February 12, 2004
Required Reading
I'm sick of the John Kerry scandal. Fox News hasn't even broken the story yet, and I already wish they'd move on. (I know that's not fair. I just felt like writing that sentence.)
Anyhoo, if you're in the mood for something serious, here is your required reading for Friday. Remembrance of Future Past by Cara Remal.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at February 12, 2004 08:48 PMSame as always, count on the future generations to fix the problem...
(BTW, its my biggest beef with nuclear power)
Still, the logic made sense then, it makes even more sense now. Its us or them.
Posted by: FH at February 12, 2004 08:57 PMAlthough I'll be pleasantly surprised if it lasts into Friday day -- woo-hoo, we're talking about that 24-hour-a-day-news-cycle-congrats-all -- , and even more so over the weekend, given the use by those sternly ethical, anti-Republican, European newspapers -- I'm happy to witness a stern -- in context -- "fuck you" to Drudge by reputable US news sources that lasts at least a day or two. Gee, maybe he should have his stories checked? How crazy!
And, of course, once again we're back to that crucial story: should politicians have extra-marital sex? No, of course not, and let's not go for the unclear allegations against Bush Senior, or LBJ, either!
As I write, I'm watching the Simpsons clip show, and yet, on the Internet, I'm watching the same thing. D'oh!
Posted by: Gary Farber at February 12, 2004 09:13 PMYou know, I still think character counts. It says something about your loyalty to your family and your on-the-job ethics when you cheat on your wife with an employee. Oh well. Of course, accusations like this, true or not, develop a momentum of their own, and that's not fair on the accused.
If there's anything so far that I can say I like, it's that the media is taking it nice and slow. Like it or not, I'm sure we'll hear all about this soon enough. That's depressing, because I'd rather talk about Sen. Kerry's national security weirdness than how well he adheres to the employee handbook.
Posted by: Rob at February 13, 2004 05:36 AMThanks for the link to Cara's post.
Do you have any thoughts about why the left predicted a nuclear doomsday during the Cold War, but generally refuses to acknowledge that the present danger of nuclear attack is far higher?
Posted by: Fredrik Nyman at February 13, 2004 06:48 AMDon't be absurd; the Left is constantly screaming about Bush's idiotic failure to take even the most basic steps to keep Russian, North Korean, or Pakistani weapons out of terrorist hands.
I figure the Right sees it as win-win. Either we don't get nuked (win!) or we do get nuked and they can use it as a reason why we need to keep them, the putatively "tougher" group, in power (win!).
Posted by: Kimmitt at February 13, 2004 11:53 PMPlaying online blackjack
is better than playing it in the casino. Of course thats my opinion.
This is a test of using "<" and "i" and ">" to try to get italics
Followed by slash i "/i" in arrow brackets to end the italics. I hope it works.
Posted by: Tom Grey at February 26, 2004 05:38 AM



