September 11, 2004

Oh, The Things I've Read

Body and Soul takes on the issue of liberal male bloggers who use terms that insult women as routine slurs against their opponents, without thinking about the consequences. Some people complain loudly whenever it's suggested that their language is offensive, the terrible specter of political correctness is raised. Funny how no one in the liberal blogosphere worries about that when discussing the significant disadvantage created in public discourse by the effective right wing campaign to turn the word liberal into a curse word.

And come on guys, do you really want to be known as anti-p*ssy?

Daily Kos diarist Hunter debunks the forgery claims against the Bush TANG memos. The Boston Globe has come on board.

Liberal Oasis talks about Bush's failure to perform, and advances the premise that Kerry's position on Iraq is in fact consistent.

Hobson's Choice talks about Sudan's backers, and the Sudanese government's moves to arrest opposition leaders.

Chris at MyDD points out that blogs are competitive with news websites, noting that Daily Kos gets more visitors than the FOX News site.

Upper Left points to a MyDD piece on the current DCCC action plan.

It may come as a shock to some, but John Kerry has a plan to prevent terrorism, and what sounds like a fairly good one.

The Seattle Times Backyard Bloggers site publishes a post by a Catholic voter who discusses his electoral priorities.

Guardian: The Russian government appears to be drugging and arresting reporters heading out to Beslan to cover the story of the government's botched raid. In an aboveboard study of multiple sclerosis patients, British doctors have found medical benefits in cannabis use. Craig Unger says Bush soft on terror. A pair of letters exploring the American response to 9-11.

The cost of healthcare coverage is going up like crazy, even for the larger employers who get better rates. Considering that, as the article says, insurance costs are rising significantly faster than wages or inflation, what's driving that? Considering that jury awards have been virtually flat since 1992, it's surprising that the insurance industry's speculative recklessness and greed don't get more play. But then, everyone's in hock to some insurance agency or another. I thought the whole point of legalizing something like a protection racket was so that regulatory oversight could be executed for the public good. As MB says at Wampum:

...In the meantime, a key finding by AIR researchers may serve to illuminate the unhealthy symbiotic relationship that has developed between conservative politicians, heedless or self-interested doctors, and greedy insurers. The current liability-insurance "crisis" is the third of the past 30 years, following others that arose in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s. Each time, a stock-market downturn ate into malpractice-insurer profits, leading them to raise premiums, cut coverage, proclaim a crisis and blame the nation's legal system. Their champion in the latest contrived emergency, George W. Bush, is less a knight-errant than the boy who cried wolf - one too many times.

Kerry comes out swinging on the lapse in the assault weapons ban:

...The Democratic presidential nominee said an al Qaeda training manual recovered in Afghanistan advised terrorists that it is easy to obtain guns in the United States, and he said the 10-year-old ban on 19 types of semiautomatic guns and on ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds helped curb would-be terrorist attacks.

"In the al Qaeda manual, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons, to come to America and buy assault weapons,'' Kerry told an audience in St. Louis.

"Every law enforcement officer in America doesn't want us selling assault weapons in the streets of America, but George Bush, he says, 'Well, I'm for that,' '' said Kerry, a longtime supporter of the ban.

..."The NRA put the squeeze on George Bush, and they're spending tens of millions of dollars to support his campaign," Kerry said. "So now, the president is saying with a wink and a smile that he'll extend the assault weapons ban if Congress sends it to him. And Congress says they'll send it to him if he asks for it." ...

The article quotes a Bush spokesperson as saying this attack is more of the "politics of personal destruction," as though they don't work for a ticket whose VP recently suggested that electing a Democrat was a sure way to get hit with another terrorist attack. Because, you know, those kinds of things don't happen when Republicans are in office.

Posted by natasha at September 11, 2004 02:30 PM | Recommended Reading | Technorati links |
Comments