In the past few months, I’ve noticed the New York Times putting little tags on its stories. If the story is about the election, the tag might say “The Candidate” or “The Ad Wars.” Last week, on a story tagged “Enforcement,” the Times headline said, “CIA Is Said to Find Iraq Gives Contracts to Nations That Want to End Economic Sanctions.” With a headline that long, you wouldn’t think the story would need the “Enforcement” tag, too.
In the story below the meandering headline, it was reported that under a United Nations agreement, Iraq is allowed to sell a limited amount of oil and use the proceeds to buy food for its citizens. The Central Intelligence Agency has determined Iraq buys the bulk of oil-financed food from countries which favor ending economic sanctions against Iraq, particularly China, France and Russia.
This story raises three questions in my mind.
Question One: Did we really need to spend taxpayer dollars on this?
The presidential election has us all by the throats. One candidate says he wants to reinvent government, the other says he wants to give tax dollars back to the people. I’m waiting for someone to invent a government office that refunds tax dollars that have been wasted on asinine projects.
Question Two: Did this research have to be conducted by the CIA?
I mean, if we’re going to investigate the obvious, do we have to call in the spooks to do it? Would it have killed us to have waited until after September first and then contracted the job out to a junior high school social studies class?
Question Three: Is this news?
The New York Times seems to think so, but I think it would have been more newsworthy if Iraq was found to be doing its grocery shopping among enemies rather than friends. On Monday, I noticed the Times had three full pages of ads purchased by the Emirate of Kuwait, but I’m sure that was just a coincidence.
While the Times is full of information about where Saddam gets his cucumbers, there’s little discussion about where American policy on Iraq is going. Not much noise from the campaign trail, either. Al and Joe both voted in favor of the Gulf War and the whole enterprise was headed up by Big Daddy Bush and Dick “Tiny-Charitable-Donations-and-Segregated-Bathrooms” Cheney. Both the Democrats and the Republicans claim this election offers voters the clearest choice in years, but what they don’t mention are the many issues on which the candidates share the same narrow view. Voters this year have the clearest choice since we decided between the “young Elvis” stamp and the “old Elvis” stamp.
The same day the Times broke the “Iraq is friendly with its friends” blockbuster, it also carried some quotes by world leaders, delivered at the UN summit in New York City.
In his remarks, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern referred to President Bush’s “new world order” speech, delivered at the close of the Gulf War. The Mr. Ahern said, “Perhaps the phrase ‘fair world order’ better sums up what we should strive for. It recognizes that we live in a society, not a marketplace. It admits concepts of justice and human solidarity. It acknowledges that, while not everyone will live in the same way, we are all entitled to dignity and decency.”
Asinine Projects
In the past few months, I’ve noticed the New York Times putting little tags on its stories. If the story is about the election, the tag might say “The Candidate” or “The Ad Wars.” Last week, on a story tagged “Enforcement,” the Times headline said, “CIA Is Said to Find Iraq Gives Contracts to Nations That Want to End Economic Sanctions.” With a headline that long, you wouldn’t think the story would need the “Enforcement” tag, too.
In the story below the meandering headline, it was reported that under a United Nations agreement, Iraq is allowed to sell a limited amount of oil and use the proceeds to buy food for its citizens. The Central Intelligence Agency has determined Iraq buys the bulk of oil-financed food from countries which favor ending economic sanctions against Iraq, particularly China, France and Russia.
This story raises three questions in my mind.
Question One: Did we really need to spend taxpayer dollars on this?
The presidential election has us all by the throats. One candidate says he wants to reinvent government, the other says he wants to give tax dollars back to the people. I’m waiting for someone to invent a government office that refunds tax dollars that have been wasted on asinine projects.
Question Two: Did this research have to be conducted by the CIA?
I mean, if we’re going to investigate the obvious, do we have to call in the spooks to do it? Would it have killed us to have waited until after September first and then contracted the job out to a junior high school social studies class?
Question Three: Is this news?
The New York Times seems to think so, but I think it would have been more newsworthy if Iraq was found to be doing its grocery shopping among enemies rather than friends. On Monday, I noticed the Times had three full pages of ads purchased by the Emirate of Kuwait, but I’m sure that was just a coincidence.
While the Times is full of information about where Saddam gets his cucumbers, there’s little discussion about where American policy on Iraq is going. Not much noise from the campaign trail, either. Al and Joe both voted in favor of the Gulf War and the whole enterprise was headed up by Big Daddy Bush and Dick “Tiny-Charitable-Donations-and-Segregated-Bathrooms” Cheney. Both the Democrats and the Republicans claim this election offers voters the clearest choice in years, but what they don’t mention are the many issues on which the candidates share the same narrow view. Voters this year have the clearest choice since we decided between the “young Elvis” stamp and the “old Elvis” stamp.
The same day the Times broke the “Iraq is friendly with its friends” blockbuster, it also carried some quotes by world leaders, delivered at the UN summit in New York City.
In his remarks, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern referred to President Bush’s “new world order” speech, delivered at the close of the Gulf War. The Mr. Ahern said, “Perhaps the phrase ‘fair world order’ better sums up what we should strive for. It recognizes that we live in a society, not a marketplace. It admits concepts of justice and human solidarity. It acknowledges that, while not everyone will live in the same way, we are all entitled to dignity and decency.”