|
 Monday, June 3, 2002
|
Noting that the U.S. spends only O.11 percent of its G.D.P. (Gross Domestic Product) on foreign aid, Paul Krugman says the U.S. seems to care less about the poorest people in the world (who die from lack of food, health care, or social infrastructure -- like drinkable water) than it does about the very richest.
 So here are our priorities. Faced with a proposal that would save the lives of eight million people every year, many of them children, we balk at the cost. But when asked to give up revenue equal to twice that cost, in order to allow each of 3,300 lucky families to collect its full $16 million inheritance rather than a mere $10 million, we don't hesitate. Leave no heir behind! 
So, does this seem ok to you? Is this the way you think the world should work? [via Altercation] 6:46:50 PM 
|
|
|
This is likely old news for many of you, but I just noticed a link to a "Science Fiction News of the Week" article with several bits about the upcoming "Matrix" sequels. Joel Silver, producer of "The Matrix" series, says the sequels will feature "visual effects that could never be copied." Now how are they going to do that? [via markpasc.org]
8:21:32 AM
|
|
|
Peggy Noonan's coverage of the whole "what did the FBI know prior to 9-11 and why didn't they do more about it" thing is no conspiracy theory, but it sounds like it could easily be one. Noonan focuses on the chief counsel to the Minneapolis field office, Colleen Rowley, who is being called a "whistle-blower" for detailing some of the ways the FBI dropped the ball in investigating "the presence of Zacarias Moussaoui's" in Oklahoma taking flight lessons. Noonan writes:
Ms. Rowley said she would not use the term coverup to characterize the FBI's official statements since Sept. 11. She said she will "carefully" use, instead, these words: "Certain facts . . . have . . . been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons."
What improper political reasons? She does not say. But throughout her memo she demonstrates a seriousness about words, a carefulness as to meaning. It will be interesting when she is asked by Congress or the press what she meant exactly.
8:09:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
