Cynthia McKinney: Victim or Perp?

Posted on by

It may be that news stories are inaccurate, but as near as I can determine this is what happened:

Last Wednesday afternoon Rep. Cynthia McKinney went around metal detectors to enter the Longworth House Office Building in Washington, DC. Members of Congress are not required to pass through the detectors, although the congress critters are supposed to wear ID pins so the security guys will know who they are. And McKinney has admitted she wasn’t wearing her pin. In any event a Capitol police officer who says he did not recognize her and did not see any identification rushed to block her entrance.

After that it gets murkier. The cop says McKinney punched him in the chest. McKinney says the cop didn’t just block her; he also grabbed her, and she reacted to get him to turn her loose. McKinney also says the cop allowed her into the building after she showed him her ID. Allegedly this is all on surveillance tape, so eventually someone will look at the tape and determine who was at fault. Maybe they both were; maybe it was just a misunderstanding.

In any event, by Friday McKinney was claiming she was a victim of “excessive use of force” because she is an African-American woman. Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover stood with her at a press conference to offer their support. The President of NAACP Georgia said “The mistreatment of Cynthia McKinney at the hands of Capitol Hill Police is a tragedy of major proportion and points to the vigor of outright disrespect for women and people of color.”

This was too much for John Aravosis:

Yes, let’s cry racism and sexism and Democratism, I guess you’d call it, because a cop didn’t recognize you and you decided to not even wear your member of Congress pin, or turn around when the cop called out to you while we’re at war. Next time, it’ll be better if the cop lets strangers without their pins just barge into the halls of Congress, bypass security, and oh blow the hell out of the entire building because they’re afraid the person they stop might be – what? – a Democrat?

Today some of us lefties (example) are criticizing John for this post. Kevin Haden has accused John of “an elitism that knows no bounds.” Unfortunately the American Street page won’t build this morning, so I cannot read Kevin’s entire post to comment on it. Maybe later today.

But based on the facts as I understand them, I have to agree with Aravosis on this one. Seems to me it’s McKinney who’s being the elitist by assuming the rules don’t apply to her. Security personnel should not be asked to make judgments about who gets to break the rules and who doesn’t. In order to keep security systems fair and democratic — not to mention secure — everybody must abide by the same set of rules. If people with proper ID can bypass the metal detectors that’s fine; but if Ms. Big Shot forgets her ID, then she goes through the metal detectors. Even if the security people do recognize her. Even if she’s been in the bleeping House of Representatives since the charge up San Juan Hill.

McKinney did the wrong thing. It may be that we’ll learn the cop did use excessive force, but that doesn’t alter the fact that McKinney did the wrong thing by assuming she could sail past security without displaying an ID. This is true even if it turns out the security guys have been letting other people break the rules, in which case the whole operation needs to be tightened up.

We’ve learned the hard way in New York City that security personnel aren’t doing anyone any favors when they wave some people through security without checking them. The nice guy they’ve seen a hundred times, whose name they know, who has legitimate business in the building, could be carrying a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun and have murder on his mind. It happens.

There’s no more effective way to weaken security than to give security personnel conflicting instructions, or to expect them to do a job (check people going into the building) but punish them for trying to do it (checking people who don’t want to be checked).

If you spend time in New York City or Capitol Hill, you get used to security checkpoints. There really are terrorists who would just love to blow up Congress or take out a major landmark. And there are people — they seem to gravitate to cities — who commit irrational acts of violence. This is a reality we must acknowledge, especially in a nation like ours that’s knee-deep in firearms.

I’ve heard the argument that because McKinney has been a good friend to progressive causes we should support her. But I say we don’t do progressivism any good by making excuses for the bad behavior of progressive leaders. When leaders think we’ll support them no matter what they do, they stop listening to us. Washington already is swimming with alleged progressive leaders who don’t listen to us. Our number one job these days is to get them to listen to us; to make them realize that we’re watching them and will hold them accountable. Nobody gets a pass. This is not to say that we won’t support them in the future if they do something good. I’m not saying we should drive someone out of the movement for one mistake.

Giving leaders a pass, on the other hand, is what righties do. Mike Leonard writes for the Indiana Times-Mail:

Former Indiana Rep. David McIntosh once scuffled with airport security guards after he bypassed metal detectors and hurried to board a commercial flight out of Washington. Politicians made that potentially criminal act go away by placing a gag order on airport security.

Former U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts parked in an unattended airport loading zone in a hurry to put his wife on a flight – post Sept. 11 – in Oklahoma City. He berated the attendant who ticketed his vehicle and then stuffed the citation under the officer’s badge and told him to “take care of it.”

It was unclear what made Watts more angry – that the attendant didn’t recognize him as a U.S. Representative or a former Oklahoma football star.

And then there was our own Rep. John Hostettler’s arrival at the Louisville airport with a gun in his attache case. A gun. Inside the airport. The congressman’s explanation was basically, “Oopsie!”

The Ho got probation – and lots of attention from late night comedians.

Are we supposed to be the mirror images of righties? I don’t think so. McKinney did the wrong thing. Let’s be grown-ups and admit it.

Mistakes Were Made

Posted on by

An editorial in today’s New York Times:

Iraq is becoming a country that America should be ashamed to support, let alone occupy. The nation as a whole is sliding closer to open civil war. In its capital, thugs kidnap and torture innocent civilians with impunity, then murder them for their religious beliefs. The rights of women are evaporating. The head of the government is the ally of a radical anti-American cleric who leads a powerful private militia that is behind much of the sectarian terror.

It would be nice if television and radio news explained this clearly, but an editorial is a start.

The Bush administration will not acknowledge the desperate situation. But it is, at least, pushing in the right direction, trying to mobilize all possible leverage in a frantic effort to persuade the leading Shiite parties to embrace more inclusive policies and support a broad-based national government.

Translation: Having screwed around for three years, the Bush Administration may be about to realize they created a monster they can’t control.

One vital goal is to persuade the Shiites to abort their disastrous nomination of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Mr. Jaafari is unable to form a broadly inclusive government and has made no serious effort to rein in police death squads. Even some Shiite leaders are now calling on him to step aside. If his nomination stands and is confirmed by Parliament, civil war will become much harder to head off. And from the American perspective, the Iraqi government will have become something that no parent should be asked to risk a soldier son or daughter to protect.

Unfortunately, after three years of policy blunders in Iraq, Washington may no longer have the political or military capital to prevail. That may be hard for Americans to understand, since it was the United States invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and helped the Shiite majority to power. Some 140,000 American troops remain in Iraq, more than 2,000 American servicemen and servicewomen have died there so far and hundreds of billions of American dollars have been spent.

I’ve said before that Iraq will be to Gawd Almighty Superpower America what Russia was to Napoleon. Thanks to flaming delusional idiots like Rummy and Cheney, the world now knows what our limits are. Even if some of us haven’t figured it out yet.

Yet Shiite leaders have responded to Washington’s pleas for inclusiveness with bristling hostility, personally vilifying Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and criticizing American military operations in the kind of harsh language previously heard only from Sunni leaders. Meanwhile, Moktada al-Sadr, the radically anti-American cleric and militia leader, has maneuvered himself into the position of kingmaker by providing decisive support for Mr. Jaafari’s candidacy to remain prime minister.

It was chilling to read Edward Wong’s interview with the Iraqi prime minister in The Times last week, during which Mr. Jaafari sat in the palace where he now makes his home, complained about the Americans and predicted that the sectarian militias that are currently terrorizing Iraqi civilians could be incorporated into the army and police. The stories about innocent homeowners and storekeepers who are dragged from their screaming families and killed by those same militias are heartbreaking, as is the thought that the United States, in its hubris, helped bring all this to pass.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. — Proverbs 16:18

I hate to say this, but maybe the Bushies should have read their Bibles more closely before the bleeping invasion.

You can read the Edward Wong interview here and here.

It is conceivable that the situation can still be turned around. Mr. Khalilzad should not back off. The kind of broadly inclusive government he is trying to bring about offers the only hope that Iraq can make a successful transition from the terrible mess it is in now to the democracy that we all hoped would emerge after Saddam Hussein’s downfall. It is also the only way to redeem the blood that has been shed by Americans and Iraqis alike.

Every now and then someone who is smart enough to understand what’s happening will issue a statement like we can still win or we can still have a positive outcome in Iraq. Assuming they aren’t just plain lying, it seems to me these people are looking at Iraq as a kind of arithmetic problem. It’s still mathematically possible that we can make this work. Put another way, if we don’t make any more mistakes from this point forward, maybe we can salvage something from this mess. But then there’s the idiot factor — the Bushies are still in charge. So we know more mistakes will be made. The editorial writers need to come to grips with that.

See also Taylor Marsh.

A Light Almost Dawns

Posted on by

Adam Nagourney writes in tomorrow’s New York Times about using the Internets for political campaigning:

Michael Cornfield, a political science professor at George Washington University who studies politics and the Internet, said campaigns were actually late in coming to the game. “Politicians are having a hard time reconciling themselves to a medium where they can’t control the message,” Professor Cornfield said. “Politics is lagging, but politics is not going to be immune to the digital revolution.”

The professional politicians are losing control of the message. This is absolutely the best news I’ve heard in a long time.

I like this part, too:

President Bush’s media consultant, Mark McKinnon, said television advertising, while still crucial to campaigns, had become markedly less influential in persuading voters than it was even two years ago.

“I feel like a woolly mammoth,” Mr. McKinnon said.

The dominance of television and radio ads in political campaigns may be the worst thing that ever happened to American politics, IMO. The need to purchase big chunks of mass media time, as well as to produce slick ads, requires truckloads of money and has thoroughly corrupted the election process. Further, mass media communication is one-way — from the top, down. In the mass media age ordinary Americans lost their voices. Demagoguery got much easier. Smart people figured out how to use media to manipulate truth and manipulate voters — usually by appealing to prejudices and fears — into voting against their own interests. And there was no way to talk back.

The times they are a-changin’.

If you read the whole article is becomes apparent that Nagourney mostly doesn’t get it any more than the woolly mammoth consultants he interviews. Which is essentially the problem with the article. Nagourney interviews the woolly mammoths for their perspective of the cro-magnon cave men, but he doesn’t think to interview the cave men for their views of the woolly mammoths.

If you’re old enough, think back forty years and imagine Lawrence Welk discussing the Rolling Stones. Well, that’s Nagourney on blogging.

Like the old Buffalo Springfield song goes, “There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear …”

Bloggers, for all the benefits they might bring to both parties, have proved to be a complicating political influence for Democrats. They have tugged the party consistently to the left, particularly on issues like the war, and have been openly critical of such moderate Democrats as Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.

Jane Hamsher adds,

… if Lieberman does in fact get tanked it will be because we’ve become adept at reverberating our message with local Connecticut media, something the Lamont campaign well understands and which the Elmendorfs of the world still charge a high price for having no fucking clue about. Neither, for that matter, does Nagourney. The game has so far outstripped and advanced any knowledge that either of them has of it, let alone the existence of the playing field, it’s rather pathetic.

“Elmendorf” is Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic consultant who told The Washington Post that bloggers and online donors “are not representative of the majority you need to win elections.”

John Aravosis has a vigorous response to Nagourney’s calling Lieberman a “moderate” Republican [oops; Democrat. Freudian slip.].

(singing)

I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down …

Sorry, I’m having a nostalgia wallow.

April Fools

Posted on by

No matter how vile and mean and ignorant righties can seem to be, they can still surprise me and get even more vile and mean and ignorant.

Yesterday I mentioned in “Crabs in a Barrel” that “John Podhoretz of the National Review criticizes the just-released Jill Carroll for not being anti-Muslim enough.” Podhoretz was just the beginning, however.

Yesterday Liberal Oasis described the “insidious reaction among certain conservatives to the release of Jill Carroll.” As usual when someone becomes a rightie hate target, righties don’t stop at criticizing something she’s said or done that offended them. Instead they are dissecting her like a pickled frog looking for anything about her they can hate.

What set off the feeding frenzy was a video she made while still a hostage in which she criticized George Bush. Christian Science Monitor reporter Dan Murphy interviewed Ms. Carroll’s father, who said making the video had been the price of her release.

Ms. Carroll had been their captive for three months and even the smallest details of her life – what she ate and when, what she wore, when she could speak – were at her captors’ whim. They had murdered her friend and colleague Allan Enwiya, “she had been taught to fear them,” he says. And before making one last video the day before her release, she was told that they had already killed another American hostage.

That video appeared Thursday on a jihadist website that carries videos of beheadings and attacks on American forces. In it, Carroll told her father she felt compelled to make statements strongly critical of President Bush and his policy in Iraq.

Even worse, in the eyes of righties, she was quoted as saying after her release that her captors hadn’t hit her and that she was “kept in a safe place and treated very well.”

“May as well just come right out and say she was a willing participant,” says rightie Orrin Judd. Meanwhile, rightie hate hag Debbie Schlussel accused Carroll of having “anti-American views” and strongly implied that both Carroll “and those who are ‘elated’ about her release” are collaborating with terrorists. And the ever-brainless Alexandra of All Things Hateful seconds Schlussel — “when you listen to the video, you know that parts of what she is saying, she actually believes, either that or she deserves an honorary Oscar for her convincing performance.”

Somehow, I suspect if Alexandra ever had a gun pointed to her head and was told to be convincing or die, she’d put out an Oscar-worthy performance, too. Right after she wet her pants.

But the lowest low probably came from Bernard McGuirk, who is Don Imus’s Executive Producer. You won’t believe this.

Murphy of the CSM continues,

“You’ll pretty much say anything to stay alive because you expect people will understand these aren’t your words,” says Micah Garen, a journalist and author who was held captive by a Shiite militia in southern Iraq for 10 days in August 2004. “Words that are coerced are not worth dying over.”

Most people understand that; clearly righties are not most people.

Shortly before her release, her captors – who refer to themselves as the Revenge Brigade – also told her they had infiltrated the US diplomatic compound in Baghdad, and she would be killed if she went there or cooperated with the American authorities. It was a threat she took seriously in her first few hours of freedom.

Carroll worked at the Wall Street Journal’s Washington office in early 2002 when that paper’s reporter Daniel Pearl was abducted and beheaded in Pakistan. “Many of her colleagues knew him and it was very emotional in the office,” Jill told her father. “She had that memory in the back of her head while she was being threatened.”

In making their last video, Mr. Carroll says her captors “obviously wanted maximum propaganda value in the US. After listening to them for three months she already knew exactly what they wanted her to say, so she gave it to them with appropriate acting to make it look convincing.“

Just how stupid and hateful do you have to be not to be able to understand that?

Oliver Willis takes on Captain Ed, who decided that the explanation of Carroll’s behavior in Dan Murphy’s CSM story was “good enough” for him: “Can you believe the hubris of these chuckleheads?”

Digby takes on Jonah Goldberg and gets to the heart of the matter: “He reminds of one of those guys who says a rape victim didn’t act traumatized enough for him, so she’s probably lying.” See also Jane Hamsher.

Credit where credit is due — a few rightie bloggers criticize their rightie brethren for being hateful idiots.

Be sure to read all of the Liberal Oasis post.

Carroll is the kind of war correspondent the Right claims to want.

Laura Ingraham was cheered by her fellow right-wingers last week when she returned from being escorted around Iraq to scold NBC’s David Gregory:

    Bring the Today show to Iraq … and then when you talk to those soldiers on the ground, when you go out with the Iraqi military, when you talk to the villagers, when you see the children, then I want NBC to report on only the IEDs, only the killings, only, only the reprisals…

    … to do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military to go out with the Iraqi military, to actually have a conversation with the people instead of reporting from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs going off.

Of course, that’s exactly what Jill Carroll did: got out of her room and had a conversation with the people.

Except that she didn’t have a military PR person leading her by the nose or hovering over her conversations.

There’s no pleasing some people.

One other thing — this reaction from the Right may be part of another pattern. My observations here are purely subjective; I do not spend time performing analyses of what news stories the Right is blogging about. But seems to me that in recent weeks they’ve gotten themselves worked up over smaller and smaller issues. Today, for example, they’re swarming over the news that Rep. Cynthia McKinney had an altercation with capitol police.

(Note to the congresswoman: Everybody must go through security. No exceptions. There are reasons for this.)

I gave some other examples in the “Crabs” post yesterday. It seems to me that more and more often the righties are running away from big issues and instead are focusing on peripheral news items about awful things non-righties are doing and, of course, they’re still posting the usual knee-jerk excuses for whatever Bush is up to. As I said, this is purely subjective and maybe I’m wrong, but keep watch for it.

Update: Does this even make sense? See also David Ignatius.

Action

Posted on by

And don’t forget Ned Lamont. Also Francine Busby, Jon Tester, and Eric Massa. This is the last day of the quarter and there’s a big push for donations.

Also — somewhere this morning I read a complaint that bloggers weren’t discussing the Democrats’ “Real Security” plan. So I printed the thing out and gave it a read. (Here it is in PDF format; it’s short.) And here it is in outline form:

I. Ensure Military Strength

A. Rebuild the military; invest in equipment and manpower. This includes strengthening the National Guard.

B. GI Bill for the 21st Century — provide enhanced health and other benefits for active, reserve and retired military.

II. Defeat Terrorism

A. Eliminate Osama bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks, finish the job in Afghanistan.

B. Double size of special forces; enhance intelligence capabilities.

C. Combat (metaphorically speaking, I assume) economic social, and political conditions that encourage the growth of terrorism.

D. Contain nuclear materials; discourage nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

III. Homeland Security (Note: Can we ditch the “homeland” thing? Gives me the creeps.)

A. Implement recommendations of 9/11 Commission.

B. Screen 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the U.S.

C. Safeguard chemical and nuclear plants, protect food and water supplies.

D. Prevent outsourcing of national security infrastructure.

E. Support first responders such as firefighters and emergency medical workers with training, staffing, equipment, technology.

F. Protect America from pandemics by investing in public health infrastructure.

IV. Iraq

A. Transition to full Iraqi sovereignty asap.

B. Insist that Iraqis get their governmental act together.

C. Engage in a “responsible redeployment” of U.S. troops.

C. “Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.”

V. Energy Independence

A. Achieve energy independence by 2020. This means no more oil from the Middle East and “unstable regions.” We’d better hope Canada remains stable.

B. Develop alternate energy sources.

Comments: As Ron Brownstein said yesterday in the Los Angeles Times, this plan lacks specifics. However, consider what “specifics” the Bushies ever churn out, e.g., “as they stand up we’ll stand down.” I would argue that the Dems can’t do much more than provide an outline until they get some power in Congress. What’s the Bush excuse?

The plan does not call for a withdrawal from Iraq. But we’ve got some working room with that phrase “responsible redeployment.” That could be construed as an endorsement of Jack Murtha’s “over the horizon” redeployment plan.

Robert L. Borosage wrote,

Democrats do pledge — however incoherently since they have no power now — to make 2006 a year of transition in Iraq. They pledge to redeploy the troops and have Iraqis take over running their own country. This is stark contrast with the Bush promise that the troops will be there till at least 2009. …

… By highlighting the difference, activists can help cement Democrats to a withdrawal posture, and help frame the choice this fall. In 2004, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were calling for more troops in Iraq. Now mugged by reality, Dems are calling for “redeployment.” Don’t focus on the timidity; highlight the contrast with the president. That poses the choice for the country — and locks Democrats into a clear position.

One might wish the Dems could lock themselves into a clear position, but maybe Borosage has a point.

Any more thoughts?

Bush Is Dissed

Posted on by

What Juan Cole says:

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has blown off the president of the United States. Bush sent Sistani a letter asking him to intervene to help end the gridlock in the formation of a new Iraqi government. Asked about his response, an aide said that Sistani had not opened the letter and had put it aside in his office.

Sistani does not approve of the American presence in Iraq, and certainly disapproves of the Bush administration’s attempt to unseat Ibrahim Jaafari as the candidate of the United Iraqi Alliance. Middle Easterners have had Western Powers dictate their politics to them for a couple of centuries and are pretty tired of it.

More jaw-dropping information in the Professor’s post; it’s worth reading all the way through.

Crabs in a Barrel

Posted on by

At the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson writes about “The Meltdown We Can’t Even Enjoy.”

It’s frustrating. The three overlapping forces that have sent this country in so many wrong directions — the conservative movement, the neoconservative movement and the Republican Party — are warring among themselves, doing their best impression of crabs in a barrel, and sensible people can’t even enjoy the spectacle. That’s because it’s hard to take pleasure in the havoc they’ve caused and the disarray they will someday leave behind.

“Crabs in a barrel” — what perfect imagery! Can’t you just imagine all the righties, all the Bush culties and fundies and neocons and Big Gubmint-hating quasi-libertarians confined together within their shared lies and resentments? And as the reality of their failed ideologies closes in, see how they pull in their eyestalks and scramble for whatever crumbs of self-validation they can find?

Today the Right Blogosphere is swarming over the critical news that Borders Books refuses to stock a magazine that published the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Other recent blogswarms involved displays of the Mexican flag. For the past couple of days righties have labored mightily to assure themselves that the opinions offered by some retired FISA judges was the opposite of what the judges actually said it was. They’re still picking through the intelligence garbage dumped by John Negroponte. John Podhoretz of the National Review criticizes the just-released Jill Carroll for not being anti-Muslim enough. And for the past several days a number of them, led by John Fund, have been obsessed over a former Taliban member enrolled at Harvard.

Crumbs, I say. The same people who spent the past several years congratulating each other for their grand “ideas” are running (sideways) from big issues as fast as their scaly little legs can scramble. Robinson continues,

It would all be entertaining if the stakes weren’t so high. Iraqis and Americans are dying; the treasury is bleeding; real people, not statistics, are at the center of the immigration debate. Iran is intent on joining the nuclear club. Hallowed American traditions of privacy, fairness and due process are being flouted, and thus diminished.

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution takes a gloomier look at the Big Pcture —

It’s not merely that the Bush administration has run aground on its own illusions. The real problem runs deeper, much deeper, and at its core, I think, lies the fact that out of fear and laziness we insist on trying to address new problems with old ideologies, rhetoric and mind-sets.

To put it bluntly, we don’t know what to do, and so we do nothing.

Run through the list: We have no real idea how to address global warming, the draining of jobs overseas, the influx of illegal immigrants, our growing indebtedness to foreign lenders, our addiction to petroleum, the rise of Islamic terror . . .

Those are very big problems, and if you listen to the debate in Congress and on the airwaves, you can’t help but be struck by the smallness of the ideas proposed to address them. We have become timid and overly protective of a status quo that cannot be preserved and in fact must be altered significantly.

The Republicans, for example, continue to mouth a cure-all ideology of tax cuts, deregulation and a worship of all things corporate, an approach too archaic and romanticized to have any relevance in the modern world, as their five years in power have proved.

The GOP’s sole claim to bold action — the decision to invade Iraq in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001 — instead epitomizes the problem. The issue of Islamic terrorism is complex and difficult, and by reverting immediately to the brute force of another era, we made the problem worse.

Yet in recent years the Dems in Washington have offered little else but tweaks to the Republican agenda.

It’s not as if the big, bold ideas needed to address our real problems don’t exist. Sure, they exist — among people with no power to implement them. And thanks to the VRWC echo chamber, those people are painted as dangerous, radical, impractical loonies by just about everyone in both parties and in major news media. Eugene Robinson calls on the Dems to “put together an alternative program that will begin to undo some of the damage the conservative-neocon-GOP nexus has wrought.” But the party as it exists now hardly seems capable of such a challenge. It’s too compromised, too tired, too inbred.

What’s a progressive to do?

As a practical matter, the way Americans conduct elections makes third parties irrelevant. If we had run-off elections or a parliamentary system, I’d say abandon the Dems and form something new. But our system marginalizes third parties; there’s no way around that. Our only hope is to reform the Dems.

Meanwhile, conservatives are being challenged to choose between loyalty and principle. On the Blogosphere, loyalty seems to be winning out. And the righties scurry to hide inside fantasies that George W. Bush is a great leader, and the majority of the American people are still behind him. Snap snap snap.

Bad Web Day?

Posted on by

I’m having a terrible time with the web today; it’s like half the internets are offline, including Google. But some sites are available, so I don’t think it’s a technical problem at my end. Are your links working where you are?

Update: Whatever the problem was has fixed itself. Carry on.