
  also a major concern.



• Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from
  Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence
  failures noted above, by:
   Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single “WMD threat.”
  The conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose,
  distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war. (p. 52)
   Insisting without evidence—yet treating as a given truth—that Saddam
  Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
   Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present
  in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)
   Misrepresenting inspectors’ findings in ways that turned threats from minor to
  dire.
  While worst case planning is valid and vital, acting on worst case assumptions
  is neither safe nor wise.



• The assertion that the threat that became visible on 9/11 invalidated
  deterrence against states does not stand up to close scrutiny.



• Saddam’s responses to international pressure and international weakness
  from the 1991 war onward show that while unpredictable he was not
  undeterrable.



• The UN inspection process appears to have been much more successful than
  recognized before the war.



• In addition to inspections, a combination of international constraints—
  sanctions, procurement investigations, and the export/import control
  mechanism—also appears to have been considerably more effective
  than was thought.



• The knowledge, prior experience in Iraq, relationships with Iraqi scientists
  and officials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource
  that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited.



• To reconstruct an accurate history of Iraq’s WMD programs, the data
  from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely
  essential.



• Considering all the costs and benefits, there were at least two options
  clearly preferable to a war undertaken without international support:
  allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed
  or completed, or imposing a tougher program of “coercive inspections” backed by
  a specially designed international force.



• Even a war successful on other counts could leave behind three significant
  WMD threats: lost material, “loose” scientists, and the message that
  only nuclear weapons could protect a state from foreign invasion.



• The National Security Strategy’s new doctrine of preemptive military action
  is actually a loose standard for preventive war under the cloak of
  legitimate preemption.



• In the Iraqi case, the world’s three best intelligence services proved unable
  to provide the accurate information necessary for acting in the
  absence of imminent threat.

Well, it seems like a lot of the same to me, but I did notice that 'preventive war' thing again. Maybe the term is finally about to make its way into the mainstream. Is it scary to anyone else that the public is becoming more educated in military concepts like 'preventive war' and 'preemptive military action' than, say, 'conflict resolution'?

Costs Mounting From Terrorism Alert

A couple of days ago I referenced some news material that talked about the costs associated with the radical U.S. Foreign Policy and the consequences of a never-ending War on Terror. I was alarmed when I saw that an oil shipping port (or similar) had been temporarily closed in Alaska due to some terror 'chatter'. I don't know much about the oil/shipping/refining/distribution business, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that costs associated with shutting down *any* operation for a day or so is going to cost a lot of money. I figured the delay of planes might not be too costly because mostly planes were just sitting on the runway and the overhead of running an airport had to be dealt with regardless of whether planes landed on time.

Here's a snapshot of some of the figures being thrown around:

The overtime bill for New Orleans police the week of the Sugar Bowl — where federal officials had specific worries — could reach $300,000. Protection for Las Vegas celebrations rang up more than $400,000 in bills.

"We've always heard freedom isn't free. No kidding," said Jerry Bussell, Nevada's homeland security adviser.

Some smaller cities, too, said stepped-up security would hit their bottom lines. Portland, Maine, spends $5,000 a week for each alert, said Police Chief Michael Chitwood.

The AP article has some other pretty scare quotes, from a civil liberties point of view. George Foresman, Virginia's special deputy for preparedness, talks about the normalization of security procedures.

"As a nation, we're developing a good battlefield tempo," Foresman said. "We've taken the time, we've done deliberate planning, we've done training. ... We call it the new normalcy."

Ladies and germs, welcome to the West Bank.

the cheating culture

I thought this new book was about ethics, etc. - do the conservatives care about the same things the liberals do? If so, then strengthen law enforcement, etc.

FOW !!!

Don't even front. I mentioned previously that I was excited about this flick - and it delivered on my expectations. Fog of War, featuring former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, was a great flick. Very informative. Very interesting. Sometimes funny. Often shocking and brutal and realistic. I even learned something about conflict resolution. Nice! And the music is haunting - kind of like that piano-ish track from Eyes Wide Shut.

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy!

From the USA Today:

A dozen or more congressional Republicans will gather at a resort in balmy Phoenix this week to hear the legislative wish lists of Western coal, power and mining companies - and raise money from them.

The four-day conference begins today with a $1,500-per-person round of golf and private dinner, dubbed "Mulligans and Margaritas." The money raised from industry officials will be divided among the re-election campaigns of the lawmakers, most of whom serve on committees that oversee the mining and energy industries.

Shweet!

Oh my goodness...

UPDATE: 10/16/05. Not sure why, but USA Today made the origina link to this article point to somethig else. What's up with that? Anyways, here the original.

Beverly Eckert's spouse died in the 9/11 attacks. In this USA Today Op Ed she says that her silence will not be bought - that her husband's life was priceless. She refused the government payoff. This is the mark of a true hero - a hero's hero. (article)

Holy frashizzle - this Kristen Breitweiser is no joke...

Here is a transcript of a 9/11 widow on Hardball with Chris Matthews. I've heard a lot about this lady and her friends - fellow widows and widowers (sp?) - they're in touch with the White House - probably because the White House sees it to their strategic advantage to attempt to placate these blustery ladies (and men?), but their time is running out - the widows, that is. Will the press hear their story? Who knows? But check out the transcript. I'm gonna try to find the video clip - but DAAAANG - she's tearing these people a new one. Seems like she's got her facts straight. Well done.

Key passage, near the end of the seemingly-short segment, with Kristen talking about what would have happened had the Bush administration warned the public about the imminence of the 9/11 attacks:

BREITWEISER: They would have acted more decisively. Lives would have been saved. I would have informed the public.

MATTHEWS: It sounds like the problem is at the top.

BREITWEISER: It does.

Boom. That's gonna hurt good-ol Bush. Let's wait and see if she ends up on the campaign trail with Dean. I presume, from listening to her talk, that she is not a Republican - so the GOP will be able to use the old she's a liberal-lefty-commy-America-hating-pinko attack, but I wonder if that'll backfire? Could Condi finally get pressured to resign? Wow. We'll see.

Sin City guest list demanded by federales...

I love it.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI demanded Las Vegas hotels turn over their guest lists leading up to New Year's Eve to check against a U.S. master list of suspected terrorists, a law enforcement official said on Sunday.

This whole privacy thing is getting better and better all the time. It's hard for people to understand how 'liberty' is undermined when our privacy is undermined - it just doesn't seem to ring true for people. Everyone is so scared they just think screw privacy, i am not doing anything wrong, I don't have anything to hide. let Bush & Co. search away. i don't care. just don't let Sadaam bomb us again! I've actually gotten this response fairly consistently from the Fox-type folks at work. It's natural, I guess. I try to relate to them the seriousness of what is happening by asking them if they'd mind if it was Bill Clinton who was currently in power and wanted to grab all this personal information. The response is usually a slight-delayed, but brave sure, no problem., but it's obvious that their passion for unlimited search and seizure drops dramatically when someone not idealogically in-sync with themselves is holding the highest office in the land.

I can see the rational that these people are using, in a way, because even I have difficulty articulating to people why privacy is such an important issue. America is slowly getting transformed into a police state, but Americans don't have any experiece with totalitarian regimes - at home. We've been taught that totalitarianism==communism==osama==terrorism==saddaam==fidel==evil, but not too many of us can really explain why. It's like listening to the Mr. Mackey, the schoolteach, from SouthPark: Drugs are bad, mmmkay?
Over and over and over again. If you repeat something often enough, weak minds will fall in line. (WMD, anyone?)

In my not-so-humble opinion, most Americans are woefully uninformed about the basic tenets of democracy. If you asked someone on the street why communism was bad, here are some of the responses you'd get:

• Because.


• I dunno. It's bad. It's like Hitler and stuff, and he killed a bunch of people and stuff.


• It doesn't work. Democracy works. America's the best. That's why we rule the world right now, because we're not a communist country.


• What the f*ck you think, dude? Are you a liberal?!

So, the point is, that American individual freedoms are being stripped away a little bit at a time - and this will ultimately lead to the crushing of political dissent - which leads to a totalitarian state - which yields, evil.

Still hoping to get Jim Bovard to eventually start a blog. He's the Che Guevara of privacy! We need someone with his purely anti-government approach to get more press. My favorite line of his:

Nothing happened on 9/11 that made our government (the government of the United States of America) more competent.

Niiiice. Very nice.

War: Good for the Human Soul

From the Independent, yet another story of fun times during war:

Eight young Iraqis arrested in Basra were kicked and assaulted by British soldiers, one of them so badly that he died in British custody, according to military and medical records seen by The Independent on Sunday.

I won't go into the lurid details of how the guy was murdered by the British soldiers, but suffice it to say that it could not have been a comfortable way to go. Kinda reminds me of the sexual abuse and torture the UK boyz inflicted on that Iraqi a few months ago. Those Pommes sure have some weird stuff going on in their heads. But, war is war. Be proud America - you supported this kind of torture under Sadaam's regime for twenty years, and now you're supporting it under Bush's and Blair's rule. Be very proud.

Will my school loans get canceled if I die?

Just curious. Along those same lines, what if Ashcroft scoops me up and plops me down in Gitmo for a few days/weeks/months/years/rest-of-my-life? Who pays the interest? Can I get a deferment or something, at least until I get my trial date - the trial date I'll never get, because I'll probably die in the custody of the U.S. military? Well, that's not necessarily true. Maybe they'll just ship me off to Syria and torture me for a year or so, and then let me go. I could probably handle catching up on the interest payments, but something's just not right about that. Plus, I'd have all sorts of 'late payment' marks on my credit reports. Talk about unfair. Wisped away under cloak of secrecy to be tortured for a year by people speaking a foreign tongue without legal representation just to be sent back to the U.S., uncharged with any crime and having ruined credit? Sheesh.

UPDATE:
From Sallie Mae:

If a borrower dies and he or she does not have a co-signer on the loans, the loans will be discharged. Our records do not reflect that you have a co-signer on your loans.

Niiiiice. Come get me Ashcroft, you f*ck.

LifeSavers rule!

I was walking downtown a few weeks ago and peered into a glass door and saw this really cool-looking sign. It was about three feet high and looked like one of those small sidewalk deli signs that advertises the lunch special. This particular sign, though, was very colorful - it consisted of a few different colored horizontal bars. I remember thinking 'wow. nice sign.' Then I looked a little closer and got a really good chuckle - it was a Department of Homeland Hilarity sign indicating the terror alert level of the day.

So, I'm not sure how this popped into my head, but the recent terror-we're-about-to-enter-police-state-land alert level increase made me think of this nifty little sign. I think I remember it so clearly because it was early on a rainy Saturday morning in downtown DC when I saw the vivid sign - so cheery in all of its splendid color. The sign was like this beacon of hope - a little bundle of joy - so colorful, so happy, delightful even! And I actually stopped and took an extra good look and saw that the little (black, I think) indicator was sitting at a fairly high level. I was so amused. Here is this colorful little sign - smiling at me - and at the same time saying 'There is a good likelihood that you will die today in some horrific terrorist attack.' I thought that was so great. I wanted one immediately for my apartment.

Well, I've yet to obtain a picture of said cheery little sign, but I thought of someone else that reminded me of that delightful terror sign - the LifeSavers candy wrapper! Check it out!

Then, of course, I couldn't get over the irony in the name in this rainbow-colored candy. LifeSavers? Are you serious?! Too cool!

Image of the happy terror sign coming...

UPDATE: Took me a while to find - but here is out happy sign. Not a live photo, unfortunately, but I think this might have to do...

Where's your husband, lady?!

Wow. This one is a doosy. I don't know what kind of crack I was smoking that made me actually skim this article - terrorism/USA Today - who cares - probably just another scare to keep the proles edgy. Guess it was at Dulles, so that made it local, therefore worthy of a skim.

Anways, here's the title and first two lines of the article:

Travelers questioned after Dulles landing

WASHINGTON (AP) Security concerns prompted the cancellation Thursday of the same British Airways flight from London that U.S. authorities had boarded the night before when it landed at Washington Dulles International Airport.

U.S. officials were acting on intelligence information and not just suspicious passenger names when they boarded a British Airways jet on New Year's Eve at Dulles, a national security official said.

This is great stuff. I have no idea what the first line means. But the second line is good. Not just suspicious passenger names. Niiiiice. Let me fill that line out a bit for the uninformed. Not just suspicious passenger names, as per usual. Wait. Let me spell it out for you completely. Not just suspicious passenger names (like Mohammed, Saddam, and Jacques), as per usual for the TSA. I love it. Is your name Mohammed? What's up, terrorist?

Now this next seems a little iffy to me - and I can't tell exactly why - b/c USA Today apparently updates their pages the way the White House likes to do - ex post facto:

In the New Year's Eve incident, investigators found no evidence of terrorism, and the major consequence appeared to be inconvenience, with the 247 passengers from London waiting more than 3.50 hours before getting off the plane while some of them were questioned.

Hmmmmm. I wonder what would be considered evidence of terrorism. Is the USA Today just really pressed for column inches and can't afford to use the appropriate English, or are we just supposed to, you know, 'get it'? If a boxcutter was found, is that evidence of terrorism? Has terrorism taken place if a boxcutter is found?

Another good one:

"It was fact-related," the official said, and not just connected to the passenger list the United States now receives from airlines flying into this country.

Niiiice. As opposed to, 'non-fact-related', or 'hunch-related', or... Too funny.

Maybe there's something to this, but I'm not so sure that terrorising presumably-innocent passengers about why they chose to leave their 'lump in the bed' at home is such a good idea. I certainly don't feel good about it.

Passenger David Litwick told WJLA-TV in Washington that he and his wife were not questioned, but at least one other passenger was. Litwick said four FBI agents spoke to a woman who appeared to be from the Middle East, repeatedly asking her why she was not traveling with her husband.

And more good news:

The threat of terrorism also prompted the closure Tuesday night of the oil tanker terminal in Valdez, Alaska. The terminal remained closed Thursday, Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Carter of the Coast Guard said.

Someone, somewhere had to do a study of the costs of America's whack foreign policy. I mean, spending a couple hundred billion dollars...BILLION dollars....might end up paying itself back to us, collectively, in terms of reduced oil prices, but somehow I doubt it. But what about the incredible gifts given by the Bush administration to all his security-company buddies? So, there is just this seemingly unimaginable amount of money being spent by the federal government of the United States of America, under George W. Bush and his GOP cronies, but let's check out the private sector. I rarely see a building in DC these days that is unmanned by one of those skulking security guards. I've read so many article of recently-graduated x-collegians who, unable to find 'real' jobs, ended up in the security business for ten bucks an hour. Of course! But that's just the obvious stuff. What about the insurance markets? Insurers are having a *field day* with this stuff.

Take a company like Marsh who specializes in 'terror' insurance. Think about the money you've already spent in increased travel costs - to airlines, trains, etc - just to pay for America's neocon foreign policy. Marsh, apparently, has some friends in the Administration.

Once you've totalled that all up, think about the cost, if one can be applied, to living the rest of your life like a Palestinian - waiting for that next deadly Israeli/U.S. rocket to blast through your living room wall and take out you and or some/most of your family. Well, we're not likely to see rockets landing on U.S. shores anytime soon, but the ridiculous meter is already sitting at a higher level than I would have ever considered possible - even granting that I knew the Bush Administration was one of the most corrupt of all time. So, I'm not willing to consider anything off the table at this point.

Democrats Divided Over CIA Leak Probe (?)

Methinks this is a highly dubious headline. It is talking about Attorney General Ashcroft's recusing himself from the Plame investigation. The headline would suggest that Democrats disagree about whether or not Ashcroft's recuse action is a good move or not, but of course, this is oversimplification of Neocon proportions. The article fails to point out that the dems do agree that however slight, this is still an improvement over having Ashcroft handle the investigation himself. The objections raised by some dems are saying 'too little, too late'. Others are saying "it's about time", and some Republicrats, like Daschle, are saying w/ barely a whimper, 'blah blah blah' - until the energy bill goes through, at which point Daschle and company will change their tune to 'BLAH BLAH BLAH'.

Who is this Proust character??

I keep seeing this guy/girl's name pop up in blog sites everywhere. I think its supposed to be what Mr. and Ms. Pretentious read to further elevate themselves above the proles. Let's see what Dictionary.com says:

Proust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (proost), Marcel. 1871-1922.

French writer whose seven-part novel Remembrance of Things Past (1913-1927) is among the great works of modern literature.

Well, that's that. And to think I was mispronouncing it in my head all this time. Who'd a thunk it?