|
| |
|
Sunday, September 15, 2002 |
|
|
Just moments after I posted the below post, I see this post by David W.
"Chip forwards a link to what may be an important article in the Sunday Herald that claims that the "regime change" in Iraq is part of a larger plan put together by Bush's cronies before he took office: Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President ........ 9:10 AM | PermaLink "
If this is the case, that is truly scary. But then, I thought it was scary before the election, realizing who the new Bush administration was (which is, a lot of the OLD Bush administration), and some even worse things.
I did a "Radio Express" thing on David W.'s post just after posting my To oust Saddam or what? post, brought on by seeing the Salon post. I expressed my immediate reactions, posted the "but what if we can topple Saddam without war" suggestion, pointed to how the UN may be the right route, but then considering the kind of rhetoric Bush and the administration has been using, wondered if this weren't just a "public face" to get approval for something that is going to be done anyway. I go back to my News Aggregator and skim down further, and there's David W.'s post about the article in the Sunday Herald........I think I just swung far in the direction of mistrust again, and a great uncertainty about the direction these guys are taking us.
9:53:33 AM 
|
|
|
There seems to be many elements here to debate. One, why is "Peace" and Not seeking to "topple" Sadamm mutually exclusive? One might qualify this and point out that there are ways to "topple" without military coersion, like the paths being sought now (at least on the surface....although I have a fairly certain suspicion that the U.N. is just one protocol that is being used to achieve what the US wants to do anyway. We'll see. Bush was saying "Sadamm has defied the UN not once, not twice, but SIXTEEN times. So, what was the US doing about that on numbers 3-16? Seems a lot like it's much more "convenient" now to bring that up to the UN now that we have some scheme that we're gonna implement no matter what.
Why American Jewish groups support war with Iraq. Usually allied with liberal causes, many American Jews support toppling Saddam Hussein. If there's a peace movement, it will have to get started without them. [Salon.com]
9:52:04 AM
|
|
|
Tell 'em John! |
Title: |
|
Weblogs |
From: |
|
John Robb |
Date: |
|
12-Sep-02 1:06 AM GMT |
Herbert,
Don't confuse weblogs with "blogs". What a teenager does on blogger.com is very different from what a corporate weblogger does at work on an Intranet. In fact, most of the abuse you see in the use of e-mail and IM doesn't appear on corporate weblogs because they are on the Intranet for all to see. Why? Because e-mail and IM are done in secret.
There is so much more I could write about this, but it is clear that you haven't seen a corporate weblog network in action.
8:59:41 AM
|
|
|
From Ron Lusk's Radio Weblog
CIO article on Blogging. Got the link from The FuzzyBlog!].
What a crock. One of the big ideas about the combination of weblogs with aggregators is that you only get information about blogs that YOU decide are interesting, not the writer.
Everyone needs to find hours per week to stay current. But, if people subscribe to newsfeeds for the journals, a single reader can filter out the relevant articles and post them to their weblog. I subscribed to over 50 newsfeeds for biology journals. I could browse over 300 articles in less than 1 hour, posting the important ones to my blog to be read later. That is right. Browse and make posts. I could then link to the article when I had the time. It was incredibly efficient, especially compared to reading each journal TOC individually. Others could then get to the important new literature quickly.
John Robb posts a response to this guy who wrote the article that Ron Comments on here
8:45:33 AM
|
|
| |
