The Economist magazine for March 25-31 has a lengthy piece on the situation in Iraq titled Iraq--Murder is Certain (pages 49-51).

Some interesting quotes, facts, and sentiments, especially in light of the source, which is hardly anti-Bush or anti-war.  But don't expect to hear any of this from Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Fox, et al.

How do you tell what really matters to someone?  You pay attention to what they do, not what they say.  What they say can help some in interpreting ambiguous actions, but most actions really aren't that ambiguous.

And "actions" means both affirmative actions--things done, and negative actions--things undone when it was possible to do them.  In fact, it is often telling to compare actions taken in one context to inactions in other but similar contexts.

Who is George Bush?  Well, I'd love to hear some respected mainstream journalist ask him in direct terms to explain the apparent contradictions inherent in Mr. Bush's actions in these contexts.

Was I kidding last time I posted a story like this one....?

Larisa of Raw Story has a complaint: The Associated Press ripped off Raw Story...

Readers of WTW know that while members of this community are not fans of outsourcing and privatizing, our current federal government and its business community supporters just love it, whether the subject be tax collection, research & development, veterans' health care, or other essential services.  And the effects have been devastating.

George Bush, speaking today in Indianapolis:
"I know it's troubled times," [President Bush] said. But, he added, "The only way we can lose is to lose our will."

The competing interests involved in producing "homeland security" are on full display these days.  Not only do many business entities resist efforts to tighten border security, and the chemical industry resists efforts to tighten security of chemical plants, but the American Association of Port Authorities just voted to oppose the "National Defense and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act," introduced earlier this month in the House, which would require all U.S. port terminal operations to be managed by a U.S. entity, while mandating inspection of all cargo coming into the United States.

I know you don't have to look too hard on the web to find some wingnut who sees the world as though he'd just had his cranium dented by a 2,000 pound ball of propaganda.  But how's this for a reason to oppose NSA's warrantless surveillance:  

A  summary of the French labor laws is available online.  I believe this is a site run by the French government, but I'm not positive.

I quickly read over the description of the law on terminating employees and I've got to tell you, it doesn't sound that "rigid," "strict," or "stultifying"--all adjectives that I've seen used repeatedly in American press stories about the French protests of the proposed new law for young workers.  Read the summary below and ask yourself, whether this is obstructionist or a reasonable way to balance the interests of the employer and employees.

When does a proposal to make you safer have serious potential to make you less safe?  When it's a plan offered by a Republican official and geared as much to protecting the industry from regulatory burdens as much as it is to protecting the public from the dangers of terrorism.

Read Older Articles