Tequila Jack

OK, I finally broke down and read a transcript of the "US targets journalists" remarjs by Ms. Foley.

http://thedustyattic.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-of-linda-foleys-talk.html

Journalists, by the way, are just being targeted, ah, verbally or, ah, or, ah, politically. [But - jsa] They're also being targeted for real. Um…in places like Iraq. Ahn and, ah, what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal.

And it's not just US journalists, either, by the way. They target and kill, ah, journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like Al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios, ah, with impunity … and, ah, this is all part of a culture that it's okay to blame the individual journalists and it just takes the heat off these media, ah, conglomerates who are actually at the heart of the problem.

Is this what all the hullaballo is about? Now, with Eason Jordan, the statement ws clear that the military was "targetting" American (and other) journalists with weaponry. But with Ms. Foley, it is that the military does not do as much about it as she would like when journos are killed by others or explain to her satisfaction when other nation's `journalists` are hit by US weapons. I think she is expecting too much and/or, as with the bombing of the Baghdad office of al Jazeera, not paying attention.

And note her criticism is actually directed at the corporate news organizations for not doing more to protect their employees or find out more about what happens to them.

But yes, she does say the US actually uses weapons against other nation's news people. I disagree, but it is a matter of interpretation and bias. And thought a number of the incidents she worries about happened when we were effectively the government - we did not need to use weapons on journos, just declare them the equivalent of persona non grata: weapons may be used if such refuse to leave, much as when a group of people in Peoria confront police and do not follow legitimate instructions. Where others used weapons, our military either was not there or was kinda busy: but they were investigated - perhaps not as well as she would like, and maybe the employers of her union members should have pushed more to make her happier (not happy), but not ignored.

My query here is whether she has an open-enough mind to listen (again) to the explanations and if still wants more to specify just what she is looking for, and from whom. I have sone doubt, but attacking her rather than asking for nore is not going to do much good.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Gunmen on Wednesday killed a former judge whose name once was on a list of Sunni Arabs joining a parliamentary committee to draft Iraq's new constitution, officials said...

Former judge Jassim al-Issawi, whose candidacy to join the 55-member committee was later dropped, was a law professor at Baghdad University and the former editor-in-chief of Al-Siyadah newspaper, said Salih al-Mutlak, secretary general of the Sunni National Dialogue Council

Al-Issawi, 51, and his son were killed in Baghdad's northwestern Shula neighborhood, said Abdul Sattar Jawad, current editor of Al-Siyadah.

At first glance, this is Sunni killing Sunni for being even almost working with other Iraqis - and of course foreigners. The roof is leaking, let's burn it down - from inside!

WASHINGTON - North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, in a previously undisclosed message to President Bush in November 2002, said the United States and North Korea "should be able to resolve the nuclear issue in compliance with the demands of the new century," according to two private U.S. Korea experts who delivered Kim's message to the White House

This is news? No, it is "Let's attack whatever Administration is in office - especially this one" again. The whole thing was reported at the time: after years of knowing about it the US finally tells NK to quit fooling around with nuclear recovery/enrichment and come to the six-nation talks, NK responds with an offer to talk to only the US and only if the US makes such broad non-agression promises as to preclude retaliation for NK attacking SK or Japan, POTUS laughs them out of the room.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Europe should reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent by 2020 through more efficient technology, the EU executive Commission said Wednesday, helping cut dependency on oil and meet climate change targets.
...
A household could save up to 1,000 euros a year in electricity and heating bills by using energy saving lightbulbs, getting rid of old fridges and replacing boilers, he added.

Lightbulbs, sure, even though the initial investment is (relatively) big. And they often enough need replacing anyway.

But boilers? Wouldn't that take about thirty years to recoup costs for replacing something that still works?

Refrigerator: maybe, if the old one is over ten years old.

Mr. Cramer uses Mussolini's words and draws parallels to today's liberal/left.

Here's Mussolini's most clearly leftist statement:
"If the nineteenth was the century of the individual (Liberalism means individualism) it may be expected that this one may be the century of "collectivism" and therefore the century of the State."
Is there anything that more clearly identifies where American conservatism and libertarianism differs from Fascism--and where Fascism is most clearly a form of progressivism?

Of no real interest to anyone else, but...

I take seven prescription pills (not counting aspirin, the docs want me taking a low-dose [St. Joseph's] every day).

I jsut ordered four of them from a discount (NOT re-import) store: for a 3-month supply, over $490!!!

How long I'll keep taking these things on an income of under $1600/month (hint, my one-bedroom apartment is $840/month, auto insurance is over $240/month...) is problematic. And no, insurance won't cut cost much if at all.

Time to move to a much cheaper state, I guess.

The word "marriage", whatever the English-language dictionaries may say, is by implication bound up in religion - and only a few, at that. The State used that word because "partnership" or others were not quite the same, and why invent a new one?

But what the State actually does is, for a fee, record a limited partnership and agree to define certain legal consequences (eg inheritance) without the need for a more formal arrangement, while allowing for actual more formal arrangements (wills, pre-nups...) to override the default.

Alas, since first implemented (Republic of Rome, pre-Empire?), the State certificate has been used to engulf more and more areas - my (un-)favorite horror is the ICU at most hospitals and how they define "family" for visitation access.

Replace current legal references to "marriage" with some other term ("civil union" is clumsy, but what else has been proposed?) and there is no effective change to those laws - not even in who may sign the certificate (not necessarily a religious figure even now). Then [attempt to] argue about the definition and qualifications without the religious connotations. Gays (and others) who want "marriage" can argue about it with their (putative) co-religionists, those who want the protections - and yes, privileges - of the State certificate can argue about who qualifies.

Oh, there would still be people against altering the qualificatiion, and many would cloak themselves in "religion", but I do believe a bit more rationality (as opposed to rationalizing) would come to bear.

EU members again uphold the "precautionary principle", whch if applied early enough would have had the Earth populated by a few carbonaceous chemicals afraid of "going live".

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States may see its case against Europe's biotech policy strengthened this week as three EU governments look set to maintain bans on a type of genetically modified (GMO) maize, a EU official said on Monday.

The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, wants Austria, Luxembourg and Germany to scrap their bans on Bt-176, a GMO maize strain made by Swiss biotech giant Syngenta .

The Commission says there is no scientific justification for the bans on health and environmental grounds.

Ah, but there is money involved, right? Well, sort of, except that GMO crops are generally more bearing, giving a larger crop. OTOH, they can keep lying to Africa and assure that their non-GMO crops will have a market.