Rear Window Ethics Rear Window Ethics: July 2005

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Belated Anniversary Fun

So Rear Window Ethics' one year anniversary came and went, and I was busy doing work and forgot about it. Work: who needs it?

I was reading this in the New Yorker tonight while waiting for my clothes to dry at the laundromat, and I actually started laughing out loud -- causing more than a few uncomfortable glances in my direction.

The piece is entitled, "My Dog is Tom Cruise":
I have to tell you, things are good. I am . . . I am . .




Whooo!




. . . I am very good. I just returned from a walk and . . .
ha! Things. Are. Good. I’ve got a bowl of hard kibble with some soft stuff mixed in. My name’s on the bowl! I am passionate about this lamb-and-rice recipe. What’s been going on?
haha! I’m so in love with this bitch!
hahaha! I can’t . . . I’m so . . . I can’t restrain myself.
hahahahahaha! We met at the park. She was in the run for little dogs . . . ’cause she’s, well . . .
ha! She’s petite. And I was over in the big run and . . . I am in

love

. I can’t be cool. This bitch is . . . I have total respect for her.
Continued...

Labels:

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Rove: With Us or Against Us?

I wrote a letter to the Boston Globe today:

Surely no one has forgotten President Bush's repeated proclamations following the attacks of September 11th, 2001. "You are either with us, or you are against us, " the President declared to the world as he sought to enlist international involvement in the "war on terror".

As the story of Karl Rove's involvement with the identification of an undercover CIA agent unfolds, it is time to put Mr. Bush's famous declaration to the test. Less than a month after Mr. Rove suggested that liberals were not outraged by 9/11 and that any criticism of the administration's war plan is tantamount to supporting terrorists, the question now is whether Karl Rove is "with us or against us."

I would be equally outraged if a Democrat or an Independent had compromised an undercover agent and their contacts in a time of war for political gain. This is not a partisan matter, nor is it a legal one. This is a matter of whether the President will stand up as Commander-in-Chief and show that undermining our national security is not a permissible political play in his White House.

Labels:

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Breaking: Snap, Rove!

I'm not sure yet whether this will end up being a smoking gun or not -- it's hard to tell most of the time -- but this surely can't be good for old Rove. And I can't say I feel the least bit bad if he gets crucified over it. After all, he is the mastermind who managed to turn the Republican Party of limited government, individualism and financial prudence into the Republican Party of federal pork, personal intrusion, and financial retartitude.

This may not be the smoking gun, as I said. But it goes in the right direction. If they keep digging, you know he's going to come up dirty.

Snap, Rove!

Labels:

Thursday, July 07, 2005

London Attacks

In the wake of the attacks this morning that will likely rouse the West from our recent attack-free lull, a few friends and I discussed whether the dark cloud of violent international terrorism is going to hang over us for the rest of our lives and the lives of future generations.

Some of my thoughts:

It seems apparent that having a large military presence in the Middle East certainly doesn't help matters. At the same time, I doubt if we pulled our military out of the region completely that the jihadists would really decide to cease terror attacks. And there's really no solution to the problem. Until the communities that tolerate the presence of terror organizations decide as a whole to actively renounce them, until they stop allowing their young children become inducted and initiated into the violent ideologies of these groups, then there is no way to stop the cycle. It happened that way with the IRA, and it just might happen in the future.

I don't think we can tell people what to do, though. Even if I thought it was a good idea, I don't think it's possible. They have to decide on their own, and they'll only do that when they tire of the violence extremists preach.

Otherwise, we better get moving and fast on some alternative energy. At least if we found some way to reduce and eventually rid our selves of the dependence this alliance with Saudi Arabia and Middle Eastern oil we could attempt to isolate ourselves more until that area of the world can work itself out.

It's ironic, because in the lead up to the G8 summit a big argument against the large and necessary aid to African countries was the rampant corruption in many of the governments. But at the same time we've relied on a very tenuous alliance with the Saudi royal family -- which very well may lose power in the near future -- without requiring them to fulfill the same standards we demand of countries like Nigeria before we give them aid.

Seriously, though. We're America. We can be smart, we can be hard-working, and we can do what is necessary when we really try. Why can't we launch a Manhatttan Project-esque endeavor to find a source of alternative energy that will only benefit our national security and the security of all nations that rely so heavily on people that hate us? It won't solve everything, but at least it will keep us from giving money hand over fist to the people that in turn give it to those who kill us.

Think about how that could improve our world image. We develop a clean, reliable energy that eventually allows us to lower our greenhouse emissions, and rid ourselves of addiction to foreign fuel that is now costing us so dearly. Then we give the technology to the world.

Labels: