Monthly Archive for February, 2003

An interesting exchange between the New York Times Magazine and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Mohamed BlBaradei.

NY Times Mag: “Whom would you rather have coffee with, George Bush or Saddam Hussein?”
BlBaradei: “I really don’t drink coffee.”

Salon has an incredibly informative piece about the fallacy of the “war for oil” argument. A war for oil would raise prices in the short term, helping oil companies, but after the war prices could only go down, hurting them. Meanwhile, Russia, which relies on oil production for 90% of its economic output, would be devestated, as would all of our Middle East “partners in peace,” whose economies we would destroy. Meanwhile, US companies wouldn’t be enjoying the profits — it would be entreanched French and British oil conglomerates that would get the multi-billion dollar contracts to rebuild Iraq’s shattered oil infrastructure over several years.

War for oil? The Bush administration has done nothing but bungle this potential war, upsetting our allies and warning our enemies, using dangerous rhetoric and leaking strategies, and deploying a military that is woefully unprepared for the chemical and biological agents that Colin Powell so strongly states that Iraq posesses. If we’re going to war, it is for a variety of reasons that only Mr. Bush and perhaps his top advisors really understand. But it is not for oil.

Tony Almeida “worked” at Transmeta before moving to CTU. Wait…before? Neat, anyway. Although I have no idea what a “systems validation analyst” is. More fun “facts” on the 24 site. LIke Michelle built IPSec. These fictional characters have done some important computer work!

I’ve watched it again this week, and my conclusion is this: 60 Minutes does not break stories. Like every other major television media outlet, they only report on “controvertial” issues when at least one authority figure is doing something about it. Basically, the news won’t report on something that goes against the status quo unless they can report on someone in power who disagrees. They won’t say that the war with Iraq might be bad, they will say that Senator so and so says the war with Iraq might be bad. They won’t report that there is a protest against war, they will report about how the protest is larger or smaller than expected and on what a politician says in response.

So in 60 Minutes case, all three stories here are about things that are already out there — a Senator is upset that the military isn’t ready for Nuclear/Biological/Chemical attacks, so 60 Minutes is worried (again missing the pesky questions as to “why” that they consistantly fail to ask). Fourth-eight states have sued Tenet Health Systems for medial malpractice, so 60 Minutes is upset. And Michael Moore already made his own controversy, now 60 Minutes can do a piece about him and his movie.

You call this hard-hitting journalism? Geez, I really hope Salon.com gets some money so they don’t have to shutdown at the end of this month. That would be a real shame.

We came upon the Native Americans and Australians when they were living in the Stone Age. Afghanistan’s violent meeting with our world has found them living in a mediaeval world. The gulf is not so great as it was with some cultures, but it is still difficult to leap in a generation. Muslim civilization and Asian peasant culture were so rich and worked so well for these people that they changed slowly, while the rest of the world moved on.

I found the pictures at http://cr.middlebury.edu/art/Powell/afghanistan/ and I got the inspiration to look for them after listening to This great TAL story.