|
|
Add one part satire to two parts sincerity. Sprinkle on a couple of rants. Stir liberally.
RSS feed coming soon!
Daily Blah FAQ
Who are you?
I'm the newly-appointed Future editor at Business 2.0 and the former San Francisco correspondent for Time Magazine.
Wow, so does this mean everything you write reflects Time Inc's opinion? Or do you perhaps have some sort of standard disclaimer to the effect that it doesn't?
Naturally, the opinions contained in this blog are not those of my employers. In fact, some opinions may be the polar opposite of my employers. Some may be the same, for all I know. Hey, it's not like I ask my employers their opinions about everything in the news, okay? Let's just say that if this were a Venn diagram with one circle marked "my opinions" and the other one marked "my employers' opinions", there would doubtless be some overlap. But neither I nor my employers are able to pinpoint exactly where that overlap is.
What is this Daily Blah thing?
An experiment for a column I wrote about blogging back in December 2001. All these years later, I haven't been able to kick the habit.
If it's called Daily Blah, how come you don't ... hey, wait, you're writing every day!
See? Told you I'd try harder.
Mister, you talk funny. Are you one of them furrners?
Why yes I am, as it happens. I was born, raised and educated in Great Britain. I've been living in the U.S. since 1996 and identify as British.
I say, old chap, you forgot the "u" in "colour."
No I didn't. I may identify as British, but I am also an American journalist writing for an American audience about mostly American issues. These two different sides of me are a constant source of tension. Nevertheless, Daily Blah will adhere to American English grammar and spelling.
Praise for Daily Blah:
"It is fun to watch the author's navel-gazing joy." - Sunday Times (UK)
"It's really funny and informative." - Dave Eggers, author
"The Blah is becoming a daily destination for me." - Richard Marsh, Playwright
"I like it, and I don't." - Fiona Hogg, Teacher
"Better than Xanax." - Lessley Andersen, journalist
"Dude, lay off the crack pipe." - Souris Hong-Porretta, gamesmith
Friends, Bloggers, Countrymen ... lend your ears to these people. I come not to bury them, but praise them.
Arik
Bill
Dan
Cole
Emily B
Emily G
Helena
Jee
Jewelz
Kaila
Kathryn
Mac
Robin
Slim
Souris
Mr. West
My TIME articles
All magazine articles (subscription required for older stories)
Online column index
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Blah for... Sunday, July 13, 2003
Lying About Uranium
Eagle-eyed Blah regulars will have noticed a new look to the toolbar on the left. This goes some way towards fulfilling the Progress Index idea I had some months ago. More and more, it seems, Americans are awash in an ocean of news: there is little consensus on the stuff that really matters in the long term; important stories can sail right by, left to fester on the more obscure pages of the papers. "Daily Blah 10 To Watch" is my attempt to solve that. These are the ten stories of the present moment that, in my humble opinion, future generations will be most interested in. Powerful people may want them to go away, and in the current media climate, they will often succeed. But history will remember.
Case in point, and number one on the list: the State-of-the-Union uranium debacle. The Bushies really, really want this story to disappear. George Tenet was made to stand up in public and deflect the blame. Rice and Powell, the administration's most human faces, have been wheeled out on the Sunday talk shows to tell us this fuss -- over a mere "16 words" -- is overblown. You'll notice the "16 words" part parroted in every administration statement on this matter. Republicans are very good at this essential component of modern politics: taking one soundbite and repeating it until we all get sick and stop asking questions. It's just 16 words, people. What's the big deal? Sure, we said Iraq was buying uranium, but it was just 16 words in the State of the Union. You media types are making a fuss out of nothing. Did I mention it was 16 words?
Funny thing is, I remember a lie that was a mere nine words long: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Now that lie was a very, very, very big deal, and it wasn't even in the State of the Union. Apparently lying about sex is an impeachable offense, but lying about national security? Lying about reasons to go to war? Lying about the most serious and deadly thing an enemy country can try to do to us? Nah, that's overblown. We were going to war anyway, and the CIA cleared it, and even though they nixed the exact same topic in a presidential speech in Cincinnati the previous year, we had no idea the intelligence was dubious at best. Honest. Would we lie to you?
|
|
|
|
