Rattle wrote:
] Here are some thoughts on the State of The Union Address..
]

I watched it live too... My own initial thoughts:

- I agreed with his views on Iraq and that the world is a better place without Saddam. I'm also glad that he talked about the proof of weapons programs in Iraq -- it seems that many people only want the smoking gun of an actual weapons cache to justify the war. In my mind though, it's enough to show that Saddam was systematically hiding things from UN inspectors, maintaining WMD programs in secret, and intimidating scientists from telling the truth. Those facts, in combination with a *wide* variety of other factors, justified the war for me.

- I laughed at the unexpected applause when Bush said that the Patriot Act expires next year. :)

- When he said, "We have broken the Baathist regime," one of the people I was watching the speech with was convinced that Bush had stumbled and said, "We have broken the Baptist regime." ;) I guess we hear what we want to hear! :)

- I'm glad he named an actual date for Iraqi sovereignty, of June. Though I think it's a very ambitious timetable!

- I was surprised that he didn't mention anything about Mars or anything to do with the space program. The Rover landing was an astonishing accomplishment for America, and for the world. It would have been an easy applause-getter, and also is something that has positive world attention on us. So I'm baffled why it got left out. Maybe the speechwriters were worried that people were upset with his recent proposal to send a manned mission to Mars, and so to avoid any negative associations there, they just didn't mention the Rovers at all. I guess it's also possible that if he brought up Mars, he'd also have to talk about the Shuttle disaster... I dunno.

- The idea of promoting sexual abstinence among young people just sounds absurd to me. Stricter societies than ours have tried to enforce abstinence, with little success.

- My most intense "He said *what*???" moment: I was horrified when Bush talked about marriage and used the term "activist judges." ACTIVIST judges? Like someone just came out of a 60s street protest, put down their megaphone and placard, and took a seat on the bench by accident? I was mightily offended by that comment -- he was implying that the judicial branch of government has too much power and needs to be reined in. If he wants to propose a constitutional amendment, fine. But to take a slam at the judicial branch like that, as though they were making whimsical decisions, was out of line.

Anyway, those are my own thoughts,

Elonka :)

RE: State of the Union Address

(re-memed at a new URL)

This is the transcript of a wide-ranging interview between NBC's Tom Brokaw and President Bush. Subjects covered range from Iraq to the Palestinian-Israeli situation to the economy to al-Sahaf and the Dixie Chicks.

I found the interview very interesting, not just for the policy stuff, but also to hear in Bush's own words what it was like to give the order at the beginning of the war, and what the decision-making process was like as last-minute changes were made in the war plan. I recommend this link highly for a better understanding of how decisions are made at his level.

President Bush Interview: April 24, 2003

] [Britain]'s worst mass murderer Harold Shipman has
] hanged himself with a noose of bed sheets in his prison
] cell, never having said what drove him to kill at least
] 215 of his patients.

British 'Dr. Death' commits suicide in prison

] On 7 January 2004, it was discovered that fraudulent rice
] is being sold in the markets of the African country of
] Burkina Faso. The rice mimicked that being sold by an
] American nongovernmental organization (NGO) to fund its
] work in that country. The fraudulent rice is being sold
] in nearly identical packaging and quantities, and is
] easily mistaken for the true product; locals have even
] taken to calling it "American Rice Type 2."

Fraudulent starches. What'll they think of next?

Fraudulent American Rice?

] NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Long a source of fun and fury on
] Wall Street and in Washington, former Treasury Secretary
] Paul O'Neill is back in the news for shooting his mouth
] off again.

Here's some information, pro and con, about O'Neill's history.

I'm still coming up to speed on the whole story, so I haven't made up my mind yet on whether or not O'Neill is credible. I do find it amusing though that many people who almost certainly had never heard of O'Neill before his book came out, and probably couldn't name any other cabinet members if their life depended on it, are jumping on O'Neill's bandwagon simply because they like *anything* that criticizes Bush. Or in other words, while O'Neill was *in* the administration, they would have perceived him as "one of them," a clueless idiot, but now that he's got some critical things to say about Bush, they praise him as a saintly whistle-blower.

This CNN article seems to do a pretty good job (IMHO) of trying to look at both sides of the issue. I look forward to more analysis in the future.

CNN: Just how bad were O'Neill's gaffes?

] Stunned by Friday's rocket attack on a Pakistan Army camp
] in South Waziristan tribal agency that killed four
] soldiers and wounded several others, the political
] administration yesterday gave a 48-hour ultimatum to the
] Ahmadzai Wazir tribe to surrender three wanted tribesmen
] charged with harbouring "foreign terrorists."
]
] The ultimatum was given to a jirga of Ahmadzai Wazir
] tribe in Wana, headquarters of South Waziristan. More
] than 50 tribal elders belonging to the nine sub-tribes of
] Ahmadzai Wazir attended the jirga. Among them were heads
] of the Yargulkhel section of the tribe to which the
] wanted men belong.
  . . . 
] The tribe would be collectively held responsible for the attack
] under tribal customs prevalent in South Waziristan and other
] Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and could face
] punitive action in the coming days.
  . . . 
] Failure to surrender the three would invite a series of punitive
] measures including arrest of the tribal elders, seizure of their
] vehicles and closure of their shops and businesses.

I'm not entirely sure I understand everything in this article, but it's interesting to try and follow the political complexities in this area of the world. I'm also very curious to learn whether "foreign terrorists" might mean any Al Qaeda bigwigs...

Gulf News Online: Tribal group told to turn in wanted men

] the president's press secretary, Scott McClellan, told
] reporters, "The president directed his administration to
] do a comprehensive review of our space policy, including
] our priorities and the future of the program, and the
] president will have more to say on it next week."

Hmmm. So is this a test balloon to see how much public support there is for such a venture, considering the current wave of space enthusiasm? Is it a straight election-year ploy? A hint at what's coming up in the State of the Union speech in a couple weeks? A combination of all?

My own opinion is, "Sounds great! But Show Me the Money." If there's a budget for it, it may happen. Otherwise it's just hot air.

Stay tuned . . .

Bush to Announce Ventures to Mars and the Moon, Officials Say

] Critics of the Patriot Act say the 2001 law, which was intended
] to enhance police powers to track terrorists, has recently been
] misused to investigate a political scandal in Las Vegas.
 . . .
] (they) say the Las Vegas case is
] the first -- but certainly not the last --
] example of federal law enforcement using its broadened
] surveillance powers to prosecute domestic criminals who
] do not threaten national security.

I'm not entirely thrilled with linking this particular article, because it's heavy on accusations and short on facts or details. And it's on Fox News, which I'm often inclined to rate in believability somewhere around the level of the National Enquirer.

But, if the story is true, it's something that would raise a red flag for me. I don't have time to check the veracity now, but am meme-ing it for later research. If anyone else has checked out the details and would like to post a summary of what actually happened, please let me know.

FoxNews: Did the FBI use the Patriot Act to investigate a non-terrorist crime?

Laughing Boy wrote:
] ] Visitors to the United States with visas will be greeted
] ] with a demand for fingerprints and photographs Monday as
] ] a government program intended to fight terrorism takes
] ] effect.
] ]
] ] The U.S. Department of Homeland Security says the goal of
] ] the US VISIT program is to track the millions of people
] ] who come to the United States every year on business,
] ] student and tourist visas -- and to use the information
] ] as a tool against terrorists.
] ]
] ] US-VISIT stands for United States Visitor and Immigrant
] ] Status Indicator Technology.
]
] Don't you just get warm fuzzies all over everytime you are
] reminded you're living in a police state???
]
] LB

Actually, I don't have that big a problem with this, depending how invasive it is. As the picture in the article shows, there are new digital systems where all you have to do to give your prints is to rest your finger on a scanner pad for a moment, and I don't see that as any more invasive than requiring people to display their passport, provide photos of themselves, and fill out the usual visa applications.

If it's the old "ink roller and paper card" system though, then yes, I would find that extremely annoying. I actually think that that old-style perception may be where a lot of the protests are coming from. When most people hear "fingerprints", they immediately envision an inky mess all over their hands, which aside from being embarrassing, would also be extremely inconvenient in an airport while you're already having to juggle bags and tickets.

Speaking as a world traveler, I've been through plenty of border nightmares, especially in third-world countries. I'd routinely have to carry extra photos of myself in case I was asked for one. I more than once was asked for bribes. I accepted as routine that I'd be asked who I was traveling with, where I was staying, and, during the height of the AIDS panic, I was even questioned about my sexual habits (one border guard told me that since I was American, he didn't want me having sex while in his country).

Compared with all that, I see a digital fingerprint scan as trivial. It's a simple check that says, "Yes, I'm the person that this passport was issued for." It makes forging efforts *much* more difficult, and I see that as a good thing.

RE: Program to fingerprint U.S. visitors starts - Jan. 4, 2004

] Imagine this: The FBI nails a couple of major terrorism
] suspects, in possession of a weapon of mass destruction
] -- a sodium cyanide bomb -- as well as about 100 other
] bombs, bomb components, machine guns, chemical agents,
] and 500,000 rounds of ammunition. Additionally, they find
] documents detailing an apparent scheme to actually use
] these weapons, some indicating other suspects might still
] be at large. And to top it all off, the suspects plead
] guilty.
]
] Big story, right? Huge, right?
 . . .
] Not one press conference. Just a
] quietly issued press release. If that defies explanation,
] some Ashcroft critics think they have one: The suspects
] were named William J. Krar and Judith L. Bruey, not
] Mohammed or Omar or Khalid. They aren't Muslims, but
] alleged white supremacists. And they were caught right
] here in Texas.
]
] Without the DOJ bringing the Krar case to national
] attention, the media silence has been deafening.

I have to admit, that I find it enormously frustrating to see which stories get big press and which ones don't. Thank god for Google News and the blogosphere, so I can choose for myself which stories I want to follow. But even with those freely available sources to the internet-literate, I still constantly run into friends and family who will say, "Blaster? Tuwaitha? I never heard about those on CNN. It must be a media conspiracy!"

Personally, I don't see it as a conspiracy so much as hard choices that have to be made by news organizations about which stories to list in a short timeslot, to an audience who only give themselves a half-hour a day to "catch up on the news" (if that much).

After September 11th, I remember being vaguely aware that there were some huge stories going on elsewhere in the world -- stories that normally would have resulted in hours of coverage, but in the wake of September 11th were only mentioned briefly in the headline ticker at the bottom of the screen.

In "interesting times", big stories get lost. :/

Domestic Terrorism Gets Little Press