Loading ...
Stuff About Things
General, Humor, National Politics, Personal, Professional, Technology Comments (0)
It’s been a full week already.
On Monday, I helped a client set up his PC so that he could talk with his sister in Michigan using a webcam. So, he can see his sister — someone he hasn’t seen in 30 years.
Since last Saturday, I’ve been working on the backend for the Gmail4Troops project. I’m happy to report that the backend is fully operational now and people are being matched up using that system instead of manually (which is what poor Drew was having to do). If you know of a servicemember who wants an email account with a HUGE amount of storage, let them know about this project!
This morning, I was doing my morning reading and came across the “Reliable Source” article at WaPo. There are a couple of good quotes there.
As for his other qualifications, he noted, “I was invited to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States by Bill Clinton.”
I must have missed that nomination. Oh, no. Wait. He was asked. He declined (and the seat went to Ruth Bader Ginsberg). But, what does this show he is qualified to do? Decide issues of caselaw or rate motion pictures? After all, what he wants to do is talk to the MPAA about the rating on Michael Moore’s new movie Fahrenheit 9/11. I wasn’t aware that people actually wanted Justice Scalia deciding what movies get an “R” and what movies get a “PG-13″.
Also of note:
“Let’s just say that we had another discussion today in which it was clear that the understanding that we had yesterday was not the same understanding we had today.” (CNN senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre to Wolf Blitzer)
This was about an accusation that Donald Rumsfeld approved an interrogation method called “water boarding” wherein a prisoner is strapped down, placed in water, and made to feel as if drowning. It turns out that Rumsfeld had NOT approved the use of that method.
Today, CNN says that their source has now changed his story. So, this is what CNN gets for not getting a confirming source. When you report what only one person says without confirmation, you’re asking for trouble.
Finally, there’s a new Christopher Hitchens article on Moore’s new film. I don’t like Hitchens even if he is a hawk. I don’t like him at all. So, this is one of those times when you remind yourself that the “enemy of my enemy” is not necessarily my friend. But with quotes like this:
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery.
how can you lose?
MickC @ June 23, 2004