Ever wondered what the Chernobyl area looks like today, nearly 20 years after the meltdown? One Russian woman on her motorcycle (the daughter of a nuclear physicist who's been doing research in the "dead zone" ever since the accident) has been cruising around and taking pictures of what was left behind. I liked reading her commentary too - she writes in pretty good English and with a wry wit.
"...on asphalt things not bad, but if I step 10 meters forward, my dosimeter will run out of scale, if I walk few hundred meters towards reactor, then I will find 3 roengen. If I keep walking all the way to reactor, then at the end of a journey I will glow in a dark. May be this is why they call it a magic wood. this sort of a magic when one walk in in a biker leather and coming out like a knight in a shinning armour. "
Well, then... Score one for the people; today the White House has announced that - and Dubya and Cheney will speak with the Commission privately.
So, Condi and I are cool again, I guess...
(OK, E & D, you rant enablers, this is for you... heh)
Condoleeza Rice's offer to testify to the Sept. 11 Commission in private instead of as part of the public hearing is a bullshit compromise that should be summarily dismissed as the half-assed gesture it is.
Is Rice, or is she not, a public servant?
Given that this is true, then as a public servant - an employee of the taxpaying public - isn't it incumbent upon her to be accountable to her employers?
Judging from the onslaught of press conferences and talk show appearances she's using to make her case, she obviously has plenty to say for herself - but I'm baffled as to how she can justify using the press as any sort of viable substitute for going under oath to say her piece.
I'm aware of the concept of "executive privilege" and the long-standing policy of National Security Advisors declining to testify. Yet in hiding behind these conventions, she undermines the credibility of any information she then decides to proffer in the safe, controllable forum of commercial media. How can we be blamed for being skeptical of her recollections if she's unwilling to swear to their veracity?
I'm frustrated because I want to approve of Condi Rice - like Madeleine Albright, she's been a much-needed role model for intelligent, motivated women who want to serve in the Executive branch of government. I think she's fundamentally a forthright person who cares about serving the public interest. I realize that her refusal is largely based on the advice of White House counsel. Still, I think in this case they have made a misjudgment.
Her credibility also isn't helped by the fact that some of her sound bites have been self-contradictory, which makes any assertions about the variability of Clarke's recollections, as well as his ulterior motives, seem fairly hypocritical. Right now Condi and company are spinning so hard I'm surprised any of them can still walk straight. I find it ironic that the Administration thinks a good strategy for maintaining the good will of the voting public is to evade and shift blame, be it to the Clinton Administration (really, does anyone believe that Clinton could've launched a massive, prolonged military action against Al-Qaeda without being crucified for it both domestically and internationally?), or someone like Clarke, who simply isn't in a position to be bullied into gilding the truth anymore.
Honestly, I don't hold Rice or any Administration official responsible for what happened on 9/11. Whatever priority - or lack thereof - was given to monitoring Al-Qaeda and its activities, I think there's little chance that anyone could have predicted or prevented this particular attack. The Sept. 11 Commission is simply tasked with examining and sharing with the public what happened and what perspective our intelligence and security operations had at the time, and identifying ways that we can learn from and correct whatever weaknesses were exploited by the attackers.
People feel a deep personal investment in this investigation. We know that we all remain targets of terrorists, and we want to be able to hear our leaders acknowledge the factors that left us vulnerable 16 months ago. We want penance in the form of truthful, sworn testimony and a deconstruction of what could've been done better to ensure our safety. Most of all, we want this from the one person who, as much as anyone besides the President himself, had a mandate to be the vanguard of our nation's security efforts. As it stands, however, she has the power to influence executive policy but refuses to submit to any accountability for the results of her influence. That's wrong.
If Rumsfeld and Tenet can step up, so should Rice. Until she does, she can say whatever she wants to a reporter's microphone... but only her appearance before this committee and under sworn oath will convince me to listen.
Oh, and by the way... I know it's old news, but - Bush of the flawed intelligence he used to justify a war that resulted in the loss of thousands of Iraqi lives and hundreds of American ones (so far)? So, so funny. Not at all tasteless nor disrespectful of the dead and their survivors. This is a man who obviously understands the gravity of what he's done in the world over the past year.
Or as RosenRosen on Fark said -
Okay, let's try some other jokes using the same template:
OJ Simpson (looking under couch): I'm sure I can find the real killer here somewhere!
Clinton (looking under couch): I'm getting randy! Where's an intern handy when you need one?
Osama (looking under couch): I was sure I saw a couple of towers here just a minute ago!
You're right! It's not inappropriate at all!
Bush is a fucking asshat.
You know, this morning I posted two ranty little entries about Condoleeza Rice's refusal to testify in public before the 9/11 Commission, and Bush's little fundraiser knee-slapper about looking for WMD's under the couch (like one Farker said, wonder if he found the bodies of 500 American soldiers under there instead, maybe?)...
However, it occured to me that I haven't exactly seen rampant enthusiasm among the half-dozen or so readers who visit here over my little political rants... So I took them down. From now on, more humor and trivia, less proselytizing would seem to be my mandate...
If the below statement sounds like something that reflects your own feelings about the increasingly restrictive regulations that the FCC is trying to impose on broadcast media, then I'd encourage you to go to StopFCC.com and sign their petition:
SIGN THE PETITION FOR FREE SPEECH
We pledge our support for freedom of speech and expression on our airwaves, print, the Internet, broadcast, cable and satellite.
While we realize that the government has an obligation to protect our children, surely there needs to be a limit to what is regulated. Adults and parents are capable of making decisions about what to watch, read or listen to and are certainly capable of turning off or putting down anything that may offend them or their children.
As voting citizens, we ask our elected officials to consider your actions in attempting to further regulate television, radio, cable, satellite, print and Internet content.
We consider further censorship attempts to be unconstitutional and we will fight these actions by voting for a politician who cares about our rights as Americans.
I blame Alton Brown for the fact that we finally broke down and bought one of these.
I'm almost ashamed to admit how in love with this thing Wee and I have become. Gleeful to the point of mania. It's sick, really.
Admittedly, deep-fryed items are not exactly a staple of a weight-conscious diet. But people... we made fish-n-chips. Lordy mama, unbelievably tasty fish-n-chips. Fish-n-chips that would make the Gorton's Fisherman weep salty tears of joy. That meal alone made every penny we spent on the thing worthwhile, as well as every bite of salad and plain tuna fish I have to eat this week to make up for it.
Of course, we didn't stop there. The next night we made tempura shrimp and veggies, and I borrowed a tip from Wee's sister Mandy and made donuts using a can of pop-n-fresh biscuits (no, really, you'd be surprised how good they turn out). The thing is unbelievably easy to use, and almost all the bits (basket, oil reservoir, even the lid with the filter) can be detached and run through the dishwasher afterward. So easy! So fun! So sinfully tastee!
Now, of course, we're wondering what else we can batter up and fry... The possibilities seem endless, and also somewhat dangerous. String cheese? A Cornish game hen? Ice cream sandwich? Little Smokies? Marshmallows? Three Musketeers' bars? What do you think?
Is my new category for my rants against the current Administration, which I fear will become more frequent as campaign season shifts into high gear. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this represents for any of my half-dozen readers who are either politically apathetic or staunchly behind Shrub 2004.
That being said, here's the indignity du jour: Bush has and firefighters by using images of the WTC bombing and footage of firefighters carrying out one of their dead in one of his recent ad campaigns.
I share their view that it's incredibly tacky and disgraceful for the Bush team to capitalize upon this devastating loss as a means of manipulating the voting public's emotions and sentiments for political gain. I'm not surprised that they're doing this; pandering to voters' "hearts" through simplistic sentimentality has always been a lynchpin of the Bush administration's strategy. I feel sad for anyone who sees those ads, gets all emotional, and doesn't realize that those very valid emotions are being cheapened for having been evoked for the sole purpose of furthering Bush's re-election prospects. The memories of that terrible time are sacrosanct to me; I can't abide seeing them used for profiteering of any sort, be it commercial, personal or political. I'd feel the same way if a Democrat was trying to use them.
I realize that not everyone who supports Bush will find this particular ad campaign compelling, and that in fact some of his supporters may not approve of these ads but will stand by him for other reasons. Still, I hope his proponents really take a look at this and question what Bush is bringing to the table this election year, if a pandering exploitation of a national tragedy is all his campaign can offer by way of an opening shot across the Democrats' bow... Is this really the best means they have to sell this President to voters?