This is big news in the bloggosphere, so I decided to pass it on. This e-mail was sent by a journalist covering the World Economic Forum. I feel a little bad about it because it was an e-mail never meant to make it into the public arena. However, it did, and it's an incredibly vivid view of the forces that run the world and how much the US is screwing the pooch. I apologize to the author of the e-mail for propgating this e-mail, but it's fantastic and revealing and important, and I hope my passing it on can show someone just how seriously fucked we all are if something doesn't happen soon.

It's a little arrogant -- we're going to have the tallest structure in the world, dammit -- but architecturally, the new World Trade Center should be breathtaking.

I found this quote very cool:

Libeskind says that having calculated the arc of the sun, a wedge of natural light would funnel visitors to the memorial site, and that every September 11 between 8:46 a.m., when the first tower was struck by a plane, and 10:28 a.m., when the second tower collapsed, no shadows will be cast by his buildings.

Other touches, like leaving the footprints of the orginal towers alone, keep space open for new office space instead of building it and hoping someone will rent it, and the stratospheric terrariums, makes this design take that need for American arrogance and give it the touch of sophistication and class it needs.

"Can we run a foreign policy in the absence of trust? The administration apparently thinks it can use threats as a substitute." An excellent editorial on King George's bait-and-switch agenda. A New York Times article, so it requires a free, demographic-collecting registration.

"For I say this is death and the sole death,--

When a man's loss comes to him from his gain,

Darkness from light, from knowledge ignorance,

And lack of love from love made manifest.

-Robert Browning

When Tom Ridge unveiled Ready.gov and pushed for the use of duct tape to protect you from bioterrorism, I joked to my girlfriend that Tom Ridge must have political ties to the duct tape industry.

So much for a joke. Seems as though the owner of the company that manufactures nearly half of the country's duct tape gives fat wads of cash to the Republican Party.

A stretch, I know. But it's funny.

I finally listened to the Norah Jones album today. Let's just say it's about time the Cowboy Junkies won a Grammy.

Like you really care, but I'm feeling very under the weather today. Stomach aches, a sore throat, and blurry vision, not to mention a failed pen drive that cost me an entire five weeks of work on a school project, a project for my video class that my teacher deemed "okay" after tons of work, and the opening of my first set design -- I'm exhausted.

Since I'm sick, it's only appropriate that the news today is the impending war... over Medicare. Surprise, surprise, the Bush Administration wants to privatize Medicare. Actually, that's a bit of an overstatement. He wants to give the elderly the option of moving their Medicare coverage into private industry. Let them eat cake, eh, Mr. President?

The argument against charter schools is that it earmarks public funds for affluent people to put their children into private school instead of using that money to improve public schools. I agree with that. The same argument goes to the Medicare debate -- the only Medicare-recipients who could feasibly move their benefits to private industry are the ones who can afford it. In effect, this plan reduces federal spending on Medicare, and thus those who don't (can't) elect to move their benefits have access to fewer resources for their own care.

I won't, of course, bring the issue of over-population into this. I've said before that I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Hey, tomorrow is Election Day in Chicago. I unfortunately haven't paid as much attention to the aldermanic elections as I should have, especially in my 'hood, the 44th Ward. Shame on me.

I'm pretty sure I'm voting for Dean Maragos now that Tom Tunney is Mayor Daley's bitch. Rick Ingram is a great guy, too, and gay, which would be a huge boon for Boys-town on Halsted street. So why have I chosen Maragos? Both Maragos and Ingram want to fight over-expansion in our Ward, which is a huge problem, not only economically, but architecturally. Chicago is full of hideous, flat, unappealing condos now, pillaging the city of family-oriented neighborhoods and affordable rental housing. Of course, any candidate can say they're against over-expansion, which lasts only until they are in office and start receiving briefcases full of money from developers. Hey, it's a buyer's market, what can I say?

A more tangible issue is that of expanding Wrigley Field. A larger capacity at Wrigley would just add to the already high congestion of cars and drunk frat boys. However, there's the counterargument that expansion will help the businesses in the area by bringing them more business -- i.e., more cars full of drunk frat boys willing to buy unauthorized Cubs merchandise and yard-long plastic tubes full of Old Style.

If the Cubs can't expand, though, will they move? All they want are 1,600 more seats and a dozen or so more night games. Is that worth building a new stadium for, or even moving to a new city? Wrigley Field is in good shape and is such an important landmark in Chicago that it's doubtful the Cubs are going anywhere. Money, however, leads to strange things. Who knows. If the Cubs moved, the neighborhood would take a hit financially. The bars and souvenir shops rely on game patrons to be Old Style and Sammy Sosa jersey patrons.

So how much do I care about the Wrigley expansion? A lot. I spend a lot of time at Stage Left, where Hi-Volt does a lot of its shows. Stage Left is spitting distance from Wrigley. More sports fans in Wrigley means more customers for bars, which means more money for the neighborhood, which means higher rents for storefronts, which means a small company like Stage Left, well established in their location, is forced to move. Property values go up, people are forced to sell their homes, and no matter what the Alderman has to say about over-expansion, developers will buy up the empty properties left and right and either gut them or tear them down, raising the neighborhood's cost of living even higher. Wrigley expansion will exacerbate an already huge problem for my Ward, so I'm against it.

Let the Cubs have their night games, though. You can complain about the noise and the traffic congestion, but that complaint is like moving to a house near the airport and then complaining about the noise. Wrigley Field is 89 years old, so for most of us, there has always been a baseball field there. I'll deal with the noise and the traffic congestion as long as people don't lose their homes and the small businesses that don't cater to drunk yuppie frat boys (and I should be fair -- yuppie sorority girls drink, too) are forced to move.

Rick Ingram is great, and all the candidates agree on just about everything. So where they differ is where I have to make my decision.

As of 2:25 PM, Friday, February 21, 2003, not a single American news source appears when you type "Berna Cruz" into Google News. The INS can allow known terrorists into the country, but instead, they choose to pick on a Canadian bank employee of Indian descent? This situation should be an embarassment to the U.S. State Department -- I will keep an eye on this story to see if the U.S. actually responds.

7 Blowjobs opens tonight!!!

This article, besides featuring some incredibly clever DHTML, makes some interesting points about going to war with Iraq. The article states that there are plenty of good reasons to oust Saddam but that the Bush administration has botched the whole thing up. This article is a good example that our present administration is increasingly fascist and imperalist, when right-leaning pundits can't agree with the president on the grounds of his M.O.

Since 7 Blowjobs opens on Friday, blogging will be light this week. However, these incredible words from West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd should make up for a whole week's worth of entries and then some.

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Artists are X-Men.

Come see my first set design opening Friday.

"The allegation that the CIA had any involvement in drug trafficking is absurd." How does Tom Crispell sleep at night?

Rest in peace, abomination of nature.

Blogging light due to extremely busy schedule right now...like you really care....

We all know that Russia, France and Germany are rightly opposed to American imperialism in Iraq, even if only to protect their own oil interests. Now, U.S. legislators want to punish France and Germany for disagreeing with the United States. How much more arrogant can our government get?

As far as Germany is concerned, the legislative opposition to moving American troops out to reorganize our European forces could easily disintegrate. That's just playing Risk.

The French situation is much funnier. The Republicans' answer to the French opposition is to hit the French where it really hurts -- their wine. House Speaker Dennis "Wrestling Coach" Hastert wants "bright orange warning labels" on French wine that is "clarified with bovine blood." (Remember Mr. Yuk?)

This warning label system was proposed a while ago due to fear of Mad Cow Disease but was basically ignored. Why? Because the use of bovine blood in wine was banned in France in 1997. Sure, some small wineries that make the French-equivalent of Nightrain have been caught in France using blood to clarify their wine, but that crap isn't being exported. Mr. Hastert's threat is ridiculous. (China lifted their ban on French wine over two years ago.)

So Mr. House Speaker, perhaps you should stop speaking unless you are spoken to. Dumbass.

The tape aired, but I'm still not eating my words. Solidarity is one thing; taking money to fund attacks is another. King George and his regime have yet to prove the latter.

Colin Powell is hyping a new bin Laden tape as if it were a documentary about Michael Jackson, proving that it has officially happened -- the Bush administration is desperate to go to war, so desparate their lies are showing:

Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The Associated Press his station has no such tape. And Powell, when asked by a reporter to comment on the station's denial, declined to do so.

I mean, don't get me wrong -- they've been lying for a long time. All politicians on either side of the aisle lie. If there is a bin Laden tape that links him to Iraq other than politically, and Al-Jazeera airs it, I'll eat my words. I don't think I'll have to.

I'm eagerly awaiting the Al-Jazeera English Web site. Until then, you can't deny that written Arabic is beautiful.

(I'm betting that last paragraph just put me on the short list of enemy combatants.)

New addition to Bored?: The Propaganda Remix Project. Why should Whitehouse.org have all the fun making parodies of old war posters? I'm particularly fond of the "Home Front Pledge." All the more interesting: the creator of the site is a combat veteran.

Entertainment Weekly has posted not only its choices for the 25 best episodes of The Simpsons, it has also chosen the worst. Usually, any sort of best-of list will raise the ire of a few people (the one I loathe the most, naming Def Leppard a better band than The MC5, The Rolling Stones, and The Pixies). Sure, I'd put "Marge Vs. the Monorail" before "Last Exit to Springfield" for the sake of argument, but it's a great, informative read for the most consistently funny thing on television.

Now that the smile-inducing news is out of the way:

The terror alert is now orange. link
Powell couldn't convince Germany and France... link
...and Rummy isn't helping. link
Bush wants to authorize hacking. link
The UN is censoring Picasso. link
"Spin Free Zone," my ass. link

And I ask you: What Liberal Media?

"A lot of people are asking how it is that US President George Bush and his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, are so certain, given the inconclusive nature of the UN weapons inspectors' findings, that Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction.

"This is how."

This article is why I read foreign news as much as possible.

Could this replace the Space Shuttle?

Could this replace the space shuttle?

Comiskey Park is now U.S. Cellular Field.

A guy I don't even know but has my e-mail address because it was on a contact sheet for a play I hardly worked on spammed me this e-mail message:

Something ticked me off today. It's strange there is the threat of war but then this happens and I want to do something, and I'm not even a baseball fan.

U.S. Cellular has bought the rights to change Comisky field to U.S. Cellular field; and they are also talking about building a new field. I feel this is another attack against the Chicago identity. Our neighborhoods are becoming more suburbanized and now U.S. Cellular comes in and wants to fuck up old Comisky Field. (I've been there two or three times; when I was a kid)

He then went on to provide U.S Cellular's contact information so we could call and complain about a contract that has already been signed.

For all two or three of you who've read my 'blog, you know that I speak out against the asshole-ish behavior of corporations. However, I also recognize the neo-feudalism that is capitalism and that we are all merely serfs to the corporate lords. Plus, I like Coca-Cola, and right now, I'm wearing a Gap sweater that fits well and brings out my eyes. The American system is not a perfect one, and it has plenty of room for improvement, but it's the best system we have.

Also let me add here that I think baseball is probably the most boring sport to watch in the history of sports. Placing bets on a paint drying race sounds like more fun.

But believe it or not, I applaud the renaming of Comiskey Park. First, though, let me refute a few things this guy said.

First of all, Old Comiskey Park is long gone. New Comiskey Park (now U.S. Cellular Field) was opened in 1991. It's renowned for having a terribly steep upper deck. It's in a neglected neighborhood. Other than the name "Comiskey," which Chicagoans are more than justified in mourning its passing, the current field is nothing to wax nostalgic about.

Furthermore, I'm not sure where he gets the part about "building a new field." So much of the city's dime was put into the construction of the New Comiskey, a park that is only 12 years old. Plus, with the Soldier Field renovations going on right now, it's doubtful there will be another new field built anytime soon. In fact, according to the article linked above, the lease on the park has been renewed for another 15 years.

U.S. Cellular Field may not have a ring to it, but it's not the first corporation-named auditorium in Chicago. We already have the United Center. We have the Allstate Arena -- not typically a sports venue, but a large auditorium, nonetheless. Plus, my girlfriend (and avid baseball fanatic) pointed out that Chicago's beloved Wrigley Field is in fact a corporate name, as well.

As much as I agree with the suburbanization of Chicago argument, I also know that the White Sox are financially strapped. If anything, U.S. Cellular has kept the team alive. Calling the stadium U.S. Cellular Field is a lot less damaging to the city than the White Sox going under would be. Arguments about the suburbanization of Chicago are about how gentrification displaces low income households -- a real issue worth fighting for -- not an expensive name change.

So to the guy who sent me the e-mail -- you don't choose your battles well. You even said it yourself in your e-mail when you mention "the threat of war." I'm sure you're a nice guy, but get your priorities straight.

And to U.S. Cellular -- if you should be admonished for anything, you should be ashamed for continually reminding us what a bad actor Joan Cusack is.

"If Saddam ever attacks the U.S. through the Internet and takes out a telecommunications firm, we'll be in a state of war.... All bets are off. The Fourth Amendment is on hold. If EarthLink is attacked, the Army could show up and seize control of their servers."

The coincidences of Saturday's tragedy are a bit freaky. (P.S.: They are just coincidences.)

1) An Israeli was on board, leading everyone to jump to the obvious conclusion.

2) The next flight for Columbia was scheduled for November. That flight was to carry Barbara Morgan, the teacher who was the backup for Christa McAuliffe.

With NASA blaming slashed budgets on their lack of safety advances, what purpose does NASA serve if they have to keep sending shuttles up to space without proper evacuation procedures or equipment testing? Satellites are launched commercially. It's two years after 2001, and there aren't any commercial flights to a space station. Is NASA still just a foreign relations PR machine that it was during the Cold War? Or is there something more?

There's really only one plausible answer. As much as I mourn the deaths of those astronauts, we have to remember that NASA is a military organization no matter what semantics you want to use. They were founded on the basis of doing something before the Russians did. Much of NASA's research is funneled straight into the Army and the Air Force. Weaponizing space is inevitable. These seven astronauts did not die in a tragedy like a plane crash. These seven astronauts were soldiers who died in battle.

I hope you, the reader, aren't taking this as heartless. I'm not being heartless. However, this tragedy, at a time of economic and political turmoil, puts the spotlight on NASA and makes me question why billions upon billions of dollars are spent and lives are put at risk in the name of conquering space.

Tangent: Cruel.com has an AP wire article that was filed shortly before the shuttle broke up which tells you a lot about journalism.