The regularity with which something I read related to the current Bush Administration pisses me off is just unbelievable. Admittedly, I originally thought it was basically every day, but upon further reflection, it's not really everyday, and it's not really all about W. I suspect that part of what is keeping the count low is just that I cut back on the amount of time I spent reading and keeping up with the news. Chalk up a plus on the personal scoreboard for "improved mental state," and a minus for "staying informed."

Anyway, about a week ago, it was this article about the problematic wireless communications network being built in Iraq, which mentions a (yet another) questionable contract award without a formal bidding process, this time to MCI. (we already know about Halliburton, right?) Remember MCI? (That would be MCI/Worldcom.) They're trying to dump the WorldCom name to disassociate themselves with last year's accounting scandal. (Here, pick an article)

When I initially started this post, I was pretty pissed off about something the day before as well, but I'm beginning to think that it wasn't directly related to W. I think it might have been about all companies (besides MCI/Worldcom) changing their name to distance themselves from their historically poor reputations... oh yeah, that's the ticket, just that it centered on AOL/TimeWarner (TimeWarner) and made references to Philip-Morris (Altria) and Andersen Consulting (Accenture). But that's not really about W. It did send me off in some idle musings about Alfred Nobel. I remember someone telling me that he established the Nobel Peace prize because he didn't want to be remembered solely as the inventor of dynamite and its darker contribution to the world. And I wondered, in a 100 years, if the U.S. will be thought of as a country of great ideas and ideals, representing freedom and equality, or if we'll just be "USAria[tm]" or "AmeriCo[tm]." But I digress.

Anyway, the day before that (Wednesday, September 17, by my count), it was W's official statement that there was no proof of a connection between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Which, in and of itself, is a good thing considering that apparently almost 70% of the American population thinks that there IS a connection. But the reason? Perhaps because he regularly ties the two together in public addresses, and then there are the comments from other members of his administration (such as Vice President Dick Cheney just a few days prior). I think this article gives a pretty good overview.

...which reminds me of this joke. And gives it a extra little "umph," dontcha think?

I've been locking horns with someone in a discussion group on the Jim's Big Ego homepage of all places. It all stems from Jim's posting of "The White House Resume" which upon first reading I found terribly depressing... and then, as I followed one poster, upsetting.

But, on the plus side, while looking for the exact wording for a quote by Thomas Jefferson, I did find this page, which I found heartening...perhaps like an on-line equivalent to the Phoenix Song in the Harry Potter Lexicon.

Interestingly enough, my search also came up with this site, which I found initially troubling, then amusing. I find this to be a common response when I view this type of site (other examples are http://www.whitehouse.org/ and http://www.landoverbaptist.org/).

And I realize that such sites poke fun by pushing their targets' perceived viewpoints and opinions to their logical (or illogical) extremes, but I sometimes wonder whether there are people out there who don't get the joke, or think to themselves "Spot on, you gentlemen have got the right idea." (Or perhaps "Yeah! Let's beat the $#%@ out of those commy-pinko[sic] bastards!")

*sigh*

Well, I was trying to be a good doogie, a fresh start as it were, and got in early ready to get back to work after an enjoyable weekend. But I made the mistake of taking a short break to check out the news online and read an article that got me upset enough that I couldn't get focussed again.

I thought I had a fairly articulate rant about the creeping lines of discrimination and prejudice (Thank you, AG Ashcroft and the Patriot Act), but I've managed to fat-finger delete the thing en toto. So I'll just drop in a link to the article in MSN Money which was original published in the Christian Science Monitor (but which charges a fee to read archived articles)

It's the eve of the second anniversary to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I've already seen a few hints of it in the media, most notably the airing of a documentary about the two towers last night. The images still resonate, but thankfully not in the paralyzing way they did two years ago. I still couldn't watch the entire show.

So I'm reading a news article about a speech W gave today, and I'm struck by a quote where he wants to expand capital punishment to cover acts of terror.

"Sabotaging a defense installation or a nuclear facility in a way that takes innocent life does not carry the federal death penalty," Bush said in calling on Congress to make these type of crimes punishable by death. "This kind of technicality should never protect terrorists from the ultimate justice."

And I ask myself, exactly how does capital punishment serve as a deterrent to the type of person that would participate in a suicide attack? And while I'm at it, I was thinking about the latest tape that was released today that was purported to be of Osama bin Laden, and I wondered why our rhetoric couldn't be more about fighting religious extremists and addressing the problem by stamping out ignorance and misinformation rather than chest-thumping and carrying on about how we're going to squash our enemies who are, by definition, "servants of evil" like the bugs that they are?

I've been listening to NPR on WGBH (89.7FM) on my drive home from work over the last few nights. I realize that it probably has a more liberal bias than other sources, but the statistics that I've been hearing recently have been making me either mad or depressed.

From Daniel Schorr's commentary, consider the following:

• Although the administration claims that the average tax saving with the new tax cut will be over $1000, according to the Brookings Institution, 59% of the savings will go to those who earn income in the top 10% and "almost half of taxpayers will receive less than $100." (I checked the document; according to them, the average tax cut for the lowest 48.9% of filers is $52, and FWIW, their calculated average tax cut for all taxpayers is actually $865)
• Bush's proposed welfare reform for working mothers (presumably single) will require 40 hours of work to qualify without any additional funding for childcare. And this in an economy with 6% unemployment. (so far)

I find it interesting to notice that I'm beginning to tune in and understand what's going on around me. The guy who had no opinion on anything just a few years ago. I must be getting old. Or maybe W just makes it easy.

Ok, here's something interesting... The first thing that comes up on a search for "W" on Google is http://www.whitehouse.gov

Scary.

Ok, so after being laid up on the couch for almost a month, I've managed to get myself completely addicted to That 70's Show. Addicted to the point of taping every show that plays every week (that would be 12 shows, or 6 hours, of TV every week, folks). I think I'm just drawn to its portrayal of the almost ideal romantic love between the characters Eric and Donna. It's quite sweet, really.

But does it ever really work that way?

Ah, the state of health care these days... About a year ago, I switched to a PPO through Blue Cross Blue Shield after having trouble getting an appointment with a special for a little accident I had in the kitchen. I figured that would be the last I'd have to worry about getting timely and appropriate medical attention. So this past May, I managed to seriously injure my back playing ultimate. It seemed to get better. I played on it again a week later and the next morning, I could barely dress myself. So I see my doctor, and with a prescription for physical therapy in hand and a couple of recommendations from friends (there seem to be a lot of ultimate players who've had PT. Hmm.) I figured I was good to go... ...until I tried to schedule an evaluation. First available appointment? 2-1/2 weeks later. Over a month after the initial injury. Hmmph. Although, I have to say, I was really happy with the therapist and the facilities. (Bill Harrington at Pro Sports Therapy in Waltham) After 7 weeks, I feel almost as good as new. In some ways, I even feel better than before. Cool. And at the first tournament back, some idiot slams into my knee. Since I'm still seeing Bill, he checks it out and allays some fears. (Doesn't seem like a torn ACL. *whew*) But again, it's 2 weeks before I get an appointment with an orthopedist. I manage not to make it worse. When I eventually see him, the doctor tells me to stay off it for 3 weeks. Probably bruised medial collateral ligaments, strained secondary lateral collateral ligaments. Mostly better. After the BUDACOL tournament there's only a little knee soreness, with everything else otherwise pretty good. Everything seems ok (other than some kind of flu that I wasn't quite over) a few weeks later at the UPA Sectionals tournament. Well enough that I'm willing to help Dillio move a couch. Or not. So, the next day, I can't put on my socks without lying on my back. Back to square one. Or worse. After a day, it doesn't get better. I get some advice from Bill. And recommendations for two orthopedists that specialize in spinal injuries. Cool, now we're cooking with gas. But we're not. I call one, and his first available appointment is October 25th. That was 4-1/2 weeks from the date that I called. They suggested trying his other office and gave me the number. Early December. I try the other doctor, same thing. November/December. So what can I do? I make the appointment. And try to go to work and deal the best I can. Two weeks later, I'm finding that it's not getting any better. In fact, it seems worse. And I'm still more than two weeks until my appointment. So I get a prescription for PT from my PCP, and I'm going to try and see Bill. First appointment, October 17th. *sigh* At least it's sooner than when I'll see the doctor. * * * Once I get it, I feel pretty good about the quality of the medical attention I'm receiving. It's the when that's bothering me these days. As things with my back seemed to deteriorate, I grew increasingly concerned that something I was doing was making it worse. And it scares me that I could potentially be doing serious, irreparable damage without knowing it because it wasn't possible for me to see the person I needed to see. And this is "just" about my back. My Dad has always had a certain mistrust for HMOs because many years ago, a close friend of his died of cancer. Something which he attributes, in part, to a lack of timely medical attention. I can still remember him telling me about the surgery. It was short, apparently, and I had thought that that was a good thing. Until he explained that when they opened him up, they had found that things were too far gone for them to be able to do anything. Depressed yet? So, here I am, lying on my couch, on my stomach, working from home. Life could be worse, I suppose.

So I'm reading about the guy who plea-bargained his way to a misdemeanor by choosing to testify against a currently unnamed "tippee" *cough*MarthaStewart*cough*, and it makes me ask, "is there ever any positive reinforcement for doing the right thing?" The fellow in question was originally given an extra week of vacation and a free plane ticket "In exchange for stonewalling probers." He's doing the "right thing" now by cooperating with investigators, and will probably get probation for his trouble. But what if he did the "right thing" at the time? My cynical guess: probably waiting in line at an unemployment office somewhere in downtown Manhattan. (and not even a tan from a week off in Hawaii to show for it.)

What is this thing they call "Blog?"