I love technology. I guess I better since its everywhere and I couldn’t do my work without it, but it does have its drawbacks, Technology, eating habits help to spread E. coli
But the reason outbreaks have become more common in the past 25 years, health officials agree, is because technology has been developed to identify and connect strains of bacteria and because the nation’s eating habits have changed — we eat mass-processed foods that make it easier for contaminated products to reach more
The first E. coli outbreaks in the United States were in ground beef partly because E. coli bacteria live in cows, and partly because ground beef was among the first food products to be highly processed and mass-distributed via fast-food outlets. Beef from one tainted cow could be mixed with beef from hundreds of healthy cows, and the resulting hamburger patties would all be contaminated.
Right now I’m thinking a milkshake and salad for lunch.
Newshounds has a good catch. Different party, different treatment
When former President Bill Clinton got upset with Chris Wallace in an interview on FOX News Sunday, FOX characterized him as “crazed.” But when Bush went off on a rant in a Rose Garden speech September 15, calling it “unacceptable to think” that we may be losing our supposed moral superiority by formally adopting torture as an interrogation technique, FOX portrayed him (as usual) as nobly battling (his Republican) Congress to “keep us safe.”
This is the way it works, you buy an “R” ticket and when you show some emotion you’re passionate. When you buy a “D” ticket and show a little emotion you’re crazed.
A conservative blogger named Patterico’s Pontification’s, and I mean this without the least be of cynicism, gives us all a lesson in how to cleverly twist information and leave out important points without being caught in a lie and at the same time giving your agenda a little push, Chris Wallace Has Indeed Grilled A Bush Official About Failing to Get Osama Before 9/1, Filed under: General – Patterico @ 4:56 pm, 9/24/2006
This piece, which is very supportive of Clarke, takes issue with an assertion by Dick Cheney that Clarke was moved out of counterterrorism:
[Clarke] wasn’t “moved out”; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)
Clarke was not fired; he was, in effect, demoted. When Bush took over, Clarke retained his title as “National Coordinator on Counter-terrorism” but Condi Rice demoted the position. After 9/11, Clarke requested a transfer out of frustration, and later left government and wrote a book, which contained bitter recriminations against Bush — and whose stories were elaborated and dressed up by Clarke as he hit the talk-show circuit.
So I’m left a bit baffled why Clinton thinks Clarke was “fired.” And it’s clear why Fox News Sunday never asked a Bush official why Clarke was “fired” — he wasn’t.
For one thing the word “fired” can mean two things. One it can mean you were pushed out the door and all connections to your employer were severed. Or it means you were the regional manager, you were “fired” from that position, but was placed as a store manager. This is what happened to Richard Clarke. If one clicks on the link PP provided and he’s betting his readers won’t( most people don’t click on your out links) then his readers would have read this, Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth
To an unusual degree, the Bush people can’t get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh’s show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: “He wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff.” This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn’t just in the loop, he was the loop.
Cheney’s elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading. “He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things … attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology,” Cheney scoffed. Limbaugh replied, “Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there.”
It explains nothing. First, he wasn’t “moved out”; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)
In a further effort to minimize Clarke’s importance, a talking-points paper put out by the White House press office states that, contrary to his claims, “Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank.” At the same time, the paper denies—again, contrary to the book—that he was demoted: He “continued to be the National Coordinator on Counter-terrorism.”
Both arguments are deceptive. Clarke wasn’t a Cabinet secretary, but as Clinton’s NCC, he ran the “Principals Committee” meetings on counterterrorism, which were attended by Cabinet secretaries. Two NSC senior directors reported to Clarke directly, and he had reviewing power over relevant sections of the federal budget.
Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals’ meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.
So PP has one definition of what firing is. In PP’s definition if Clarke was still in the building and collecting a paycheck then he was responsible, but clearly that was not the case. They fired Clarke, pushed him out of his job which he could no longer do because he no longer had the title and resources to do it. Bush and Condi let him have a desk. Clarke finally gets feed up and leaves. Its my understanding that PP is a lawyer, so he knows what he’s doing by putting up part of the story and pretending to be “baffled”. Those of us that work for a living know exactly what the Bushies did to Clarke and the Bushies know that it was one of the bigggest mistakes in the history of America’s national security to not follow Clarke’s lead. Though what would anyone expect from an administration that knows nothing about humility.
Eric Massa (D) who is running against Randy Kuhl(R) for Congress in New York brings up a good point about Iraq in comparing it to Bosnia, The Bosnia Solution for Iraq
DFE: Bluntly, do you believe that Democracy is possible in Iraq?
EM: No, I do not.
DFE: If not, what do you believe is the next best alternative? Or the next most-likely alternative?
EM: Well, let’s just review some fundamental realities: first off, the Iraqi people are not ignorant, they are not uneducated, they are not incapable of governing themselves. Something called the Hammurabi Code which was the first code of civil law written in the world that we have record of, some 3000 years ago, originated in Iraq. So there’s a very long historical tradition of very highly-advanced cultures and governments in that part of the world. The fact that this did not include Jeffersonian Democracy does not diminish their capability to govern themselves.
It is a tribal, religious society where [power] and influence [flows] not only along religious and ethnic lines, but also along family and tribal lines. To interrupt and abruptly change and break that with the forced imposition at gunpoint of a Jeffersonian Democracy is to dismiss the very nature of the society and culture in which we have now thrust ourselves.
Based on that reality, the only way forward I see today – and it is not a very promising way forward, at that – is to apply what I call, based on my own personal experience, a Bosnian solution. In Bosnia, we faced a three-way ethnic, civil, religious war very similar to what we face in Iraq today. In Bosnia we created three semi-autonomous, economically viable states and allowed them to choose their form of federal government, and by-and-large, it has been very successful.
I can’t tell you that Iraq is going to unravel and allow us to even attempt that, but what I can tell you is that if we do not announce today that we are leaving, and in the time it takes us to depart, do our best to implement the Bosnian solution, then I see no solution at all, certainly not “stay the course.”
Kuhl’s solution for Iraq? Not surprising that it is a carbon copy of Bush/Cheney’s non-solution. To keep on doing what they have been doing, which at this point means to let Iraqis and our troops continue to die while the administration crosses their fingers and hopes for a miracle. Should New Yorkers go with the stay the course and no progress crowd or take a chance on someone that seems to actually understand the situation and has an alternative plan that might work the way it has in Bosnia.
A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. – Mark Twain