Recent comments

  • Reply to: Rhetoric vs. Reality in London   15 years 6 months ago
    Please let me add a few somewhat cynical observations about the bloggers you survey. As you observe, these web pundits seem determined to show that the tragedy in London validates our current policies and practices in the war on terror. Less than two weeks ago, the same bloggers were celebrating the wisdom of Bush's flypaper strategy– "better to fight them over there, than over here." Now that "over there" is London, however, these self-proclaimed voices of conservatism have fallen back to "liberal-bashing"--the tried and true tactics of distortion and misrepresentation developed during the Clinton years. In fact to be consistent, these bloggers should be celebrating the attack in London as further vindication of Bush's wisdom. If only we had this level of outrage in 1998 during the American embassy bombings in which 250 people were killed. A concerted effort then to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and to dismantle Al Qaeda, would made 9-11 and subsequent attacks a non-possibilty. But our same self-proclaimed ultra-patriots were more interested in the Starr Report and impeaching Clinton for having sex with an intern. Osama bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996; he issued an even more vehement fatwa in 1998. Karl Rove claims that "conservatives prepared for war after 9-11." Only three years after the embassy bombings, and five years after war was declared on us. Personally, I think no more damning indictment can be made against the Bush neocons and their supporters than Rove's own words. Iraq was the wrong war with the wrong enemy at the wrong time. Now, to defend this failing policies and practices, we have "liberal-bashing" once again: the tried-and-true tactics of distortion and misrepresentation. This failed our nation in 1996, in 1998, and is failing our nation now.
  • Reply to: Rhetoric vs. Reality in London   15 years 6 months ago
    A minor point, but you said: "As for Galloway's suggestion that England should pull its troops out of Iraq...". As Galloway is Scottish, I would doubt very much that he made the mistake of believing that England (which has no dedicated government, and no army) could pull its troops out of anywhere. There is a British army (which contains many British people who are not English), controlled by a British government. Britain and England are not synonymous.
  • Reply to: Spin Doctors   15 years 6 months ago
    I'm planning to organize a panel on ethics at the next meeting of the International Federation of Science Editors in Melbourne, Australia in 2006. Suggestions about qualified speakers in the medical field who might be intersted in participating would be welcome.
  • Reply to: How to Bury a Mad Cow   15 years 6 months ago
    Since the first incident of BSE reported in North America, I've been asking the USDA and the FDA if the downers or any other contaminated animals are being put into pet food.<P> So far no replies.<P> I wrote the Canadian Ag people and they do have oversight on their animal feeds, including pet food.<P> Now, if Canada can relatively reasssure us, why cannot our own government?
  • Reply to: How to Bury a Mad Cow   15 years 7 months ago
    Hello John, Liked your Milk Carton -"Have your seen this Cow?" I just recently found your stomach turning articles. The news media is doing us a great disserve, printing people and entertainment news while Rome burns. Here are a few more Question that crossed my mind. Mad Cow Disease: Is America Eating the Evidnece? Mad Cow Disease: Is Corporate Greed Putting Madness in Buns? Mad Cow Disease: Are Soldiers Eating the Evidence? In discussions on Civil war there is much commentary about the poor quality of meat and food provided to the troops of the north by government contractors. Is the government protecting itself? Is it more than corporate greed? Thanks Tegularius Secundus