Wednesday, November 7, 2007

NYTimes.com: Telling the Stories Behind the Abortions

The New York Times E-mail This
This page was sent to you by:  jendeaderick@gmail.com

HEALTH   | November 6, 2007
Telling the Stories Behind the Abortions
By CORNELIA DEAN
Dr. Susan Wicklund wants to encourage more open discussion of abortion and its prevalence.

Most E-mailed
1. Curing Insomnia Without the Pills
2. Food 2.0: Chefs as Chemists
3. M.I.T. Sues Architect Frank Gehry
4. Causes of Death Are Linked to a Person’s Weight
5. M.I.T. Sues Frank Gehry, Citing Flaws in Center He Designed

»  Go to Complete List


In Wes Anderson's THE DARJEELING LIMITED,three brothers (Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, Adrien Brody)set off on a train voyage across India with a plan to find themselves and bond with each other. Their journey however, veers rapidly off-course due to events involving over-the-counter pain killers, cough syrup, and pepper spray.
Click here to watch trailer


 

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Re: Naomi Klein: The Real Blackwater Scandal: Build a Frontier, You Get Cowboys - Politics on The Huffington Post

Democracy is messy. It also gets boring (why else would so many not vote, let alone keep current with the political scene?) Ms. Klein is correct in her assertion that it takes some sort of disaster to get things to change. If you don't believe it, try running for local office.

Of course, without any background in an issue, people tend to make the wrong choices. Or trust their government to take care of them. In any event, they are soon bored and withdraw to say how rotten the world is.

The most efficient type of government is run by a benevolent despot. Now the "despot" part is easy, the benevolent part somewhat harder.

Is it a stretch to say that a large corporation is a benevolent despot? Do they usually get what they want and know how to motivate their people? After all, Blackwater people are well trained to do what you want them to do. They are close to 100% successful, too. Could the army do that? 

If it makes sense to hire contractors to feed the troops, is it that much of a stretch to have them provide protection for our personnel? Yes, it costs more money, but the Blackwater families are not rising in protest about the death of their kids, spouses and parents. They are well paid and knew what they were getting into when they signed up. Our reserve units did not.

By God! Why not sub-contract the whole war! Bring our soldiers home and let the war play out the way it does. That would be a logical extension of the contractor issue.

You see, one of the benefits of using contractors is the notion of "plausible deniability." Our elected ones can say that they gave these people the rules to play by and they didn't do it. Not our fault. We'll let the CEO of the company speak in front of a congressional committee and bawl him out. There, that takes care of it, doesn't it?

Some people say we should stop funding the troops so they have to go home. Wouldn't it be better to stop funding the contractors? The war would be lost in days!

Contractors are a double-edged saw. If you start using them, you can easily become addicted. Still, it's a lot better then sending 500,000 troops in. You can imagine the political ruckus that would create!

Or maybe we should think twice the next time before trying to save the universe. Iran anyone?


Father, brother, cousin Jim


PS: Jen, what is this blogger.com thing? Are you blogging?





On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jen Deaderick wrote:

This is a great interview.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/the-real-blackwater-scand_b_67741.html