<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

thinkprogress.org

Excerpt:
Colin Powell lauded what is known as the Agreed Framework that Clinton signed with North Korea.
"Lots of nuclear weapons were not made because of the Agreed Framework and the work of Clinton
and his team," Powell said. Now, conservatives are faulting Clinton for selling light water reactors to
North Korea under the agreement, but in doing so, they overlook Donald Rumsfeld�s role in the deal.

Rumsfeld was the only American to sit on the board of a company which six years ago sold two
light water reactors to North Korea. The Guardian reported in May 2003:

Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich,
when it won a $200m contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.
The current defense secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year.

Friday, May 12, 2006

People just don't seem to understand privacy. On my reading of the PATRIOT act and the ECPA, the NSA's data mining of pen/trap registries is perfectly legal, and not terribly invasive since we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in that data. On the other hand, the warrantless eavesdropping program authorized and supervised by CIA nominee Hayden is utterly illegal under FISA and the 4th Amendment... yet people seem more opposed to the legal program than the illegal one... I don't get it! Wouldn't you be more offended by people listening in on your conversations than simply knowing who you called and when?

Monday, May 01, 2006

http://thankyoustephencolbert.org/

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Hillarious! Apparently Tony Snow needs time to transition into his new job as a spokesman for the Bush Administration. Wow, what an adjustment from his old job at Fox News as a spokesman for the Bush Aadministration...

What a Snow job.

Monday, April 10, 2006

OK, so the Bush defense is: the information was declassified by Bush 10 days before Scotty McClellan claimed in a press conference it was declassified, so technically, no one disclosed classified information. Nevermind that it outed a CIA operative in WMD research during an ongoing crisis regarding WMD. Nevermind that the administration went ahead and wasted tens of millions of dollars by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate a leak that they knew the source of all along. We are supposed to buy this?

Saturday, April 08, 2006

OK, I am at a loss... even if disclosing information (which turned out to be false) about Iraq's so-called nuclear program was somehow in the "national interest," how is leaking the identity of a CIA agent involved in WMD research and undercover operations not a sickening, if not illegal, threat to national security for political gain? Do they really think they can pull the wool over the public's eyes anymore? What political capital is left to lie so brazenly? He also lied repeatedly when he said he'd fire the leaker... I say, we hold him to it, and he and Cheney need to both step down.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

A sneak preview... my take on the Mohammed cartoons and why we ought not to publish or glorify them. The full article will appear in SHB:

...One of the responsibilities of truly free inquiry is to not hold back from honest inquiry just because the results may offend. In other words, if we show through scientific evidence that Jesus or Mohammed were fictional characters, that would certainly offend a great many people. But the offense would be based upon facts, it would be the offense of having one’s deeply held beliefs challenged by empirical evidence. The intention behind scientific inquiry is truth-seeking, and the dissemination of scientific results is an ethical obligation of science. The result of offending large numbers of believers with scientific facts cannot be a good reason to withhold those facts. It would be dishonest.
On the other hand, if one seeks only to offend, and expresses opinions only for that purpose, one isn’t engaging in science. Stereotyping entire religions or cultures, even while we disagree with their religious underpinnings, is base and anti-humanistic. Surely, much of the Muslim world, even while they revere their prophet, does not abide by violence personally, nor tolerate it ideologically. Among our humanist values are the inherence of both freedom and dignity in every individual. The affirmations of humanism includes the statement that “we are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.” We also “…attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.” Yet the cartoons’ original publication could not be meant for anything other than to promote injustice and unfairness and intolerance. They were based upon painting an entire culture and religion with broad brushstrokes, and taking potshots at those who revere the prophet. More specifically, they flaunt the (disputed) prohibition to depict the prophet and do so with some venom. They mock, they do not criticize....

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?