July 20, 2004

Things You Should Read

...that is, if you feel like it.

Guerrilla News Network reviews the possible corporate implications of a Supreme Court decision upholding the Alien Tort Claims Act, allowing people from other countries to sue U.S. citizens or entities in U.S. court. Union Carbide has got to be shaking in their shoes at the possibility that the victims of the Bhopal disaster could yet have their day in court.

Campaign Desk posts the rundown of last week's Daily Show talking points sendup.

Guardian editorials: Colin Powell lays down the law for Sudan. Zoe Williams points out that the 60's weren't all about the sex and drugs.

Americans support space exploration, as long as it doesn't cost that much. Well, that's good to know. Ongoing data collection from the Mars rover missions indicate that Mars was wet for a long time.

An article on an internet marketing advice site offers tips for how to approach bloggers for product promotion.

How To Save The World on what eco-collapse might look like, and the authoritative ;) world-saving reading list.

Opinions You Should Have ponders the curious connection between sinking Bush poll #s and the likelihood of a terrorist attack.

Daily Kos: A Republican who favors the death penalty for himself. It turns out that the British still have a fairness and accuracy doctrine, and FOX News is in breach of the policy regarding recent allegations of BBC conduct.

Over at Atrios, Holden posts on the inflation of mass grave numbers in Iraq.

TBogg says that the Linda Ronstadt flap may have been completely overblown, and points to a Krugman column entitled, The Arabian Candidate.

Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest gave a talk at the trial lawyers association about the tort 'reform' Republicans are pushing through to make sure that ordinary, non-corporate citizens can't sue for damages greater than an FCC fine for one dirty word on the radio. His remarks are very much worth your time, even if you aren't a lawyer.

Get ready for some deja vu. The president is now fishing for terror links with Iran, once again, against the advice of the CIA:

...Iran's emerging prominence in the Sept. 11 investigations looms as a potentially difficult issue for the White House, because it could raise new questions about why Bush led a war against Iraq but so far has taken a distinctly less bellicose stance toward Iran.

...McLaughlin had said Sunday that although "about eight" of the Sept. 11 hijackers may have passed through Iran before their mission, the CIA had "no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11."

Bush on Monday noted McLaughlin's comments, but said: "We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved."...

I'm sorry, didn't we already do this once? And wasn't it, if you'll pardon the understatement, one of the biggest military and diplomatic blunders in U.S. history? If the Democrats start fanning this up just to score points, I'm not going to be a happy camper. Find some facts first, please.

Posted by natasha at July 20, 2004 03:34 AM | Recommended Reading | Technorati links |
Comments