Archives
Comic
strip
Contact
WSJ
store
Subscribe to our weekly
newsletter:
Recent posts:
31 October 2001
Fighting a moral war
Is America doing
the right thing in Afghanistan?
12 September 2001
On standing behind
the president
We shouldn't suspend criticism of the president
simply because of a crisis.
30 August 2001
Why everyone in San
Francisco's getting fired
Protecting workers from disasters like
the dot-com crash should be a priority.
29 June 2001
Looking ahead to
2002
Outlining the strategy Democrats need for success in the next
election.
21 May 2001
Bush's energy
ploy
Bush's energy policy is little more than a fraud--and so is
the crisis it's supposed to fix.
30 April 2001
The dirt on
Florida
A review of Down and Dirty: The Plot to Steal the
Presidency and interview with author Jake Tapper.
Complete archives
|
 |
Bite-Sized News
30 November 2001
Remember when
we cared about the people of Afghanistan? It was way back in the beginning
of the War on Terrorism. You know, weeks ago. We dropped food packages
that would feed about 4 percent of the starving population every day, and
these humanitarian rations only vaguely resembled unexploded cluster
bombs. Preventing mass starvation among the long-suffering people of
Afghanistan was supposed to be an important consideration in our actions,
since it was only the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda terrorist network we
were interested in destroying.
But once
our military successes began dominating the news, the humanitarian efforts
dropped off the national radar. Given the lack of attention to the plight
of Afghanis, the Bush administration now feels little political pressure
to enable a genuine humanitarian effort in the country. Thousands of
foreign troops stand poised around the world to help deliver aid this
winter, but Bush has asked them to stand down, lest they interfere with
our military operations. Given the success of anti-Taliban forces in
capturing most of the country, it seems unlikely that a humanitarian
effort, concentrated in the areas no longer under dispute, would interfere
with our jets bombing Taliban forces. The people of Afghanistan are in for
a long, cold winter. If Bush truly meant what he said about not being at
war with the Afghan people, then he ought to let foreign forces into the
country to deliver humanitarian aid.
Read
the Washington Post story
28 November 2001
There will come a time, maybe 25, 50, or 100
years down the road, when the people who currently fight the gay civil
rights movement will be universally regarded as thugs. Just as those who
turned fire hoses on black crowds in the 1960s are now considered
criminals, so too will we view with disdain the people who currently
insist that gays and lesbians shouldn't have "special" rights, like the
right to be free from discrimination in employment and
housing.
And if recent trends are any
indication, that day may come sooner rather than later. Five out of six
anti-gay-rights referendums across the country failed on election day
2001. And anti-gay activists in Maryland just failed to get a new measure
that would overturn a civil rights law onto the ballot for next year's
election. The activists had tried to pass off hundreds of improperly
acquired petition signatures as valid, a rather delicious irony given that
these people surely paint their struggle as a moral one. Their inability
to muster support just to get a measure on the ballot is perhaps one of
the greatest victories for gays and lesbians in years. Clearly the tide
has turned, and America's last bastion of acceptable discrimination is
rapidly diminishing.
Read
the Data Lounge story
26 November 2001
All of a sudden, it's obvious that we're
going to war with Iraq. For weeks, the subject of Iraq was nothing more
than a diversion in discussions about War on Terrorism. Did the anthrax
come from Iraq? Did the September 11 hijackers have ties to Baghdad? Who
is the more evil evildoer: Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden? But now, you
can expect those discussions to move to the forefront. In the next month
or so, attacking Iraq will become a subject of intense scrutiny and
debate, moving from "are they involved" to "should we attack" to the
inevitable "of course we should attack--how hard should we hit
them?"
It's clear that Iraq is the next
target because today President Bush began to lay the groundwork for the PR
offensive that will precede the military one. He announced today that
we're suddenly interested once again in having inspectors inside Iraq
looking for weapons of mass destruction. United Nations inspectors in the
country would be a good idea. But is Bush really the slightest bit
interested in real inspections or is he just following the game plan for
war perfected by his father? First he'll announce a goal, then he'll issue
an ultimatum, and then--when the ultimatum fails--he'll invade. The whole
exercise has very little to do with fighting terrorism or even battling
evil. U.S. troops will be inside Iraq within three months, guaranteed.
Bush's popularity numbers will have probably dipped by them. Watch them
shoot through the roof.
Read
the CNN story
22 November 2001
In a stunning display of reason and respect
for the law, police in Portland, Oregon have refused to comply with
requests from the FBI to round up a group of immigrants wanted for
questioning about the terrorist acts. Portland Police Chief Andrew
Kirkland explained the decision, saying, "The law does not allow us to go
out and arbitrarily interview people whose only offense is immigration or
citizenship."
Reading that is like a
breath of fresh air. Since the September 11 attacks, it's been virtually
impossible to find anyone who doesn't express full support for any police
actions, no matter how unconstitutional. For a police
chief to refuse the FBI's request to detain someone they want to question
about the attacks because those people aren't suspected of crimes would
have been unimaginable just days ago. The Portland police department's
decision in the face of what is sure to be a wave of criticism is one of
the most patriotic acts seen since the attacks.
Read
the Associated Press story
Bite-sized news archives |
 |
Current
Post
21 November 2001
The beginning of the end for the
Constitution?
President Bush has begun a fascinating
new strategy in the war on terrorism. He has wisely pointed out that we
were attacked on September 11 because the terrorists "hate
freedom." Can there be any questioning this insight? Surely Osama bin
Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere, fuming over the freedoms Americans
enjoy. It's not about our troops in Saudi Arabia. He doesn't really care
about our support of Israel. As long as we're free, Osama bin Laden and
his Al Qaeda organization won't stop their attacks.
So in a brilliant tactical move, President Bush has started to take
away our freedoms.
Think about it. With all our freedoms gone, the terrorists will have no
reason to hate us any more. They'll pack up their Kalashnikovs and
flight-training manuals, move out of their caves, and become productive
members of society again. This strategy of the Bush administration is a
masterstroke, one that will ensure the safety of Americans for years to
come. Once again we'll be able to fly free from fear (except to worry
about the occasional tail fin falling off).
Read the
full essay...
Complete archives |
