Incredibly, the woman from B.J.'s Optical called to tell me my glasses are in! This after I got a gift card, which I intended to convert to a refund once I found my receipt. Now I'm not sure if I'm going to take them or not. On the one hand, if they're properly finished (and, in light of the initial error and long delay, I'll have to be sure of this), I'd finally have my glasses. On the other, I might want to check out other optical places to see if they'd be any cheaper. Not sure what to do now.
Other than that, nothing going on. Hardly left the house, even though it was a bright, sunny day. Did make a date to go with the D.'s next door to see "Plaza Suite" on the 27th, I'm happy to say. That's the start of my respite weekend and I'll travel up to A.'s after.
Wider: There's a remarkable essay by Chris Floyd on the romance our benighted past officials have with torture and what seems to be its calm acceptance by the new administration. It comprises the March 17 essay and here's an excerpt:
"As we all know, the Obama Administration is now fighting strenuously in court to uphold this cynical Bush strategy (and others) to cover up high crimes -- capital crimes -- by the leaders of the government. Obama has offered the excuse that he is fighting for Bush in court because he doesn't want to do anything that 'would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency.' But how would applying the law of the land 'weaken the institution of the presidency'? Why do the president and his minions need the 'power' to commit crimes and get away with them? For make no mistake: in these court cases, this is precisely the 'power' that Obama is seeking to preserve. Why does he want that power, and the 'state secrets' get-out-of-jail-free card that goes with it? The answer seems obvious: because he wants to use that power for himself, and to pass it on to subsequent managers of the empire. For Obama is an intelligent man: he knows that the empire cannot be managed, maintained -- and expanded -- without recourse to criminal actions on a vast scale."
The entire article is essential to read, though--for those who have the stomach for it. http://www.chris-floyd.com/
2 comments:
God forbid, we should simply say "no torture". I am so fed up with this crap, I think I am going to throw up!
Who was it that said, "We don't torture," just a short time ago, anyway--was it Holder? Why can't they just follow that resolve AND
refrain from the disgusting practice of "rendition" which, to my mind, IS THE SAME THING?
Post a Comment