wednesday morning
now playing: kathleen edwards, "lone wolf"
ok, a few things today...
first of all, this from the rittenhouse review (linked at right), who excerpted from the new york times:
IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME
Carbohydrates and Cholesterol Head for the Courts
A 53-year-old man sued the estate of Dr. Robert C. Atkins and the company that promotes his diet yesterday. The suit says following the Atkins diet for two years raised the man’s cholesterol so much that his arteries became clogged and required a medical procedure to open them.
The suit is apparently the first to involve the diet, the most prominent and controversial low-carbohydrate regimen and the one most associated with assertions that followers could eat all the red meat and saturated fat they wanted and still lose weight.
The plaintiff, Jody Gorran, who is being assisted by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an advocacy group that supports a vegan diet, is seeking $28,000 in damages. Mr. Gorran said he was using the suit to tell other people about the dangers of the diet and to have its promoters include warnings in books, other products and Web sites.
now, this guy apparently gained 8 pounds while on the diet for two years...and his cholesterol went from 146 to 230. but ya gotta give him props for his stick-to-it-iveness, i guess.
listened to our NPR affiliate on the way to work this morning, and derived a great deal of pleasure from listening to excerpts of ashcroft's grilling in congress yesterday over this whole torture memo situation. i downloaded it this morning when i came in (quickly, before it disappears from the 'net) to read it over...hell, maybe i'll forward it to my congressman myself, since ashcroft refused to release it...which is entertaining in itself. ("i'm sorry, congressman, but that memo contains sensitive information, and as such, i cannot provide it to you. but you can download it from the wall street journal's website....") or, if so inclined, you can get it from my site here.
speaking of ashcroft, this photo appeared on CNN today, accompanying the torture memo story:
now, tell me - what's the look on that half a face directly over his shoulder conveying? i'm kinda seeing a "yeah, right" expression...but he could also be soiling his underwear, it's hard to say. i know if i were onboard that particular political ship right now, i'd have a hard time keeping anything down.
iceberg, right ahead, motherfuckers.
this torture memo troubles me. i read over a great deal of it this morning, and basically it's a long diatribe stating that the rules that are supposed to govern the rest of the international community do not apply here, because they're not federal law.
WTF?
i guess all i'll say is this: if we do not adhere to international standards, then we have no right to act indignant when other countries elect to ignore the same guidelines. in other words, don't take on the holier-than-thou stance and try to assume some form of moral high ground over the nick berg situation or anything of that ilk if you're busy rewriting the rule books and picking and choosing which parts of the Geneva Convention are convienent for you to abide by.
another qualified insight on the torture memo here.
it saddens me that we've lowered ourselves to this point.
it saddens me that jessica lynch was treated better by her iraqi captors than we saw fit to treat the abu gharib detainees.
and God only knows what goes on at gitmo.
we - the united states of america - have officially become the moral equivalent of all those countries we've railed against for decades.
ok, a few things today...
first of all, this from the rittenhouse review (linked at right), who excerpted from the new york times:
IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME
Carbohydrates and Cholesterol Head for the Courts
A 53-year-old man sued the estate of Dr. Robert C. Atkins and the company that promotes his diet yesterday. The suit says following the Atkins diet for two years raised the man’s cholesterol so much that his arteries became clogged and required a medical procedure to open them.
The suit is apparently the first to involve the diet, the most prominent and controversial low-carbohydrate regimen and the one most associated with assertions that followers could eat all the red meat and saturated fat they wanted and still lose weight.
The plaintiff, Jody Gorran, who is being assisted by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an advocacy group that supports a vegan diet, is seeking $28,000 in damages. Mr. Gorran said he was using the suit to tell other people about the dangers of the diet and to have its promoters include warnings in books, other products and Web sites.
now, this guy apparently gained 8 pounds while on the diet for two years...and his cholesterol went from 146 to 230. but ya gotta give him props for his stick-to-it-iveness, i guess.
listened to our NPR affiliate on the way to work this morning, and derived a great deal of pleasure from listening to excerpts of ashcroft's grilling in congress yesterday over this whole torture memo situation. i downloaded it this morning when i came in (quickly, before it disappears from the 'net) to read it over...hell, maybe i'll forward it to my congressman myself, since ashcroft refused to release it...which is entertaining in itself. ("i'm sorry, congressman, but that memo contains sensitive information, and as such, i cannot provide it to you. but you can download it from the wall street journal's website....") or, if so inclined, you can get it from my site here.
speaking of ashcroft, this photo appeared on CNN today, accompanying the torture memo story:
now, tell me - what's the look on that half a face directly over his shoulder conveying? i'm kinda seeing a "yeah, right" expression...but he could also be soiling his underwear, it's hard to say. i know if i were onboard that particular political ship right now, i'd have a hard time keeping anything down.
iceberg, right ahead, motherfuckers.
this torture memo troubles me. i read over a great deal of it this morning, and basically it's a long diatribe stating that the rules that are supposed to govern the rest of the international community do not apply here, because they're not federal law.
WTF?
i guess all i'll say is this: if we do not adhere to international standards, then we have no right to act indignant when other countries elect to ignore the same guidelines. in other words, don't take on the holier-than-thou stance and try to assume some form of moral high ground over the nick berg situation or anything of that ilk if you're busy rewriting the rule books and picking and choosing which parts of the Geneva Convention are convienent for you to abide by.
another qualified insight on the torture memo here.
it saddens me that we've lowered ourselves to this point.
it saddens me that jessica lynch was treated better by her iraqi captors than we saw fit to treat the abu gharib detainees.
and God only knows what goes on at gitmo.
we - the united states of america - have officially become the moral equivalent of all those countries we've railed against for decades.
posted by tom at 11:38
<< Home