times

[jfb]

From the business section: an openly anti-war executive:

He contends that [the administration's] policies, particularly involving the war in Iraq, are tarnishing the worldwide image of the United States as "a haven for the oppressed, a place of free speech, free thought and free yet governed economic growth."

From the style section: Vermont's civil union law allows gay couples from anywhere to unite, but only Vermont residents to separate. And an Interview with Joanne Tucker, managing editor of Al Jazeera's English-language web site.

Mainstream media in my view is pretty much black and white — it's for or against the war. We think that's not the reality on the ground. There are a lot of gray areas.

From the arts section: Apparently I'm not the only one who's been thinking about Three Kings lately.

It's rare that I turn to a Hollywood movie for a reality check. But the above scene from "Three Kings" - shot four years ago on a dry Mexican lake bed - captures a war unseen on American TV screens: the horror that emerges in newspaper accounts of suicide attacks on coalition soldiers and of frightened Americans unwittingly blowing up women and children.

From the Week in Review: "Is This Really an All-Volunteer Army?" And: "Food, Too, Can Be a Weapon of the War in Iraq".

In Iraq, Pentagon officials and Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, a retired army officer who is designated to take charge of the postwar reconstruction, do not wish, as the war still rages, to relinquish control of humanitarian operations. But the military, despite what officials in Washington might say, is not configured for or adept at distributing aid.

But if you're going to read only one essay on the humanitarian military, skip the Times and go read the recent entry "Images of a Kinder, Gentler War" on Body and Soul. (I can't give a direct link; the post is from 9:26 AM on April 4.)

Comments

from yesterday's nytimes

[bnewmark.livejournal.com]

the article that sticks out the most to me was in the ny region section about bloomberg's plan to market the city. on the surface, it's funny, but when you really think about why bloomberg wants to do this, it's just really depressing. he inherited a financially-depleted nightmare from giuliani - not at all rg's fault - but still a nightmare.

Re: from yesterday's nytimes

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Yeah--I haven't gotten to the NY section yet (because I'm reading in the reverse of my usual order), but you're the second person to point this one out. Here are my two stories about naming places after businesses:

1. It wasn't until I was in my mid-twenties that I figured out what Times Square was named after.

2. A few years back when I was aghast at the wave of sports facility renamings, I thought, "Why, next thing you know, they'll rename Wrigley Field... Oh."

I've sometimes thought that if I were to become super-rich, one thing I'd like to do is buy the naming rights to some of these places--like, 3Com Park, formerly Candlestick--and name them back.