More stuff you should be reading instead of this lousy blog…
#

• Yeah. James Wolcott says what I would’ve said if I was a smarter, better writer: George W. Bush is an “empty volcano,” yet no one in the mainstream media will call him on his lack of gravitas. You know, if you look at the way people talk when they criticize Bush, they don’t really criticize Bush. They criticize Karl Rove. It is virtually universally understood that Rove is the puppet master. Yet, like a good puppeteer, the audience is still transfixed by the illusion. We end up looking at the talking head, and paying no attention to the man behind the curtain.

• Every time I read about the Valerie Plame situation, I have difficulty making it through a paragraph without drifting off into violent fantasies involving Robert Novak and a red-hot poker. Michael Kinsley’s op-ed in today’s LA Times makes a good argument that the absolute right to protect anonymous sources should be attenuated by socially-responsible exceptions. However, why don’t I ever hear anyone questioning Robert Novak’s initial decision to report the leak in the first place? Novak knew that he was exposing a CIA agent, he knew that he was endangering her life and the lives of her sources, and he knew that he was abetting an act of revenge by the administration. In my book, that makes him a traitor to his country. Why isn’t he arrested for writing that column?

• Sisyphus Shrugged has a related comment. (via Eschaton)

• There’s a devastating article in the Washington Post today (use BugMeNot.com to get a username and password), quoting some mighty disgruntled and pessimistic members of a Marine platoon based in Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad. Quite a contrast from the current administration’s attempts to portray the situation as “getting better.” Of course, the article doesn’t claim to represent the feelings of the entire military, but it does seem to jibe with other reports coming out of the country via alternative channels.

• I didn’t quite understand Bush’s remark in the last debate about the Dred Scott case, but Brad DeLong catches the explanation. Michael Bérubé is on the case, as well. Read a few of the Supreme Court case synopses he links to (they’re short) and tell me if they don’t blow the “strict constructionist” argument right out of the water.

• Finally, I’ve only gotten about a third to a half the way through this article at the LA Times, but I understand why Kevin Drum thinks it’s an important read. Take a look at If America is Richer, Why are Its Families So Much Less Secure.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

• No Related Post

Sunday, October 10th, 2004 @ 1:37 pm Nothings
RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.