sherry has called my post yesterday 'the good news news like katrina vanden heuvel of the nation does every now and then.' do i link to katrina? if i don't i'll see about getting that up by this weekend. sherry's praise was nice and unworthy. but i'll grab a compliment when it's tossed.
wally e-mailed to say 'it was you!' that c.i. was posting about last night. it was me. i did have a few choice words for gail collins of the new york times. for those who missed the post, c.i. was talking about the times and during that mentioned an e-mail about 'how dare you say those things about gail collins!' that just went on and on.
it was me, not c.i. goodness, what's a gal got to do to get her props?
i don't think c.i. would have written what i did. it was more of a personal attack based on looks and c.i. tries to keep it about the work. that's why i have the 'screeds' in my blog title.
i am anne sexton's 'her kind' come to life!
wally wondered if i would mention the times much once it goes to a for pay site? the answer is probably not. i may start mentioning the washington post. my ex-husband has been reading the blog and he asked me this weekend 'do you really hate the times?' i told him the times is so not worthy of a strong emotion on my part. he said he could flip it over and get the washington post. so i'm thinking about that.
if i do, it won't be a washington post report. i won't comb through the paper the way c.i. does the times. god bless c.i. but i don't have the stomach for that nonsense with a paper. as it is i usually read krugman, dowd and herbert, the style section on sundays, the magazine and any fashion magazine they drop in to the sunday paper. otherwise the headline has to catch my eye because i've usually got friends over or am on the phone. the only time we have silence here is when democracy now is on. when that's on the t.v. every 1 knows to be quiet. i used to watch peter jennings but with him out due to his illness the evening news is out. i can't take blinky bobby at cbs and you all know what i think of the disgusting brian williams.
in case any 1 missed democracy now, shame on you and let me share a headline with you:
Bush Administration Moves Toward the Weaponization of Space
The New York Times is reporting that the Air Force is seeking President Bush's approval of a national-security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding weapons in space. The directive - which is expected within weeks - is seen as a substantial shift in U.S. policy. The Times reports that the move would likely be opposed by the international community and that it could create an arms race in space. General Lance Lord -- who leads the Air Force Space Command - recently told Congress "we must establish and maintain space superiority." According to the Times, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them. Three years ago the Bush administration withdrew from the 30-year-old Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which banned space-based weapons.
that is just such a frightening story to me. it's not bad enough that we've weaponized the planet, now we want to carry it to outerspace? and you know if bully boy carries it up there, others will too. you know how bullies always have to get into a size contest.
i heard that story today and all i could think was 'where does it end?' more and more it looks like it never ends. it looks like it will just go on and on.
and here's something to think about. we don't have the money to take care of the homeless. we don't have money to provide nationalized health care. we don't have money for any social programs but we've got the money to put weapons up in space?
bread and roses are neglected yet again.
