Well, hell, now what are we supposed to do?
ABC News: Now, the Sun Prevents Skin Cancer -- Right?
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
9/11 Widow Reads Karl Rove the Riot Act
By Kristen Breitweiser
The Huffington Post
June 23, 2005.
Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan - the place that anyone with a true "understanding of 9/11" knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks. One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks. In the meantime, Afghanistan has carried out democratic elections, but continues to suffer from extreme violence and unrest. Poppy production (yes, Karl, the drug trade) is at an all time high, thus flooding the world market with heroin. And of course, the oil pipeline (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea pipeline) is better protected by U.S. troops who now have a "legitimate" excuse to be in that part of Afghanistan. Interesting isn't it Karl that the drug "rat line" parallels the oil pipeline. (Yet, with all those troops guarding that same sliver of land, can you please explain how those drugs keep getting through?)
Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive." Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run," and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.
Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that "moderation and restraint" don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I d
igress.)
More to the point, Karl when you say, "Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war," what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.
It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.
For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective "understanding of 9/11" seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."
Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)
Karl, you say you "understand" 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could "understand" what happened on 9/11?
Since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, have you helped bring to fruition any of the commission's recommendations? Have you truly made our homeland safer by hardening/eliminating soft targets? Because, to me rebuilding a tower that is 1,776 feet tall where the World Trade Center once stood seems to be only providing more soft targets for the terrorists to hit. Moreover, your support for the use of nuclear energy seems to be providing even more soft targets. Tell me, while you write your nifty little speeches about nuclear power, do you explain to your audience how our nuclear plants will be protected against terrorist attack or infiltration? What assurances do you give that nuclear waste will not find its way into terrorist's dirty bombs and onto our city streets? And, how do you assure your audience that the shipment of radioactive material will not become a terrorist target as it rolls through their own backyards?
To date, you have done practically nothing to secure our ports, nuclear power plants, and mass transportation systems. Imagine if the billions of dollars you spent in Iraq were spent more wisely on those things here at home. Imagine what sort of alternative energy resources (bio-diesel, wind power, solar power, and hybrid automobiles) could have been researched and funded in the past three years. Talk about regaining the respect and support of the world, that is the one way to do it.
Karl, if you "understand 9/11", then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?
Finally Karl, please "understand" that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive "understanding of 9/11" know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.
It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?
All copyrights retained by creator, I'm just trying to spread this excellent article.
By Kristen Breitweiser
The Huffington Post
June 23, 2005.
Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan - the place that anyone with a true "understanding of 9/11" knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks. One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks. In the meantime, Afghanistan has carried out democratic elections, but continues to suffer from extreme violence and unrest. Poppy production (yes, Karl, the drug trade) is at an all time high, thus flooding the world market with heroin. And of course, the oil pipeline (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea pipeline) is better protected by U.S. troops who now have a "legitimate" excuse to be in that part of Afghanistan. Interesting isn't it Karl that the drug "rat line" parallels the oil pipeline. (Yet, with all those troops guarding that same sliver of land, can you please explain how those drugs keep getting through?)
Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive." Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run," and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.
Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that "moderation and restraint" don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I d
igress.)
More to the point, Karl when you say, "Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war," what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.
It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.
For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective "understanding of 9/11" seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."
Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)
Karl, you say you "understand" 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could "understand" what happened on 9/11?
Since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, have you helped bring to fruition any of the commission's recommendations? Have you truly made our homeland safer by hardening/eliminating soft targets? Because, to me rebuilding a tower that is 1,776 feet tall where the World Trade Center once stood seems to be only providing more soft targets for the terrorists to hit. Moreover, your support for the use of nuclear energy seems to be providing even more soft targets. Tell me, while you write your nifty little speeches about nuclear power, do you explain to your audience how our nuclear plants will be protected against terrorist attack or infiltration? What assurances do you give that nuclear waste will not find its way into terrorist's dirty bombs and onto our city streets? And, how do you assure your audience that the shipment of radioactive material will not become a terrorist target as it rolls through their own backyards?
To date, you have done practically nothing to secure our ports, nuclear power plants, and mass transportation systems. Imagine if the billions of dollars you spent in Iraq were spent more wisely on those things here at home. Imagine what sort of alternative energy resources (bio-diesel, wind power, solar power, and hybrid automobiles) could have been researched and funded in the past three years. Talk about regaining the respect and support of the world, that is the one way to do it.
Karl, if you "understand 9/11", then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?
Finally Karl, please "understand" that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive "understanding of 9/11" know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.
It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?
All copyrights retained by creator, I'm just trying to spread this excellent article.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Interesting change in the biz model. However, you'd have to limit it to certain areas if you are going to price discriminate so severely - $5 to start and $.07 an hour - they will have to make sure they can control who gets that access.
GamesIndustry.biz - World of Warcraft launches in China
GamesIndustry.biz - World of Warcraft launches in China
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Apple with Intel
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
So, the big question, as raised here, is if we will finally be able to double boot Windoze and OS X on the same machine - hmmm.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000157045779/
Pro:
huge distribution possibilities
Con:
huge compatibility issues potential
no more hardware sales for Apple means no more profit for Apple?
MS might just have to lower it's price for longhorn, though to try to kill it - and they will definitely try to kill it
Honestly, I'm surprised that they didn't make Intel exclude them long ago
Other questions:
What about Transmeta and AMD?
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
So, the big question, as raised here, is if we will finally be able to double boot Windoze and OS X on the same machine - hmmm.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000157045779/
Pro:
huge distribution possibilities
Con:
huge compatibility issues potential
no more hardware sales for Apple means no more profit for Apple?
MS might just have to lower it's price for longhorn, though to try to kill it - and they will definitely try to kill it
Honestly, I'm surprised that they didn't make Intel exclude them long ago
Other questions:
What about Transmeta and AMD?
Monday, May 30, 2005
Good for NIN. What really amazes me is that the Canadian news seems to deem this more worthy of report than the castrated American Money machine known as the 'press.'
CBC Arts: Nine Inch Nails, MTV part ways over Bush
CBC Arts: Nine Inch Nails, MTV part ways over Bush
Friday, May 27, 2005
Thursday, April 14, 2005
No entries in weeks?!?!? Bad LP.
Trying to decide if it's worth heading out for this. Would make me re-arrange a lot of stuff, though.
E3 2005
Trying to decide if it's worth heading out for this. Would make me re-arrange a lot of stuff, though.
E3 2005
Friday, March 18, 2005
Dammit, this pisses me off - I knew that they manipulated the media (see Fox News) but dilberately creating 'news' goes too far. Welcome to 1984 - 20 years later
The White House Fakes It
Continued violence in Iraq, a struggling economy, an unpopular plan to privatize Social Security, homeland security left underfunded while the rich get giant tax cuts ... what's a White House to do when the news about its policies isn't favorable? Fake it. An explosive, front-page New York Times story this weekend exposes President Bush's vast manipulation of the media and White House attempts to manipulate public opinion. Over the past four years, it turns out at least 20 different federal agencies have been involved in producing hundreds -- yes, hundreds -- of fake TV news segments, many of which were "subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production." In fact, since President Bush took office, the White House has spent at least $254 million on these fake segments and other public relations ploys to spread positive propaganda about his policies. President Bush has paid lip service to the concept of a free press, saying in January 2005, "there needs to be a nice, independent relationship between the White House and the press, the administration and the press." He also claimed "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." Here's what happens when it can't:
LOSE YOUR IDENTITY: One of the largest concerns about these fake news segments is that they obscure the fact that they are paid for using taxpayer money and contain a one-sided, purely positive take on administration policy. In a now-infamous segment by the Department of Health and Human Services, a PR official named Karen Ryan posed as a reporter interviewing then-Secretary Tommy Thompson. (Her role in the well-rehearsed spot was to give Thompson "better, snappier answers" to her pre-approved questions.) The Government Accountability Office found the agency "designed and executed" her segments "to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by private sector television news organizations."
OFFICE OF B.S.: The Office of Broadcasting Services is a branch of the State Department which traditionally has acted as a clearinghouse for video from news conferences. That all changed three years ago. In 2002, "with close editorial direction from the White House," the unit started producing fake news segments to back up President Bush's rationale for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As one senior official told Congress, the phony segments were "powerful strategic tools" used to influence public opinion. In all, the office produced nearly 60 segments, which were then distributed around the world for local stations to use as actual news footage. Although the White House has claimed ignorance about the use of fake news, it was well aware this was happening. A White House memo in January 2003 actually said segments the State Department disseminated about the liberation of Afghan women were "a prime example" of how "White-House led efforts could facilitate strategic, proactive communications in the war on terror."
IGNORE THE GAO: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a nonpartisan branch of Congress that investigates government fraud. The GAO criticized the administration's role in creating phony news three separate times in the past year, saying unless viewers are aware that what they're watching is government produced, it constitutes "covert propaganda." The GAO also forbade federal agencies from creating prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials." The administration's response? The New York Times reports that on Friday, "the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the GAO findings."
IGNORE FEDERAL LAW: These fake news spots are produced with taxpayer money by outside public relations firms. Federal law warns federal agencies away from doing exactly that; the U.S. Code states "appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." However, the GAO, which monitors the law, has no enforcement power. That responsibility lies with Congress and the White House. U.S. federal law also contains the Smith Mundt Act of 1948, which prohibits the spread of government propaganda in the United States (although it allows groups like Voice of America to broadcast it to foreign audiences.) According to the NY Times, State Department officials claim that provision doesn't apply to them.
Source: Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin with Nico Pitney and
Mipe Okunseinde, American Progress Action Fund, The Progress Report,
March 14, 2005.
******************************************************************************
White House to Agencies: Ignore GAO's Ruling on 'Illegal' TV News Releases
Washington - The White House, intent on continuing to crank out "video news releases" that look like television news stories, has told government agency heads to ignore a Government Accountability Office memo criticizing the practice as illegal propaganda.
In a memo on Friday, Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the lawyers the White House depends on disagree with the GAO's conclusions.
Accompanying Bolten's memo was a letter from Steven Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, who said video news releases "are the television equivalent of the printed press release." advertisement
"They can be a cost-effective means to distribute information through local news outlets, and their use by private and public entities has been widespread since the early 1990s, including by numerous federal agencies," Bradbury said.
Comptroller General David Walker of the GAO said Monday that his agency is "disappointed by the administration's actions" in telling agency heads to ignore the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.
"This is not just a legal issue, it's also an ethical matter," Walker said. "The taxpayers have a right to know when the government is trying to influence them with their own money."
Bradbury's memo said video news releases are legal and legitimate as long as they don't "constitute advocacy for any particular position or view."
The GAO, in a Feb. 17 memo to agency heads, said its review of video news releases distributed to television stations by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy showed violations of federal law barring the use of government money for propaganda. The GAO said, "Television-viewing audiences did not know that stories they watched on television news programs about the government were, in fact, prepared by the government."
Giving no indication that the administration would change its policy, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "It's very clear to the TV stations where they are coming from."
But the GAO, in the Feb. 17 memo from Walker, said that's not enough.
"They are intended to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public by independent television news organizations," Walker wrote. "To help accomplish this goal, these stories include actors or others hired to portray 'reporters' and may be accompanied by suggested scripts that television news anchors can use to introduce the story during the broadcast."
Former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, who held the job in the Clinton administration, said there was a "considerable amount of video news release activity" during those years, but much of it was limited to raw footage."
TruthOut Editor's Comment: This story appears to be gathering steam quickly. In addition to considerable public outrage, the White House's position was further complicated by a ruling from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the practice described was illegal, violating laws prohibiting the U.S. government from producing covert propaganda. In response to the GAO's ruling, an attorney for the Justice Department issued a statement in opposition to the GAO's position, stating the White House had not broken the law and is within its rights to continue the practice.
While the attorney who drafted the opinion was Steven Bradbury, the final decision on whether or not to take legal action against the White House would have to be made by the head of the Justice Department, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the man who has been George W. Bush's personal attorney for decades. Accordingly, we are reporting that the Justice Department, under the direction of Gonzales, is shielding the White House rather than acting on the recommendation of the GAO. - ma.
Source: Ken Herman, Cox News Service, Tuesday 15 March 2005.
The White House Fakes It
Continued violence in Iraq, a struggling economy, an unpopular plan to privatize Social Security, homeland security left underfunded while the rich get giant tax cuts ... what's a White House to do when the news about its policies isn't favorable? Fake it. An explosive, front-page New York Times story this weekend exposes President Bush's vast manipulation of the media and White House attempts to manipulate public opinion. Over the past four years, it turns out at least 20 different federal agencies have been involved in producing hundreds -- yes, hundreds -- of fake TV news segments, many of which were "subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production." In fact, since President Bush took office, the White House has spent at least $254 million on these fake segments and other public relations ploys to spread positive propaganda about his policies. President Bush has paid lip service to the concept of a free press, saying in January 2005, "there needs to be a nice, independent relationship between the White House and the press, the administration and the press." He also claimed "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." Here's what happens when it can't:
LOSE YOUR IDENTITY: One of the largest concerns about these fake news segments is that they obscure the fact that they are paid for using taxpayer money and contain a one-sided, purely positive take on administration policy. In a now-infamous segment by the Department of Health and Human Services, a PR official named Karen Ryan posed as a reporter interviewing then-Secretary Tommy Thompson. (Her role in the well-rehearsed spot was to give Thompson "better, snappier answers" to her pre-approved questions.) The Government Accountability Office found the agency "designed and executed" her segments "to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by private sector television news organizations."
OFFICE OF B.S.: The Office of Broadcasting Services is a branch of the State Department which traditionally has acted as a clearinghouse for video from news conferences. That all changed three years ago. In 2002, "with close editorial direction from the White House," the unit started producing fake news segments to back up President Bush's rationale for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As one senior official told Congress, the phony segments were "powerful strategic tools" used to influence public opinion. In all, the office produced nearly 60 segments, which were then distributed around the world for local stations to use as actual news footage. Although the White House has claimed ignorance about the use of fake news, it was well aware this was happening. A White House memo in January 2003 actually said segments the State Department disseminated about the liberation of Afghan women were "a prime example" of how "White-House led efforts could facilitate strategic, proactive communications in the war on terror."
IGNORE THE GAO: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a nonpartisan branch of Congress that investigates government fraud. The GAO criticized the administration's role in creating phony news three separate times in the past year, saying unless viewers are aware that what they're watching is government produced, it constitutes "covert propaganda." The GAO also forbade federal agencies from creating prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials." The administration's response? The New York Times reports that on Friday, "the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the GAO findings."
IGNORE FEDERAL LAW: These fake news spots are produced with taxpayer money by outside public relations firms. Federal law warns federal agencies away from doing exactly that; the U.S. Code states "appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." However, the GAO, which monitors the law, has no enforcement power. That responsibility lies with Congress and the White House. U.S. federal law also contains the Smith Mundt Act of 1948, which prohibits the spread of government propaganda in the United States (although it allows groups like Voice of America to broadcast it to foreign audiences.) According to the NY Times, State Department officials claim that provision doesn't apply to them.
Source: Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin with Nico Pitney and
Mipe Okunseinde, American Progress Action Fund, The Progress Report,
March 14, 2005.
******************************************************************************
White House to Agencies: Ignore GAO's Ruling on 'Illegal' TV News Releases
Washington - The White House, intent on continuing to crank out "video news releases" that look like television news stories, has told government agency heads to ignore a Government Accountability Office memo criticizing the practice as illegal propaganda.
In a memo on Friday, Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the lawyers the White House depends on disagree with the GAO's conclusions.
Accompanying Bolten's memo was a letter from Steven Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, who said video news releases "are the television equivalent of the printed press release." advertisement
"They can be a cost-effective means to distribute information through local news outlets, and their use by private and public entities has been widespread since the early 1990s, including by numerous federal agencies," Bradbury said.
Comptroller General David Walker of the GAO said Monday that his agency is "disappointed by the administration's actions" in telling agency heads to ignore the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.
"This is not just a legal issue, it's also an ethical matter," Walker said. "The taxpayers have a right to know when the government is trying to influence them with their own money."
Bradbury's memo said video news releases are legal and legitimate as long as they don't "constitute advocacy for any particular position or view."
The GAO, in a Feb. 17 memo to agency heads, said its review of video news releases distributed to television stations by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy showed violations of federal law barring the use of government money for propaganda. The GAO said, "Television-viewing audiences did not know that stories they watched on television news programs about the government were, in fact, prepared by the government."
Giving no indication that the administration would change its policy, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "It's very clear to the TV stations where they are coming from."
But the GAO, in the Feb. 17 memo from Walker, said that's not enough.
"They are intended to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public by independent television news organizations," Walker wrote. "To help accomplish this goal, these stories include actors or others hired to portray 'reporters' and may be accompanied by suggested scripts that television news anchors can use to introduce the story during the broadcast."
Former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, who held the job in the Clinton administration, said there was a "considerable amount of video news release activity" during those years, but much of it was limited to raw footage."
TruthOut Editor's Comment: This story appears to be gathering steam quickly. In addition to considerable public outrage, the White House's position was further complicated by a ruling from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the practice described was illegal, violating laws prohibiting the U.S. government from producing covert propaganda. In response to the GAO's ruling, an attorney for the Justice Department issued a statement in opposition to the GAO's position, stating the White House had not broken the law and is within its rights to continue the practice.
While the attorney who drafted the opinion was Steven Bradbury, the final decision on whether or not to take legal action against the White House would have to be made by the head of the Justice Department, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the man who has been George W. Bush's personal attorney for decades. Accordingly, we are reporting that the Justice Department, under the direction of Gonzales, is shielding the White House rather than acting on the recommendation of the GAO. - ma.
Source: Ken Herman, Cox News Service, Tuesday 15 March 2005.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
I'm sure that some SF author was the first to talk about this, but I'm reminded of the Dilbert cartoon which said that the replacement of physical keyboards with vr glasses and keyboards would do nothing to dispel engineers' social misfit status.
VKB, Inc.
VKB, Inc.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Friday, February 04, 2005
Pretty fun and interesting - very picky!
Place The State - Intermediate
My score
42 out of 50 perfect
avg error 39 miles
1992 seconds
Place The State - Intermediate
My score
42 out of 50 perfect
avg error 39 miles
1992 seconds
Monday, January 31, 2005
Wow! I love a good speech and this is a great one. I wish I'd 'heard' it in High School. I'm not sure that my parents didn't actually tell me, but I sure didn't hear it. And the hearing is what matters. There are a couple of places that I have to disagree or would comment further, but overall, I think that Paul has put into words what it took me until graduate school to put into practice.
Like him, I knew something was up before that, and I did my best to 'stay upwind' (although not necessarily in the best ways - failing to commit isn't really a positive expression of the art). On the other hand, his statement that olympic champions are just 'relieved' is a gross oversimplication that detracts, in my opinion, from the correct statement that doing things that are hard is reqarding.
What You'll Wish You'd Known
I'd love to hear your comments about what you wish you'd known, too.
Like him, I knew something was up before that, and I did my best to 'stay upwind' (although not necessarily in the best ways - failing to commit isn't really a positive expression of the art). On the other hand, his statement that olympic champions are just 'relieved' is a gross oversimplication that detracts, in my opinion, from the correct statement that doing things that are hard is reqarding.
What You'll Wish You'd Known
I'd love to hear your comments about what you wish you'd known, too.
As part of my effort to disseminate accurate information I point you to:
Mature Video Games in the Minority on FileFront
in direct contrast with
MediaFamily.org | Facts: Chidren And Media Violence
Mature Video Games in the Minority on FileFront
in direct contrast with
MediaFamily.org | Facts: Chidren And Media Violence
Friday, January 28, 2005
I've always felt that it was more important to be able to synthesize and draw conclusions from information than it is to be able to follow the strict scientific method.
Wired 13.02: Revenge of the Right Brain
Dan is really a visionary who has successfully tapped in the zeitgeist of the technological trends of the last decade several times. He tends to 'get it' early and publish late, though. Maybe this time he is actually ahead of the curve.
Wired 13.02: Revenge of the Right Brain
Dan is really a visionary who has successfully tapped in the zeitgeist of the technological trends of the last decade several times. He tends to 'get it' early and publish late, though. Maybe this time he is actually ahead of the curve.
See, mom, I'm not crazy for getting into this industry...
Computer and Video Game Software Sales Reach Record $7.3 Billion in 2004
Computer and Video Game Software Sales Reach Record $7.3 Billion in 2004
I've been using Firefox on and off for years, but it since it's official release late last year, I've used it almost exclusively. Tabbbed browsing, good shortcuts (like ctrl-click), and it's more attractive, to boot.
Download for free at:
Firefox Homepage
for a primer, you might want to pick up:
oreilly.com -- Online Catalog: Don't Click on the Blue E!
Download for free at:
Firefox Homepage
for a primer, you might want to pick up:
oreilly.com -- Online Catalog: Don't Click on the Blue E!
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
From Pip Coburn's AlwaysOn article:
At first, this was just funny to me - especially since Kelly (not his) and I got married not so long ago. But as I read, I thought more about one of my favorite topics, Usability.
I bought Kel an iPod+HP this month so that she would have something for her now-longer commute since we moved. Because I already had iTunes on my computer, I expected to be able to just plug it in and go. No such luck. (Granted, I had tweaked the install substantially, so I can't really blame Apple) However, even after uninstalling the version I had (newer than the one on the disk that came with the iPod) and reinstalling it, it still didn't work. I had to uninstall again and use the one on the disk. 5 reboots later, I was ready to go. At which time, I tried to move stuff to the iPod. Not easy when the library on the computer is bigger than the iPod can handle - so hard to choose.
Long story - short point: If Apple and HP can't make something foolproof working together, the PC as we know it is too complicated. And tech in general is too hard to use.
I can't really guess how many hours I've spent working on my computer - not doing things on the computer, but actually trying to fix/tweak/modify/build it. I actually enjoy it, but that doesn't mean that I want to spend 30 minutes trying to figure out why the wireless isn't working only to have it miraculously come back to life without my knowing why.
Enough for now - enjoy the article
For Better, For Worse, But Not for Tech-Support
For Better, For Worse, But Not for Tech-Support
Pip justifies his "admin-avoidance" lifestyle, and explains the draw of an article that might as well be titled "10 Reasons to Hate iPod."
Pip Coburn [UBS Investment Bank] | POSTED: 01.25.05 @00:28
On July 28, 1990, when Kelly and I got married in New York City, we vowed to stick together "in sickness and in health" and "for richer or for poorer" and a number of other "good times and bad times," but there was never any mention of gutting it out together through the grotesque IT problems that would certainly befall us in the Digital Age.
Accidental omission?
I have my doubts... there may have been untold wisdom at work.
Last week's blog centered around the 611 viruses that "tech geek" found on Kelly's Acer Tablet PC. You may have wondered why I—as a Global Tech Strategist—would let Kelly's machine become hostage to such villainous activity. As a Global Tech Strategist, I certainly have a duty and an obligation to solve and handle all tech-oriented issues facing my own physical or virtual household, no...?
Lol... No way!
Kelly is on her own, here.
-- ADVERTISEMENT --
As folks this past week whose patience and interest I am grateful for—like Maureen O'Hara, Melanie Wyld, Tam Dell'Oro, Adam Devito, Adam Lashinsky, Paul Pangaro, CJ Maupin, Steve Hayden and a bevy of clients in San Francisco—can attest, I can focus for hours on issues surrounding the Change Function, Total Perceived Pain of Adoption, and BioCost, and can also romanticize how wonderful the world was when Brian Sipe and Bernie Kosar quarter-backed the Cleveland Browns non-stop forever... but my attention span/patience for expending time on solving tech problems—mine or others'—is about a nanosecond. And I gear my life as best I can to avoid getting sucked into the fray.
I want technology to work.
I like playing snow football with my kids on the weekends—pretending to be Brian Sipe or Bernie Kosar even now at age 39—or going to the movies with Kelly and other things normal humans do. I do not want talk with "tech geek" or install anti-spyware.
Yuck!
As I travel, I have no desire to learn the intelligent lighting system at the San Francisco Mandarin hotel. I just want the lights in my room to go on and go off. I don't want to figure out the complexity of a high-end microwave. I don't need an extra button on it that says "popcorn." The fewer choices the better. I don't want to change batteries in my headset at work. I don't want to read a short/easy manual.
I don't want any of it.... Much like Walt Mossberg, I want technology to work seamlessly and I don't want downtime.
I almost bought Kelly a BlackBerry at Christmas. You know, my favored little companion.... Why not let Kelly in on the new world? And then I woke up to a few things just in time:
· First, $49.95 per month through Verizon is a lot to spend without knowing if Kelly really wants to get sucked into the ugly world of adult attention deficit disorder. Perhaps having only one psycho communicator/connector in our marriage is a part of the formula for success....
· Second, we use text messaging a ton and that seems to do the trick for the two of us in many, many instances.
· Most importantly, I do not want to be Kelly's IT department.
See, when she buys an Acer Tablet PC I feel no obligation to pitch in as IT administrator. None. But it would really be bad form to give her the gift of a BlackBerry and then look the other way when myriad BlackBerry issues arise.
"No, No, No, No, Kel, you call Verizon."
Bad form....
Why do I adore BlackBerry? High "crisis" and low "total perceived pain of adoption."
High "crisis" for me—I like cleaning my inbox on the fly, knowing that I am current, and through BlackBerry I send maybe 75 well-placed e-mails a day on the fly to stay connected while on the road. I rarely check e-mail on my laptop or desktop anymore. I have more home in home-time.
And Blackberry provides a "Low Total Perceived Pain of Adoption."
How so? Well, as a UBS employee, any time I have a BlackBerry issue—and there are quite a few—I ask Fazia to hand my valiant little pal over to the IT staff to fix it, and voila, it comes back, and away I go again. Near zero downtime. RIM has reduced total perceived pain of adoption of enterprise BlackBerry. My IT staff reduces my pain. But in the consumer space, I would be Kelly's IT staff and, again, no thank you! In sickness and in health, sure, but sitting on hold waiting for the helpdesk to grace me with their presence? No way.
Will I be able to hold out forever in my "admin-avoidance" life strategy?
Of course not.... But you companies out there can help me out and also lure me into more and more tech indulgence if you are interested.
Here is what the change function says:
Change = f (crisis vs. total perceived pain of adoption)
"So what do you want companies to actually do if they grok your change function?"
If you are able to identify my "crises" before I do, I am deeply indebted. BlackBerry—and its long-ago predecessor, Motorola's PageWriter—have given me mobile e-mail for the past seven years, and I thank you. I am deluded but happy in thinking my life is better for it.
If you are able to reduce my total perceived pain of adoption, I will buy more tech gadgets as well.
And the best way to do that has nothing to do with Moore's Law of price reduction and lower prices and all, but rather everything to do with simpler, sharper, easier, clearer, more lucid design and dramatically improved, bug-free, hassle-free, "admin-avoidance" reliability. I do not wish to be a guinea pig. I want tech to work.
The broader market at large is thinking along similar lines. The Analogist world is generally terrified of tech and looks for reasons to justify resisting the societal calling and peer pressure to adopt a "digital" lifestyle. I noticed that this month's issue of Cigar Afficionado—no, I don't smoke cigars—had a cover story "What you should know about iPod before you jump in!" or some such headline. Not sure what iPod has to do with cigars, but apparently it's an affinity group issue.
What issue might such an affinity group have? Geez, maybe, let's see... how 'bout feeling stupid about, and being afraid of, tech. Home and Garden might run a similar story.
Do cigar-smoking Analogists want to read an article describing how they are stupid for not adopting iPod? Nope, cancel subscription. Do they want to read an article that helps them justify why they haven't adopted iPod and other tech foolishness without 'fessing up that they are just plain scared of the stuff?
Oh, yeah! This is a great Analogist feel-good article that could be re-titled: "Why tech stinks and you shouldn't feel bad about not wanting to use any of it even though the world will soon roll right over you if you don't jump in."
Catchy title? Nah. Tad lengthy.... "10 reasons to hate iPod" works much better, as my contact at AlwaysOn, Nina Davis, might readily agree.
So, Kelly, after nearly 15 years of marriage, I look forward to another 60, and if we can avoid clashing over fixing your Tablet PC, I think we stand a pretty good chance.
"There is too much needless complexity in the world, he argues. Technology was supposed to make our lives easier, has taken a wrong turn. In 20 years we've gone from the simplicity of MacPaint to Photoshop. While the first fostered a creative explosion, the second gave birth to an industry of how-to books and classes. And such complexity is commonplace, Dr. Maeda says. Despite the lip service paid to 'ease of use,' 'plug and play,' and 'one-click shopping,' simplicity is an endangered quality in the digital world, he adds, and it is time to break free from technology's intimidating complexity...."
- Jessie Scanlon, quoting John Maeda, associate professor of media arts & sciences at MIT Media Lab
"and the day came
when the risk
to remain tight in a bud
was more painful
than the risk
it took to blossom"
- Anais Nin
Pip Coburn is a managing director and global technology strategist in the technology group of UBS Investment Research. Mr. Coburn is responsible for integrating the research efforts of 120 technology and telecom analysts worldwide.
At first, this was just funny to me - especially since Kelly (not his) and I got married not so long ago. But as I read, I thought more about one of my favorite topics, Usability.
I bought Kel an iPod+HP this month so that she would have something for her now-longer commute since we moved. Because I already had iTunes on my computer, I expected to be able to just plug it in and go. No such luck. (Granted, I had tweaked the install substantially, so I can't really blame Apple) However, even after uninstalling the version I had (newer than the one on the disk that came with the iPod) and reinstalling it, it still didn't work. I had to uninstall again and use the one on the disk. 5 reboots later, I was ready to go. At which time, I tried to move stuff to the iPod. Not easy when the library on the computer is bigger than the iPod can handle - so hard to choose.
Long story - short point: If Apple and HP can't make something foolproof working together, the PC as we know it is too complicated. And tech in general is too hard to use.
I can't really guess how many hours I've spent working on my computer - not doing things on the computer, but actually trying to fix/tweak/modify/build it. I actually enjoy it, but that doesn't mean that I want to spend 30 minutes trying to figure out why the wireless isn't working only to have it miraculously come back to life without my knowing why.
Enough for now - enjoy the article
For Better, For Worse, But Not for Tech-Support
For Better, For Worse, But Not for Tech-Support
Pip justifies his "admin-avoidance" lifestyle, and explains the draw of an article that might as well be titled "10 Reasons to Hate iPod."
Pip Coburn [UBS Investment Bank] | POSTED: 01.25.05 @00:28
On July 28, 1990, when Kelly and I got married in New York City, we vowed to stick together "in sickness and in health" and "for richer or for poorer" and a number of other "good times and bad times," but there was never any mention of gutting it out together through the grotesque IT problems that would certainly befall us in the Digital Age.
Accidental omission?
I have my doubts... there may have been untold wisdom at work.
Last week's blog centered around the 611 viruses that "tech geek" found on Kelly's Acer Tablet PC. You may have wondered why I—as a Global Tech Strategist—would let Kelly's machine become hostage to such villainous activity. As a Global Tech Strategist, I certainly have a duty and an obligation to solve and handle all tech-oriented issues facing my own physical or virtual household, no...?
Lol... No way!
Kelly is on her own, here.
-- ADVERTISEMENT --
As folks this past week whose patience and interest I am grateful for—like Maureen O'Hara, Melanie Wyld, Tam Dell'Oro, Adam Devito, Adam Lashinsky, Paul Pangaro, CJ Maupin, Steve Hayden and a bevy of clients in San Francisco—can attest, I can focus for hours on issues surrounding the Change Function, Total Perceived Pain of Adoption, and BioCost, and can also romanticize how wonderful the world was when Brian Sipe and Bernie Kosar quarter-backed the Cleveland Browns non-stop forever... but my attention span/patience for expending time on solving tech problems—mine or others'—is about a nanosecond. And I gear my life as best I can to avoid getting sucked into the fray.
I want technology to work.
I like playing snow football with my kids on the weekends—pretending to be Brian Sipe or Bernie Kosar even now at age 39—or going to the movies with Kelly and other things normal humans do. I do not want talk with "tech geek" or install anti-spyware.
Yuck!
As I travel, I have no desire to learn the intelligent lighting system at the San Francisco Mandarin hotel. I just want the lights in my room to go on and go off. I don't want to figure out the complexity of a high-end microwave. I don't need an extra button on it that says "popcorn." The fewer choices the better. I don't want to change batteries in my headset at work. I don't want to read a short/easy manual.
I don't want any of it.... Much like Walt Mossberg, I want technology to work seamlessly and I don't want downtime.
I almost bought Kelly a BlackBerry at Christmas. You know, my favored little companion.... Why not let Kelly in on the new world? And then I woke up to a few things just in time:
· First, $49.95 per month through Verizon is a lot to spend without knowing if Kelly really wants to get sucked into the ugly world of adult attention deficit disorder. Perhaps having only one psycho communicator/connector in our marriage is a part of the formula for success....
· Second, we use text messaging a ton and that seems to do the trick for the two of us in many, many instances.
· Most importantly, I do not want to be Kelly's IT department.
See, when she buys an Acer Tablet PC I feel no obligation to pitch in as IT administrator. None. But it would really be bad form to give her the gift of a BlackBerry and then look the other way when myriad BlackBerry issues arise.
"No, No, No, No, Kel, you call Verizon."
Bad form....
Why do I adore BlackBerry? High "crisis" and low "total perceived pain of adoption."
High "crisis" for me—I like cleaning my inbox on the fly, knowing that I am current, and through BlackBerry I send maybe 75 well-placed e-mails a day on the fly to stay connected while on the road. I rarely check e-mail on my laptop or desktop anymore. I have more home in home-time.
And Blackberry provides a "Low Total Perceived Pain of Adoption."
How so? Well, as a UBS employee, any time I have a BlackBerry issue—and there are quite a few—I ask Fazia to hand my valiant little pal over to the IT staff to fix it, and voila, it comes back, and away I go again. Near zero downtime. RIM has reduced total perceived pain of adoption of enterprise BlackBerry. My IT staff reduces my pain. But in the consumer space, I would be Kelly's IT staff and, again, no thank you! In sickness and in health, sure, but sitting on hold waiting for the helpdesk to grace me with their presence? No way.
Will I be able to hold out forever in my "admin-avoidance" life strategy?
Of course not.... But you companies out there can help me out and also lure me into more and more tech indulgence if you are interested.
Here is what the change function says:
Change = f (crisis vs. total perceived pain of adoption)
"So what do you want companies to actually do if they grok your change function?"
If you are able to identify my "crises" before I do, I am deeply indebted. BlackBerry—and its long-ago predecessor, Motorola's PageWriter—have given me mobile e-mail for the past seven years, and I thank you. I am deluded but happy in thinking my life is better for it.
If you are able to reduce my total perceived pain of adoption, I will buy more tech gadgets as well.
And the best way to do that has nothing to do with Moore's Law of price reduction and lower prices and all, but rather everything to do with simpler, sharper, easier, clearer, more lucid design and dramatically improved, bug-free, hassle-free, "admin-avoidance" reliability. I do not wish to be a guinea pig. I want tech to work.
The broader market at large is thinking along similar lines. The Analogist world is generally terrified of tech and looks for reasons to justify resisting the societal calling and peer pressure to adopt a "digital" lifestyle. I noticed that this month's issue of Cigar Afficionado—no, I don't smoke cigars—had a cover story "What you should know about iPod before you jump in!" or some such headline. Not sure what iPod has to do with cigars, but apparently it's an affinity group issue.
What issue might such an affinity group have? Geez, maybe, let's see... how 'bout feeling stupid about, and being afraid of, tech. Home and Garden might run a similar story.
Do cigar-smoking Analogists want to read an article describing how they are stupid for not adopting iPod? Nope, cancel subscription. Do they want to read an article that helps them justify why they haven't adopted iPod and other tech foolishness without 'fessing up that they are just plain scared of the stuff?
Oh, yeah! This is a great Analogist feel-good article that could be re-titled: "Why tech stinks and you shouldn't feel bad about not wanting to use any of it even though the world will soon roll right over you if you don't jump in."
Catchy title? Nah. Tad lengthy.... "10 reasons to hate iPod" works much better, as my contact at AlwaysOn, Nina Davis, might readily agree.
So, Kelly, after nearly 15 years of marriage, I look forward to another 60, and if we can avoid clashing over fixing your Tablet PC, I think we stand a pretty good chance.
"There is too much needless complexity in the world, he argues. Technology was supposed to make our lives easier, has taken a wrong turn. In 20 years we've gone from the simplicity of MacPaint to Photoshop. While the first fostered a creative explosion, the second gave birth to an industry of how-to books and classes. And such complexity is commonplace, Dr. Maeda says. Despite the lip service paid to 'ease of use,' 'plug and play,' and 'one-click shopping,' simplicity is an endangered quality in the digital world, he adds, and it is time to break free from technology's intimidating complexity...."
- Jessie Scanlon, quoting John Maeda, associate professor of media arts & sciences at MIT Media Lab
"and the day came
when the risk
to remain tight in a bud
was more painful
than the risk
it took to blossom"
- Anais Nin
Pip Coburn is a managing director and global technology strategist in the technology group of UBS Investment Research. Mr. Coburn is responsible for integrating the research efforts of 120 technology and telecom analysts worldwide.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Ok, I try to be 'fair and balanced' in my reporting (unlike Fox News Channel, whatever it may say (an example of that below)), but after having the chance to talk to a number of high ranking military leaders, all of whom agreed that Rumsfeld is a hinderance to their performance rather than an asset, I encourage everyone to consider sending a letter to the White House and demanding Rumsfeld's resignation. Copy your Senator and Rep, too.
A sample letter (and quick form) is available at
JohnKerry.com - Thank You
RE Fox News - last year I was in a hotel diner and heard the morning 'news' on Fox (this is before I started bringing my remote to breakfast and changing the channel). The 3 people talking (not sure what show) were complaining how people were being critical of Bush, but that "no one ever complained about Clinton" WHAT?!?!? These people never heard of Whitewater? 40+ million spent to investigate a non-event? How about the outcry over going into Bosnia - where we didn't lose a SINGLE soldier?
Anyway, if we focus on one of them at a time, maybe we can actually get some of the worst offenders out of office.
A sample letter (and quick form) is available at
JohnKerry.com - Thank You
RE Fox News - last year I was in a hotel diner and heard the morning 'news' on Fox (this is before I started bringing my remote to breakfast and changing the channel). The 3 people talking (not sure what show) were complaining how people were being critical of Bush, but that "no one ever complained about Clinton" WHAT?!?!? These people never heard of Whitewater? 40+ million spent to investigate a non-event? How about the outcry over going into Bosnia - where we didn't lose a SINGLE soldier?
Anyway, if we focus on one of them at a time, maybe we can actually get some of the worst offenders out of office.
Ok, I try to be 'fair and balanced' in my reporting (unlike Fox News Channel, whatever it may say (an example of that below)), but after having the chance to talk to a number of high ranking military leaders, all of whom agreed that Rumsfeld is a hinderance to their performance rather than an asset, I encourage everyone to consider sending a letter to the White House and demanding Rumsfeld's resignation. Copy your Senator and Rep, too.
A sample letter (and quick form) is available at
JohnKerry.com - Thank You
RE Fox News - last year I was in a hotel diner and heard the morning 'news' on Fox (this is before I started bringing my remote to breakfast and changing the channel). The 3 people talking (not sure what show) were complaining how people were being critical of Bush, but that "no one ever complained about Clinton" WHAT?!?!? These people never heard of Whitewater? 40+ million spent to investigate a non-event? How about the outcry over going into Bosnia - where we didn't lose a SINGLE soldier?
Anyway, if we focus on one of them at a time, maybe we can actually get some of the worst offenders out of office.
A sample letter (and quick form) is available at
JohnKerry.com - Thank You
RE Fox News - last year I was in a hotel diner and heard the morning 'news' on Fox (this is before I started bringing my remote to breakfast and changing the channel). The 3 people talking (not sure what show) were complaining how people were being critical of Bush, but that "no one ever complained about Clinton" WHAT?!?!? These people never heard of Whitewater? 40+ million spent to investigate a non-event? How about the outcry over going into Bosnia - where we didn't lose a SINGLE soldier?
Anyway, if we focus on one of them at a time, maybe we can actually get some of the worst offenders out of office.
Ok, I try to be 'fair and balanced' in my reporting (unlike Fox News Channel, whatever it may say (an example of that below)), but after having the chance to talk to a number of high ranking military leaders, all of whom agreed that Rumsfeld is a hinderance to their performance rather than an asset, I encourage everyone to consider sending a letter to the White House and demanding Rumsfeld's resignation. Copy your Senator and Rep, too.
A sample letter (and quick form) is available at
JohnKerry.com - Thank You
RE Fox News - last year I was in a hotel diner and heard the morning 'news' on Fox (this is before I started bringing my remote to breakfast and changing the channel). The 3 people talking (not sure what show) were complaining how people were being critical of Bush, but that "no one ever complained about Clinton" WHAT?!?!? These people never heard of Whitewater? 40+ million spent to investigate a non-event? How about the outcry over going into Bosnia - where we didn't lose a SINGLE soldier?
Anyway, if we focus on one of them at a time, maybe we can actually get some of the worst offenders out of office.
A sample letter (and quick form) is available at
JohnKerry.com - Thank You
RE Fox News - last year I was in a hotel diner and heard the morning 'news' on Fox (this is before I started bringing my remote to breakfast and changing the channel). The 3 people talking (not sure what show) were complaining how people were being critical of Bush, but that "no one ever complained about Clinton" WHAT?!?!? These people never heard of Whitewater? 40+ million spent to investigate a non-event? How about the outcry over going into Bosnia - where we didn't lose a SINGLE soldier?
Anyway, if we focus on one of them at a time, maybe we can actually get some of the worst offenders out of office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)