I'm sure that I'm just being paranoid (Part 2)... Posted by E

I went camping and geocaching with my family for three days this past weekend, and returned last night to find that the Bush Regime is exploring ways to derail --oops, I mean delay-- the election in the event of a terrorist attack.

Now since the Bush Regime's militaristic approach to geopolitics is Osama Bin Laden's best recruiting tool, I gotta think that OBL will definitely do his best to strike us at a time that derails the elections.

Right off the bat, this has two immediate benefits from OBL's point of view:

1. It keeps Bush in office, where he'll surely lash out in some ill-considered, reactionary way that will again increase outrage in the Muslim world --thereby swelling Al Qaeda's ranks.

2. It increases OBL's standing in the Muslim world because he has "derailed democracy" in America.

Coincidentally, it has two immediate benefits from the Bush Regime's point of view:

1. It keeps Bush in office, where he can strike back at the terrorist menace and increase his approval ratings --thereby swelling the ranks of Bush supporters at the polling booth.

2. It increases Bush's standing in this country, because he's "defending democracy" in America.

As unthinkable as it sounds, it's almost as if Bush and OBL are using each other to further their own careers. I'm actually having a hard time drawing any other plausible conclusion. But no, that can't be --no elected official in my country would even consider utilizing a terrorist sociopath to manipulate an election. Once again, I'm just being paranoid. Right? Right?  ¶ 6:33 PM

  Placement...Posted by C

So 150 Million pieces of toy jewelry from India have been recalled because of toxic levels of lead. Where is this story in the Los Angeles Times? Page two of the Business section.

The front page headline on the California section is "NAACP Says Riordan Should Quit." He's Education Secretary in our state. And he made a bad joke (and not an ethnic one) that insulted a little girl.

Doesn't the NAACP have better things to do?

The very front page top headline is about the convictions in the Adelphia case. Yawn. The rich plunder the economy for decades, two go to jail.

Shouldn't the jewelry recall story have been on the front page instead? Lead exposure causes children to lose IQ points. The editors at the LAT are clearly short on IQ points already.


  ¶ 8:49 AM

  I'm sure that I'm just being paranoid... Posted by E

I was listening to BBC World Service on our local PBS station on Saturday, and caught part of Carrie Gracie's interview with Ohio Governor (and Bush campaign chair for Ohio) Robert Taft.

Most of what I heard of the interview consisted of Taft sticking carefully to the somewhat desperate-sounding standard responses that the repubs are using in interviews these days, to wit: Kerry flip-flops, Bush is a moral leader, things are getting better, etc., etc.

For me, the interview actually got interesting about 22 minutes in, when Carrie came up with a question that the timorous American media would never have had the courage to ask. She said that journalist Paul Krugman and senior Democratic officials had expressed concern that the Bush regime would not surrender power even if they lost the election, and she asked for Taft's response to those concerns.

Of course her question, while far too direct and to the point for any mainstream US journalist to ask, clearly springs from the general European opinion that Bush & Co have largely subverted the democratic process in this country, and that the dream of America as a free and open society may finally be drawing to an end.

It was Taft's response that set my paranoid little heart into palpitations. He did not answer the question. His initial response was blather about not being able to understand the opposition to this wonderful, hard-working president. To her credit, the interviewer then re-stated her question, asking whether the Bush team could be "trusted to play by the rules." This launched Taft off into another tangent about how "trust is a real issue in this election particularly as it pertains to John Kerry." So again, he did not answer the question. All he had to say to set my mind at ease was something to the effect of "If the Bush team loses the election, they will of course accept the will of the American people and do everything they can to ensure a smooth transition for the new president." But he didn't say that.

So I'm just being paranoid, right? It's obviously kooky to think that maybe Taft was being purposefully evasive because he's privy to the regime's plans to maintain their deathgrip on this country regardless of the outcome of the election. I mean, I feel silly for even wondering about it --just as Krugman and senior members of the Democratic party must feel silly for expressing their concerns. That sort of thing couldn't happen here, right? This is America, and no matter how vengeful and fanatical the current administration is, they wouldn't dream of turning this country into a true, full-blown oligarchy. Right? Right?  ¶ 5:01 PM