At Random, 9/28/06

The Press, Victimized

Fox defends itself:

Fox News chief Roger Ailes said that former President Bill Clinton's angry response to interviewer Chris Wallace's question about going after Osama bin Laden represents "an assault on all journalists."

Ailes said Clinton had a "wild overreaction" in the interview, broadcast on "Fox News Sunday." Hundreds of thousands of people subsequently watched clips over the Internet, with Fox foes rallying behind Clinton.

Considering that it's Roger Ailes saying this, please pass the salt. Does it sound just the least little bit self-serving?

And note that Rudolph Giuliani comes to Clinton's defense, although, being a Republican candidate for president, he has to defend Bush as well. However, TBogg brings a little bit of detail to Bush doing "everything he could" to kill bin Laden.

Here's an asinine post by Glenn Reynolds, and TBogg's synopsis.


It's the Economy. . . .

Speaking of Fox News, this is choice. Nonpartisan, of course. But, as Atrios points out, it's just getting back to where it was before the tax cuts. Not allowing for inflation.


The Christianists:

I'm not linking to their sickness. If you want to know what's going on at the "Values" conference in Washington, check out Andrew Sullivan or Pam's House Blend. The degree of viciousness is amazing.


Torture:

This post, by my namesake at DailyKos, is tremendous. Snaps the whole thing into focus.

The anti-torture choice was abandoned long ago. The "moderate" Republicans could have chosen to block any authorization for torturing U.S. prisoners right from the bat; they refused.

This legislation is political salve; it is not required law. The Constitution and existing law, presuming for the faintest half-shadow of a moment that the administration could be expected to follow it, speak clearly and decisively on the issues of habeus corpus, and trial, and on torture. This legislation is simply a show trial against the Constitution, done for the expediency of displaying Republican toughness, where toughness is defined as having no moral, ethical, or legal boundary that cannot be moved, if a poll number sticks up against it.

It all sort of makes you sick, doesn't it.


Antidote:

I went to Lincoln Park Zoo the other day. It turned out to be a beautiful September day, sunny and mild, not too many people at the Zoo. Some observations:

I sat watching the rhino pacing in his larger but still not quite big enough enclosure and noticed something odd: several families with ery small children came by and stopped to watch as well. All of the Latino parents picked their kids up so they could see the rhino. The single Black family, the same. None of the white parents did. No conclusion, just an observation, statistically insignifant (there were only six or seven families observed).

Watched the lions for a while. The male walked over and flopped down on the ground near the moat. They are definitely cats.

Bought some popcorn -- an indulgence -- and fed the birds with some of it. Mostly a brawling mob of sparrows, actually yelling at each other, with a couple of starlings, which always make me think of dinosaurs because of the awkward way they walk. But then, direct descendants, don'tcha know.

I didn't go into any of the houses -- it was an outdoors day. I did stop off at the conservatory to see the orchids. Some Stanhopeas in bloom, which is one I've always wanted to try -- someday -- and a decent Cochleanthes, but the color could have been stronger. That's a group I love, the Zygopetalum family.