Ok, South Carolina is over and McCain has won, and Huckabee has come in second. But two items from ABC News caught my eye:
Preliminary exit poll results indicate that nearly seven in 10 Republican voters in the state are identifying themselves as conservatives, which is more than in the 2000 primary there, as well as more than in either Michigan or New Hampshire this year. (italics mine).
And this:
Continue reading "The Biggest News to Emerge from SC (IMHO)" »
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of climate change, watch this video. It's not designed to change -- or even address -- anyone's opinion. It merely discusses the possible courses of action and their consequences, and it is possibly the most lucid thing I've heard anyone, pro or con, say on the subject. Watch it. It will be nine minutes well spent.
Continue reading "Climate Change: Ending an Irrelevant Argument" »
Posted by PBS Mind |Yesterday I blasted Verizon for censoring text messages to subscribers. Today I have to applaud them because they have recognized the error and reversed it, according to the Washington Post.
So to Verizon, I have but two words to say: thank you.
Posted by PBS Mind | Today's New York Times reveals the decision of Verizon Wireless to block text messages sent by Naral which are requested by its supporters. Those of you who read my previous post about this exact problem may be noticing a pattern beginning to develop. What's that old saying? "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend." Why do I think Time No. 3 isn't far behind?
Many of you know I just canceled my Hotmail account. I want to tell
you why. Early in September, Hotmail stopped forwarding my subscription
e-mails from Truthout.org. Note the use of the word “subscription”
there — I CHOOSE to receive e-mails from Truthout and, despite the fact
that I’m well past the age of majority and legally able to make my own
choices, AND that this country allegedly enjoys freedom of speech,
HOTMAIL unilaterally decided to call my subscription “spam” and stop
forwarding it.
Continue reading "A Challenge: Putting a Value on Being Informed." »
Posted by PBS Mind |
From a press release issued by Friends of the Earth:
A federal district court in Vermont ruled this morning that automakers must comply with a state law that limits automobile greenhouse gas emissions. Today's ruling comes after a U.S. Supreme Court decision this spring held that greenhouse gas pollution from vehicles can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This ruling foreshadows what's likely to come in an almost identical lawsuit being heard in California, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
In today's ruling, the court held that California's law is not preempted by federal standards. The court held that California and other states may legally adopt regulations reducing greenhouse gas pollution from cars, despite the fact that such regulations may have the effect of increasing fuel economy. The court also found that the automakers have the technological ability to comply.
Continue reading "Vehicle Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Progress" »
Posted by PBS Mind | It's no secret by now that the Bush Administration's favorite way of dealing with trouble â or even with anything they don't want to think about or which doesn't go along with their peculiar world view â is to ignore it as long as possible. And it's become evident that their respect for the law is predicated on convenience.
So it should come as no surprise to you that the Bush Administration has been conveniently (there's that word again) ignoring (oh, and that one, too) a 1990 law that requires the United States Government to assess and report on global-warming data. Fortunately for us, someone was watching.
Posted by PBS Mind | Fred Thompson's not even a declared candidate (oh please, who is he kidding?) and he's already being investigated by the Federal Elections Commission, according to Yahoo! News / Associated Press and our own The Crux.
The one thing I wonder about regarding all this is what the GOP's reaction is. Here's a guy who's siphoning off loads of contribution money (more than 3 million at last report), which, legally, cannot be used once he declares candidacy (assuming he does). Moreover, if he does declare, he already has a black cloud over his head (like the GOP can afford any more of those!). And his activities are crippling other, potentially viable, Republican candidates (who could certainly use the money) in a year when viable Republican candidates (meaning people that even the majority of Republicans could stomach, let alone any Democrats) seem to be pretty thin on the ground.
If I were the GOP, I'd be tapping old Fred on the shoulder and telling him that as soon as he can get his head out of there, I'd like to have a little chat. But that's just me.
Posted by PBS Mind | Rudy Giuliani spoke at a forum about crime in cities recently, sponsored by the New York Post and reported by the New York Times. During this event, he said:
"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Continue reading "And All This Time I Thought I Knew What Freedom Was" »
Posted by PBS Mind | I'm sure that's what Senator John Sununu is saying right about now. He's slipping in the polls, seriously -- and he slips even further when matched against potential Democratic opponents. Since they haven't even declared yet, this must be especially galling for poor John. (See article from the Nashua Telegraph.)
Continue reading "Gotta Hate Those Performance Evaluations" »
Posted by PBS Mind | I'm sure you heard about the RAPE case in Nebraska two weeks ago -- the one where the judge said the plaintiff couldn't use the word RAPE or SEXUAL ASSAULT or a host of other words to clearly describe what happened to her, leaving her with little choice but to use vocabulary that makes it sound like it happened to her with her consent. The case was declared a mistrial before it even began because this judge's misogynistic ruling made headlines nationwide. (See WaPo article.) (See another particularly articulate blog (yarnharlot) on the topic.)
The judge's name is Jeffre Cheuvront. I have not heard of him declaring the words "steal" and "theft" off-limits in theft cases, nor the words "kill" or "murder" in homicide cases, so I'm having a hard time thinking his motives are as "conscientious" as one observer describes them, particularly inasmuch as that observer happens to be the defendant's attorney -- hardly an unbiased source. I admit it, it's only a gut reaction and an emotionally charged one at that, but I can't get past the idea that this guy just hates women.
At any rate, judges are supposed to protect the rights of everyone and ensure a balanced and unbiased airing of the facts -- the very definition of a "fair trial." Seems to me that this guy has let his pendulum swing way too far in one direction (for example, I did not see where he barred the defendant from claiming she wanted it, or from using words like "consented"!).
Posted by PBS Mind | "The Crux" usually covers the DoJ issues, and she is so thoroughly versed in it that it's usually best just to leave her to it. However, I read something today that I just had to share.
It's from the June 4th issue of Newsweek (yes, I'm just now getting caught up):
"... It is worth remembering that before Richard Nixon could find someone at the Justice Department willing to fire the Watergate special prosecutor in 1973, he had to accept the resignations of the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, and the deputy attorney general, William Ruckelshaus. (Solicitor General Robert Bork finally did the deed.)
"So consider these scenes from March 2004, described by two former top Justice officials who, like other ex-officials interviewed by Newsweek, did not wish to be identified discussing sensitive internal matters. Attorney General John Ashcroft is really sick. About to give a press conference in Virginia, he is stricken with pain so severe he has to lie down on the floor. Taken to the hospital for an emergency gallbladder operation, he hallucinates under medication as he lies, near death, in intensive care. On the night after his operation, he has two visitors: White House chief of staff Andrew Card and presidential counsel Alberto Gonzales. As described in public testimony, they want Ashcroft to sign a document authorizing the government's top-secret eavesdropping program to go on. The attorney general, who thinks the program is illegal, refuses.
The Washington Post is asking a pertinent question -- who's paying for Rudy Giuliani's security? His books don't show a security expense but he clearly has security guards. The cost was apparently being picked up by his own company, Giuliani Partners, but the campaign began picking up the expenses on June 18.
From the WaPo piece:
"It certainly appears to challenge the law, with respect to a corporate contribution," said Ellen Miller, a longtime campaign finance watchdog in Washington. "A corporation cannot make an in-kind contribution by paying for a service or a party or even food at a party."
Posted by PBS Mind | Guys, it's no longer necessary to worry about Fred Thompson. Turns out when Nixon heard Freddie-boy was batting for the home team during the Watergate investigation, he said Thompson was "dumb as hell." We'll overlook the crummy metaphor for the moment, and instead put our faith in the two billion political polls in this country, all of which say that Bush is leaving skidmarks in the bowl. Now why, you ask, does this mean I don't need to worry about Fred? Because even Republicans are saying they don't want more of the same, and it looks like with Fred, the consensus is they'd get it!
Posted by PBS Mind | Someone just sent me one of those little video clips designed to outline for me all the reasons why flag-burning is wrong. Well, it may be -- I haven't thought about it that much because I believe that sanctifying symbols just makes it easier not to take too close a look at what they really stand for, and the next thing you know, what has happened to our flag happens. So I tend not to pay much mind to symbols, except to regard them with deep suspicion.
Our flag theoretically symbolizes what this country IS. Unfortunately, it's being used to get people to sign off on what this country DOES -- preferably without thinking about it and absolutely without questioning it. (Oh, I'm sorry, was I referring obliquely to Iraq again?)
Posted by PBS Mind |
A heads-up, for those of you who didn't already know this: Fred Thompson (the Republican presidential non-candidate candidate), by his own admission, was a mole for the Nixon White House while serving as minority counsel on the Watergate investigations committee. He makes reference to it in his Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time."
Personally, I think it damned thoughty of Mr. Thompson to let us know on which side of truth, justice and the American way he stands ahead of time, so that we have the opportunity to avoid being amBushed again.
Now, we just need to pay attention.
Posted by PBS Mind | I just watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" (which I recommend), which is about the efforts of GM to kill demand for and sales of its own electric cars in California. You read that right.
Here's the thing I don't understand -- which lead to the title of this piece. Clearly, the oil industry has an interest in eliminating electric cars. No surprise there, and if the conclusions drawn in this documentary had been that Big Oil was the ringleader in shutting down the electric car, you and I would not be having this conversation. But the ringleader was not, apparently, big oil -- it was the automobile industry itself.
Oil, as should be painfully obvious to everyone over the age of three, is finite, and de facto, running out -- albeit not immediately. So it's in the automobile industry's best interests to get cars out there that don't rely on oil, so that regardless of what happens to the oil industry, the automobile industry can survive. You would think this would also be obvious, but if actions speak louder than words, this salient point has escaped the notice of the bigwigs at GM
On my own blog, The Simple Activist, I recently wrote about the actual cost of a candy bar. Many of those costs are political, actually.
Think about it. While you’re standing in the checkout line looking over that rack of chocolate and doing battle with your temptations, you are not thinking about the political ramifications of that purchase. You’re thinking about your diet, you’re thinking about nutrition, you’re thinking about cravings, you’re thinking about your weakness, you’re thinking about what you won’t eat later today or how you will exercise to justify buying 300 calories worth of candy.
I bet buying candy being a political act never crosses your mind.
Posted by PBS Mind |
Although they appear to have done it under pressure of threatened lawsuits, Kellogg has stepped up and taken a first step toward ceasing advertising of unhealthy products to children under 12, according to a report on ABC News. They're also embarking on a new, albeit flawed, labeling program for their foods that will give people nutritional information on the front of the box (I say flawed because the labeling information will be based on a 2,000 calorie [read adult] diet, even though many of the products are intended primarily for children, who require far fewer calories.)
Kudos to Kellogg for taking this first step without forcing a long court battle and without hiding behind the lack of federal regulation, of course, and like they, I hope other companies will jump on. But the darts and laurels procession doesn't stop there:
Continue reading "A Small Victory for the Public Interest" »
Posted by PBS Mind | Fox television is doing a new reality show. It will doubtless have all the class and sophistication of most such shows, but with an added twist: this one stars a model doing the job of a journalist. This is creating a stir in Tyler, Texas, where the show is being made, according to Yahoo News.
Bear with me here.
Two things are happening with our news media -- first, they seem to be rolling over left and right. They print what they're told is news, and when discouraged from asking questions, they stop asking questions. This flies in the face of what they're supposed to do, but they've learned that the price of access is cooperation. They're frustrated, and we who want to believe they're acting in our interests are also frustrated. But we're to blame too (I say "we're," as I myself have a journalism degree), because we've allowed ourselves to let others – including those whom we're supposed to be keeping an eye on – tell us what is news, what is important, and what we can safely ignore. (Safely, that is, unless you're in the military, in which case journalists' ignoring the niggling questions about Iraq may well have helped you lose your life by now.)
