Hey! You changed your new ugly site into a new nice site; good work!
Jay Phillip Schomer
The new Web page redesign is GREAT. I was surprised at the relief I felt when I opened up your page earlier this week and the format was much nicer. I usually ignore such things (I go for content), but it really was a pleasant surprise.
Arms Site Coming Soon
I just paid my first visit to your site and am totally confused.
I was lured there by a little card inserted in my newly arrived Mother Jones issue that states, “Now on the MoJo Wire: the inside story on America’s deadliest export—Arms!”
I dutifully logged in the URL, the desired headline pops right up, but I cannot access anything further on the topic. When I click on what it seems would lead to the full text, I am thrown here, to write to you. When I search the past issues of the magazine, and click on Sept./Oct. 1998—which is the issue featured, seemingly—I don’t get a header for such an article.
Further searches, it seems, are set up for me to search for something I absolutely know exists, and where. I am to enter in the issue, article title, etc.
What I am looking for is information on U.S. arms sales, on the military budget, and related topics. I am in an online discussion, and the other party seems woefully ignorant of many facts I count on MJ to learn. I thought this would be a simple matter of accessing the material, citing it, or forwarding parts of it.
So what’s the scoop? What’s the problem? The little cards went out and the webmaster fell asleep?
Editor’s Note: The arms site will be up and running the last week of February.
Readers React to Geov Parrish
Geov Parrish: Get a life. Defending Hussein is not worth an ounce of anyone’s time. The man is a despot who should be destroyed. He is a danger to his community and all of us. Geov must have been Neville Chamberlain in another life.
Mr. Clinton is doing the right thing. Too bad Mr. Bush blew it.
George Magit This writer accuses others of lying while he publishes the propaganda of the Arabs who for over ten years have used their oil money to try to influence the world about their innocence and that America and the J— are responsible for all the ills. Where are his facts that only civilian infrastructure was bombed? Has he visited the country and seen the destruction with his eyes? Is his motivation based on his hatred of war (as we all are) or does he find satisfaction in belittling the U.S.A.? You know the old saying, you can always join your friends there and experience the wonderful world of a dictatorship.
We Love the First Amendment, We Swear!
Snap Poll I found your current online poll one of the more frustrating ones around, because a yes-no vote leaves no room for nuance. *Yes*, the site itself, as a source of ugly, hateful diatribes about abortions and those who provide them should be allowed, because of the First Amendment. But they are egregiously violating the privacy of these doctors, and *that* should be illegal. Web sites should not be allowed to provide private information ( addresses, appearance, family information, etc.) without explicit permission of the person. So my vote is yes *and* no—yes for the site’s opinions and no for the data.
Linda Peckham Unbelievable. I find it incredible that people who claim to be liberals and who rail against the Clinton administration’s encroachment on “civil liberties and niggling affairs like the Bill of Rights,” can vote to shut down a Web site. ANY Web site, particularly an unpopular one.
Isn’t this just the sort of totalitarian hypocritical rhetoric that makes you sick about the right wing?
Come on Mo’ Jonesers! Get on the right side of this issue. It’s not fair to only enforce the rules when it suits your purposes.
Staunchly Independent and Proud of It