Jim

I'm not generalizing anything. I'm being quite frank and specific. Here's the gist - this administration ignores human rights of prisoners on a number of levels while invoking the mantra of "war on terrorism". This is done quite strategically while hypocritically waving the flag and boasting about freedom and democracy. There is a line between being tough in war and falling into the pit of barbarisim. Too many examples are evident that we've fallen into that pit.

Right on Matt. The discouraging part is that the simple minded press, and the public just nod along at the political theater.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. There have been a number of verified reports regarding the US practice of returning suspects in Iraq and Afganistan to other countries for torture. The idea being that we're not allowed to do it, but it's ok to send a CIA supervisor to be present while another country does it. Uzbekistan is a good example. Before 911 the US decried its prisoner human rights record. Now? - we send detainees there for inquisition. Human Rights Watch has documented the level of torture to include pulling out toenails and fingernails (chronic popular one apparantly), burns and electrical shocks to gentials, general back-alley beatings, and one person who was boiled to death. Lovely. From the linked reports, and others, it looks like we have our own home-grown versions going on. It seems to be a consistent policy thread of the Bushies, no less evident than in the memos from now Attorney General Alberto "torture boy" Gonzales.

Then we cry foul when our prisoners are used as photo-ops.

A week of field work next week along the Methow, Columbia, and Okanagon. Bring the shoes for some boulder time.

Manipulation of the press occurs every day. The best example is in the White House press room. Ask a few hardball questions and you'll get sent to the back of the room with the Kansas City Herald, not get invited to have chats on AF1, and generally loose access. Unless the government provides a comment or "undisclosed" source of the story - there is no story. The prisioner abuse at Abu Graib was a classic. A number of independent journalists had published articles but the mainstream press and wire services bascially ignored it until "undisclosed sources" at the Pentagon confirmed it. The level of unaltered government drivel that the press puts forth as news is nothing short of astonishing. It's sad when one of the few good news shows is on Comedy Centra. Mainstream reporters learn early how the game is played, and play along to further their careers. Keep your head low, don't step on toes, and maybe you'll get that coveted White House press pass. Unless your a gay, right-wing, call guy - then you get put to the front of the line.

I think this already being done, from the looks of it.

Well one problem I can think of is that many of them were later released because we found out they were low level sorts, innocents caught up in our net, or had no useful information. Second, aren't those in Iraq classified as POWs and afforded rights under the Geneva Conventions? (at least Iraqis - not the foreign fighters). And third - do we want to stoop to their level of barbarisim? I thought we were the freedom leaders, etc. The statement "because they do it" is a grade school rationalization, not the decision making process of a great nation. I know, I know. Cite George Orwell about good people sleeping well at night 'cause the tough guys are out there protecting us.

It's often most revealing to figure out what is not in the mainstream press rather than debating the bias of what does get covered. The mainstream press has become a lapdog.

Ya just gotta love the analyis that essentially says "Saddam was a bad guy, we took a sober analysis of the situation, and then methodically concluded it was the right thing to do" What a crock. Any objective analysis of facts rather than conjecture, would look at the first administration rehashes in the GW's, the plans to boot Saddam that were resurrected, and the fishing for paper thin reasons for going to war. Then following an exposition of the lies, the hop-scotch for other reasons. If it was such a good idea then why not just lay out the truth for your reasons, not lying and trying (and succeeding) in scaring the public. Then comes the "water-under-the-bridge" logic. No need to rehash past events, we're fighting for freedom, etc. etc. I agree with one thing, that we can't just cut our losses now. We're screwed, as are the people of Iraq. Not only did we blunder our way in there, we did it without sufficient troops and any reasonable post-war planning. Remember how the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for all this? That went by the wayside quickly enough. To date: approximately 100,000 civilians killed In the 2 wks since a parliment was formed: 400 dead Latest appropriations request for Iraq and Afganistan: $81.9 Billion

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party gets," Moyers said. "That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth."

Your are obviously not concentrating on the real news of the day - such as the Michael Jackson trial.

I can imagine. I haven't been back since I left. No bs-ing while sitting on the Capitol steps while munching a sandwich anymore. Bummer that some really striking archticture (such as the rotunda) are not available to the public anymore. Traffic must be interesting with all the jersey barriers up.

I did the messenger thing for a while and the primary reason, other than bravado, is that single speeds are less of a hassle. No derailer, cables, brakes to be screwing around with. If you have a commute without killer hills it's not a bad way to go if you don't mind standing in the pedals once in a while. Some folks I know also use the single speed for the commute in the drizzle and road grit and have the better road bike at home for longer rides in good weather.

There's an artist type in Seattle that was making these offical looking parking signs that said No Bike-Weenie Clothes and had a stick figure bike guy with circle and slash over it. He was hangine them in front of coffe shops on telephone poles. Classic.

From commuting on my 25 yr old frame (my bike, I'm 2x that) I've noticed a direct correlation between the amount of spandex/flashy jerseys and lbs overweight. The Scott handlebars are the kicker. In mountain biking it used to be underweight guys on overweight bikes, now it's overweight guys on underweight bikes.

Not much on the mainstream press about any of this. Just filled up with the evacuation of the capiol yesterday and endless graphics of how F15s are scrambled. The complacent public is getting the government they deserve. But it will come back to bite us big time.

Check these out - custom made. Got my wife one a couple years back and myself one this year. Excellent product. http://www.beyondfleece.com/

Quickly breezed it - interesting article on US vs European work habits and the connections (or lack thereof) between labor unions, protestant work ethic, cultural values and percieved tradeoffs.

JayB gets points for self-powered transport. He may yet leave the dark side.

Your memory is about as accurate as you faux outrage. The point that was being discussed was the validity of criticism of complex science issues by folks who can find the hole in the ground. If your question is what am I doing to try and make things better, well that's my job, I commute by bike to work, have a gas stingy car, and lobby my government to try and push for energy conservation and investment in new technology instead of drill and fill. So how about you? And it's Italy not Spain.

Without getting drawn down the side comment rathole here's a couple of main points. The folks that dismiss the science probably haven't read it, don't understand how peer review science works, and really don't care. It's like Micael Criton - a novelist - being interviewed as an expert on the news regarding the global warming issue. And that somehow, folks who suffle paper in their cubicle are somehow on parr to critcize authors published in journals or in reports from the National Academy. What a joke. The second is that there is no us - them in this discussion. It's a consideration about future generations and what we leave them. We sit on about 3% of the world's energy resources and consume about 40% of the energy produced in the world. So we're going to become energy independent? It will never happen without a massive change and without any foresight it's unlikely to happen soon. We can do much better than what we're doing now. Have at it. Tell me about your take on the latest climate models. This should be rich.

Excellent! Well-stated! This is the type of simpliton rehtoric that is used to dismiss science, along with the dismissive snide comment. Basically this dismissal can be boiled down to "it was hotter (or colder) in the past so no big deal." If you actually read any of the research, even the National Academy of Sciences panel put together by the Bush Administration, you'll have a fuller grasp of the basics. Lobbing in the yert reference is great too - it infers that the only logical choices are full steam ahead and do nothing or some throwback to the commune era. It's a false analogy and a favorite of the conservative camp. It's as if somehow, through the power of benign neglect, everything will work out just fine. There are choices that can be made now, to both improve our energy situation, reduce our contribution to greenhouse gasses, invest in new technology, and prepare our economy for the next century. The oil crew of Bush and Cheney, however, have only seen the light at the end of their tunnel, and that leads straight into the pockets of the oil and gas industry.

And from Adel al-Jubeir, Advisor to the Saudi Crown Prince CNBC interview with Maria Bartaromo: "We believe the price of oil should be between $22 and $28 per barrel. $25 is a good reasonable price. There is no extra demand accompanying today's very high price for oil. We are seeing no extra customers lined up and there is no shortage of supply. The high prices we are seeing are due to speculation in the oil markets."""

The science on global warming has become unequicoal in the past five years. Cue arm-wavers: "it's all politically bias. We need more evidence" I'm sure of the correct term, but ignorant and naive come to mind in describing the public and their susceptibility to this type of rhetoric, and their general lack of understanding on how science works. The other motivator in the US, of course, is the need to consume. Somehow that bigger truck, the McMansion in the burbs, jet ski, boat, yadda yadda, is a need, not a distracting toy. The utimate need for immediate gratification now manifests itself in our national public policy. Whether the debt, or energy policy, or lack of investment in the country's future, we're going to leave our kids quite a legacy.