Absurdity without Bounds

The Financial Times' take on Cheney's remarks is timeless. In particular, this line struck me:

"Mr Cheney last Thursday accused Russia not just of using energy policy for
political ends, but of restricting citizens’ rights."

I don't know that any one in the entire world that has used energy policy for political ends more so than Cheney. It is absurd that he would accuse anyone else of those actions when he wrote the book on restricting rights to further his personal and political gains.

Furthermore, what in the world has the U.S. to gain by making comments like that? Is it really to begin another cold war so that the Neo-Cons can return to the good old days of gross military expenditures to counter the ubiquitous threat of the Russians? It would not surprise me. Of course, our military expenditures increased after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I doubt such a technicality would inhibit BushCo from increasing them again at the onset of Cold War II: Attack of the Clones.

Your "liberal" media

This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. Not only is it extremely childish and unprofessional, but people fall for it, so it continues to happen.

Compare these two articles about the senatorial race in Washington. First, an article about Cantwell. Next, one about McGavick looking to unseat Senator Cantwell.

No one is going to read the tripe the Times churns out anyway, but they will notice the photos. Mike's appears to be at his second grade best, but Cantwell's seems a little off. Subtle but effective. Indeed, it's nice to see the candidates run on the issues, and it's even better to see the press attempting to tease out the issues so that the public can easily participate in the process.

I was reading the paper and noticed the photo of Cantwell. I assumed the most recent article about Mike would be in similar fashion. Boy did I assume too much. Liberal media, my ass.