Does this work?

I can't post from gmail. And I can't post from lj itself. Anyone else having issues?

Does Bush Wag The Dog?

It is dangerous for an American president to launch a
military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude
he acted only out of narrow self-interest... Perceptions that the
American president is less interested in the global consequences than
in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a
further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in
conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached.

That's from the Wall Street Journal back in 1998, and it was in an
editorial they wrote about Clinton's bombing of Iraq that fall, just
before the House started impeachment proceedings against him. The
quote was one of many in an article in Slate Magazine
which showcased various "Wag The Dog" allegations.

So why do I find this so ironic today?

It's because of an article today in the LA Times which reports, "The
Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in
Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration
officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect
the U.S. presidential race."

Now, here's a quote that's pretty presumptive about the results of the
election - "When this election's over, you'll see us move very
vigorously." That's what one senior administration official is quoted
as saying - he said it under a promise that he'd remain anonymous. In
other words, the article goes on, top officials are untilling to sign
off on any new/further offenses right now.

But here's the problem with this delay - the reporter notes that a
"delay in pacifying Iraq's most troublesome cities, could alter the
dynamics of a different election: the one in January, when Iraqis are
to elect members of a national assembly. U.S. commanders are
scrambling to enable voting in as many Iraqi cities as possible."

So Bush, it seems, is less interested in the consequences for Iraq of
holding off on having any additional or new offenses against the
insurgents, and, I assume, the terrorists, than he is in maintaining
his own power.

Ya think the WSJ thinks he should be impeached?

Also, I'm now a security mom for kerry/edwards. See my statement here (about halfway
down, as of the now).

Betas, AA, politics and tossed registration forms

FictionAlley celebrates Beta Reader Appreciation Day (thanks to friede for the image-tweaking).

Speaking of betas, we're beta-testing the new artisticalley, wheee!

I am running quite far behind on LJ - I was at skip=400 this morning -
and I haven't read anything posted since about 7am today. But I talked
with tea_and_toast this AM and learned that she hadn't seen
any of the news reports about Sinclair Media and their decision to air
an anti-Kerry film next week which is purportedly focused on his Viet
Nam days. In other words, it seems that they're trying to influence
the election.

Sinclair owns a little over 60 stations around the country, and have
penetration into about 1/4 of the US, and many of those states are in
swing states. You may remember them from the Spring; in April,
Sinclair ordered seven of its stations not to air Ted Koppel's
Nightline broadcast featuring a roll call of the 700 U.S. troops who
had died in Iraq. Republican Sen. John McCain, who was a prisoner of
war in Vietnam, was among the many who criticized Sinclair's action.
McCain has also criticized some of the people who are expected to be
featured in the film Sinclair will be showing.


Here's a bit from USAToday on the situation:
AmericaBlog summarizes: Sinclair -- which is now synonymous with the
dangers of media consolidation -- is throwing its support behind Bush
because its business is hurting and it wants to consolidate even
further and have the right to control TV stations and radio stations
and newspapers in one broadcast area. At least you could respect them
if it was just a viciously held political belief rather than a cold
calculation.

And quoting: "The decision [to air the anti-Kerry video just days
before the election] annoyed investors. Sinclair's shares, which have
lost about half their value in 2004, closed Monday at $7.38, down 12
cents. That's about as low as they've been since 1995."

And advertisers are pulling away from Sinclair. Sylvan Learning
Centers is one national advertiser who has refused to advertise on
Sinclair if they go forward with this showing. More of their
advertisers are listed here. And as a
former intern in the Political Enforcement Branch of the FCC (back in
the day, we were in charge of the fairness doctrine and equal time
reulations), I also recommend filing
a petition with the FCC to deny renewal of Sinclair's licenses.
Some of the deadlines are November 1, so nothing will happen on the
license front before the election, but it's a way to tell the FCC that
you believe that Sinclair has abrogated their responsibility to the
American public; they are a custodian of the airwaves, and they are
not living up to their promise on how to use that scarce spectrum.

I'll also link to MediaMatters
page on the situation, where they're adding more and more informaiton.

I also wanted to crosspost from Americablog about the actions of a
company funded by the Republican National Committee, which is
especially relevant to anyone in Nevada or Oregon - KLAS
in Nevada ( reports )

The company [collecting and allegedly destroying the registrations]
has been largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National
Committee. Similar complaints have been received in Reno where the
registrar has asked the FBI to investigate.

ETA: for some reason, this showed up on October 8, even though I posted it at around 1pm EDT on the 13th. Does anyone know what's going on?