Travelin’ Meme
- At January 08, 2005
- By Bob Howe
- In Blog Posts
- 10
1. Go To Mapquest.com
2. Click on Directions
3. Enter your Current Address and the Address of your Childhood Home (or at least the town if you don’t remember the exact address)
4. Put the time and distance in a post like this.
5. Don’t forget to repost these directions. (Not the door to door ones!)
In my case:
156 Skillman Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11205
<Street Address Redacted> Brooklyn, New York, 11234
Total Est. Time: 18 minutes
Total Est. Distance: 6.42 miles
Thanks to
Ohio
- At December 17, 2004
- By Bob Howe
- In Blog Posts
- 12
I know what you’re thinking, because I have the same impulse: I don’t want to read about voting irregularities in Ohio (or anywhere else for that matter). It’s over, and the bad guys won. Reading about GOP dirty tricks just increases my sense of hopelessness about this country. We haven’t suffered an electoral defeat, but an Orwellian revolution: combat losses are victories; economic stagnation is recovery; dismantling social security is reforming it; a muzzled press is free.
Yet, some journalists are still doing their job, holding the administration’s feet to the fire. And not just Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman at the New York Times. Despite the fact that the Justice Department is avidly pursuing journalists who report inconvenient facts, some smaller papers, even in the red states, are daring to comment on the emperor’s fashion choices. Today the Lake County, Minnesota, Timberjay reports Election lawsuit gathering steam in mainstream media:
A lawsuit filed there Monday challenges Bush’s victory in [Ohio], alleging that a long list of irregularities, including intentional vote suppression in Democratic precincts and outright manipulation of vote totals in some locations, combined to steal the Ohio election and the presidency from Democratic candidate John Kerry. While Kerry isn’t behind the lawsuit, his campaign has become more vocal in recent weeks in pushing for answers about what actually happened in Ohio on Nov. 2. and is now funding some legal work there.
Questions about the vote in Ohio and elsewhere have been rampant on the Internet ever since Nov. 2, but the mainstream media has been slow to pick up on this developing story— until this week.
The lawsuit certainly has attracted media interest, as has an ongoing investigation into the situation, led by Democratic congressman John Conyers. Conyers began hearings this week in Ohio and already those hearings have produced very disturbing revelations about potential vote fraud. One of the most electrifying comes from an affidavit filed Dec. 13 by the deputy director of elections in Hocking County, Ohio. The official, Sherole Eaton, claims that a technician from the company that was hired to help tabulate returns from electronic voting machines, entered county offices on Dec. 10 under the guise of answering legal questions in advance of a partial hand recount of certain precincts, as requested by the Libertarian and Green Party presidential candidates in Ohio.
Though the last thing I want to think about is the Republican Party’s relentless consolidation of power through misfeasance, malfeasance and non-feasance, I think the least I can do is not look away when journalists part the curtains.
From livejournal user mckitterick
- At December 15, 2004
- By Bob Howe
- In Blog Posts
- 11
Direct your complaints to him.
Actualized type: MYOB
(who you are)
RSVP – “Napper”. Very low tolerance for online self-disclosure. High sense of ennui derived from prolonged exposure to self-absorbed bloggers. 50.1% of total population.
|
(who you prefer to be)
IMHO – “Sociopath”. Indifferent to other people’s pain, property and opinions. Amused by lightning strikes on fundamentalist churches. 5.4% of total population.
|
Attraction type: HHOK
ROTFL – “Spendthrift”. Outstanding giver of gifts. Generous with money and sexual favors. Has weak impulse control and big tatas. 2.5% of total population.
|
Take Jung Explorer Test
personality tests by similarminds.com
Open Letter to Popular Science
- At December 13, 2004
- By Bob Howe
- In Blog Posts
- 2
December 13, 2004
Mark Jannot, Editor
Popular Science
Dear Mr. Jannot:
I was a reader of Popular Science in my twenties. I recently re-subscribed on a whim, when some local school kids on a magazine drive rang my doorbell. My first issue arrived today (January 2005), and the first thing I read was your editorial, “Political Science.” I was pleased, and a little surprised, frankly, to see the words “political” “science” and “journalistic integrity” in the same piece.
I’m a science fiction writer, and one of the prime requirements of the trade is knowing the difference between science and fiction. I think it’s a distinction that Americans are increasingly unqualified to make, for a variety of reasons, including watered-down science curricula in primary and secondary schools, and a mass media that is increasingly fearful of boring its audience or alienating those whose political and religious beliefs make empiricism a four-letter word.
I applaud your editorial stance, especially since it may cost you readers. I will encourage my friends and acquaintances to subscribe to Popular Science.
Best Wishes,
Bob Howe