Outage.

It's been complicated.
But I think I'm back.

In Other News:
I'm putting Glenn Greenwald back into my links under intarwebs. For a while he lost my interest when all he could decry were the FISA civil right implications. But recently he's been on a critical reasoning brush-burning rampage, taking to task those who have made it their life to defend the indefensible.
If you like Fox News, please avoid. I'm afraid they've proven to be consistently, inartfully, always wrong. And if you've put up with that for this long, I'm sure you can shoulder up and keep on trucking in your ignorance.

Excerpt from today:

It may very well serve our "national interests" to start a war because we want to control someone else's resources, or because we think it would be good if they had a different government, or because we want the world to fear us, or because we want to change the type of political system they have, or because they aren't complying with our dictates, or because we want to use their land as military bases, or because they are going to acquire weapons we tell them they are not allowed to have. But those who believe that war is justifiable and desirable under those circumstances are, by definition, espousing an imperial ideology.

and:

That is why war opponents on the "left" -- including bloggers -- were and still are deemed Unserious even though they proved to be correct. Their opposition was not based (at least principally) on the belief that we were using the wrong "force deployment packages," that the timing was wrong, that we should have waited a little longer (that type of "opposition" was the only permitted type). Rather, it was largely based on the notion that the war itself was illegitimate because Iraq had not attacked us and could not threaten our national security, and that going around bombing, invading and occupying other countries which haven't attacked us is both immoral and/or self-destructive.