Image by




Promote your blog free.


Tuesday, February 28, 2006

A Moment of True Reflection and Insight

Why do politicians become so stupid once they reach Washington? There are doctors, lawyers, businessmen, religious leaders, etc., all professions that most likely require a fair amount of intelligence. So why is it that once they win their elections and join politics, they become complete idiots? Is it something in the water? Is it soylent green? Is Jack Abramoff's restaurant's food spiked with some serum? Is something being dumped into the Potomac? I here move to petition the city health department of Washington D.C. to inspect all possible sources of contamination for stupidity. Maybe if they haven't been infected yet, they can uncover what is causing relatively smart people to become dumber than Dan Quayle.

If you do not know what I'm referring to let me remind you:

- Last year Senator Bill Frist, a doctor, diagnosed Terry Schiavo by watching a VIDEO!!!!!!!

- In 1998 or early 1999, President Bill Clinton lied about oral sex, then debated what the meaning of the word is IS!!!!!! (although one could make a case for this being genius).

- John Kerry, needing to prove to the NRA that he was a hunter, went hunting a few weeks before the election AND MADE A PROMOTIONAL VIDEO!!!!!

- VP Dick Cheney, ex-CEO of Halliburton, shot someone in the face and DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO TELL THE PRESIDENT OR THE MEDIA!!!!!

- Rep. Jean Schmidt, the moron who insulted war hero John Murtha, INSULTED JOHN MURTHA!!!!!

- The White House creates a xenophobia about Arabs to exploit fear of terrorism and win the elections, then HANDS PORT SECURITY OVER TO THE ARABS!! and THEN IS SHOCKED WHEN PEOPLE ARE XENOPHOBIC ABOUT ARABS!!!!!

- At birth, Tom Delay... IS TOM DELAY!!!!!!

- In 2005, Tom Delay advocated to not remove Terry Schiavo's feeding tube, but HE FORGOT THAT HE TOOK HIS DAD OFF LIFE SUPPORT IN 1988!!!!!

- In 2005, Ahhnold Schwarzennegger calls his opponents girlie men and pisses everyone off in California THEN WANTS THEM TO WORK WITH HIM!!!!

- In 1988, George Bush Senior PICKS DAN QUAYLE AS HIS RUNNING MATE!!!!

- In 1997-98, Bill Clinton, the most powerful man in the world, PICKS MONICA LEWINSKY TO CHEAT... AND PAULA JONES... AND JENNIFER FLOWERS... PLEASE GOD KILL ME NOW!!!!!

- In 2003, two Congressmen, Republicans Bob Ney(Ohio) and Walter Jones (N.C.), were so mad at the french that THEY WANTED TO CHANGE FRENCH FRIES TO FREEDOM FRIES!!!!

- In 2004, Howard Dean goes caveman on NATIONAL TV!!!!!

- In 2004 John Kerry RUNS FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

Finally, our President: Do I really need to get into it?

- In 2000 George W. Bush RUNS FOR PRESIDENT!!!! AND HE IS ELECTED!!!


- The Bush Vocabulary Doctrine:
Strategery: to strategerize
Algeria Natives: Algers = Nigeria Natives: XXXXXXX
Rarely is the question asked: Is our Children learning?
I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them.
I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.
I know how hard it is to put food on your family.
I think war is a dangerous place.
I understand small business growth. I was one.
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we.
They have miscalculated me as a leader.
They misunderestimated me.
This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating.
We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.
Will the highways on the Internet become more few?

Want more? Go to: Bushisms

Bin Laden Helped Bush's Re-election? You Be the Judge.

I agree with the President's conclusion that Osama Bin Laden helped him get re-elected. I believe that Bin Laden's tape a week before the election made up the minds of those undecided voters solely on the issue of national security. Better to elect someone you know, than risk an unknown during such tremulous times. If it were just that simple. Iraq had not become yet what it is today. Only those with knowledge of Middle East conflicts could have seen it, not your average American. Whether or not Bin Laden wanted Bush to get re-elected is another matter, and one very much up for debate. I personally think, and very logically conclude, that Bin Laden most likely wanted Bush to get re-elected. Whoever the President of the United States is will not affect Bin Laden's status as public enemy #1 of this country. So the idea that if Kerry had won in 2004, Bin Laden would have a better relationship with him than Bush is completely absurd. The United States and Al-Qaeda are sworn enemies and that will never change. But President Bush does something that Kerry doesn't, he inflames the jihadist movement. The biggest posterboy for terrorist recruitment has been President Bush. Not directly of course, no matter how misguided his actions, I do not think he means to harm the country. But the direction he has taken his administration, his policies, and most of all, the invasion of Iraq have hurt us tremendously. Iraq is of particular significance because its invasion gave credence to a statement Bin Laden had said in the past: that The United States would invade and occupy an oil rich Arab country. We can debate what the reasons for the invasion were, bad or good, smart or dumb, WMD's or spreading democracy, but it all comes back to the fact that an oil rich Arab country was attacked, proving Bin Laden's point. Bin Laden, for all practical purposes, has been isolated. He is no longer the active leader he once was. But he has become a symbol to many in the Middle East. His influence draws many with desires to hurt the West. Al-Qaeda has been hit hard, yes, but they replace one killed member with three or four times as many, maybe even more. How many times has President Bush said that we've killed Al-Qaeda's number 2? If we didn't have a brain we would think this guy is a cat, 9 lives and all. Each time a number 2 is killed, another one takes his place immediately and so on. The attack on Afghanistan, which was completely justified, decentralized Al-Qaeda. Today, Al-Qaeda has no central territory. It has become a beast with many heads. A medussa. You cut one head, and ten others spring up in its place. Al-Qaeda is active in over 64 countries. Each cell independent of each other, all with one goal in mind: hurt the West. Al-Qaeda has become an ideology of sorts, an ideology of hate towards the West. Ideology fosters action, in this case violence. Statements like "bring it on", or, "there's an old poster out west that says: wanted, dead or alive", or "we will fight them over there so we do not have to fight them here", all rhetoric to fuel Bush's conservative base, also fuels terrorism. They call this conflict "War on Terror", a ridiculous title seeing that terror is a tactic, not a country or physical territory. It is reminiscent of the "War on Drugs", another Bush family title. You do not really fight the drugs, you fight those who create and distribute the drugs. A more appropriate title would be what CNN's Lou Dobbs calls it: "War on Islamist extremists who commit terrorist acts," just as ridiculous but a least more sensical. Yes, Iraq has become the center of this war. Before the invasion it was not. Why has it become the center? BECAUSE WE ARE THERE! They no longer have to travel thousands of miles to kill westerners when they are right there in their backyard. The minute we pull out of Iraq, they will focus once again on America, because that is were we are. We are not fighting them there because THEY are there, THEY are fighting us there BECAUSE WE ARE THERE! Until the U.S. rexamines and re-evaluates its policies in the Middle East, which are the source of this western hatred, islamic terrorism will always chase after us. Terrorism does not exist because Bush is president, that is absurd. Terrorism has always been there, escalated with the creation of Israel in 1947. President Bush's actions have simply provided validation for extremist belief that America is everything that is wrong with the world. This happened when a man that had no prior experience or knowledge in foreign affairs, who was being taught by his future National Security Advisor about international relations and diplomacy during his campaign in 2000, and a man with a very strong belief in his ideology, was elected, then re-elected President of the United States of America. No one foresaw 9/11, but some did foresee the course which this misguided and amateurish foreign policy would embark us on, some as far back as 1990, when Bush senior was President. At least back then, sense, reality, and rational thought were of more importance than ideology. In 2004, no one listened and Mr. Bush was re-elected. We only have ourselves to blame for re-electing President Bush. We are paying the price for our own complacency, our laziness in not taking the time to learn who our leaders really are. The price we have paid is inmense, the cost not yet fully realized, and will not be for years to come. Look at where we are now. People have begun to see finally, but it is a little too late.

Bush says bin Laden tape aided re-election

Monday, February 27, 2006

Rove's Obsession?

I am no fan of Karl Rove, by any means, but in this case I will stick up for him. Not for a minute do I believe what Sen. Hillary Clinton said about Rove worrying more about her political career than she does. Who does she think she is kidding? With her carefully crafted senate votes and strategic moves to the center, no one is more interested in her political future than her. No one!

That said, there is probably nothing that terrifies Karl Rove more than having a another Clinton in the White House.

Sen. Clinton: Rove obsesses about me

Bush's Approval at All-Time Low

Do you really wonder why? In the past two weeks Iraq almost descended into civil war, his VP shot someone then kept quiet (though I do not think the story merited the hype except for the fact that it further highlighted Cheney's disturbing secrecy), his staff brokered a deal to hand over port security to an Arab nation without him knowing it, then he blindly supported it, his NSA wiretapping scandal still flies, a destroyed New Orleans back in the news for Mardi Gras... do you need more? To be fair, no one knows the details of the Arab port deal. Maybe it is beneficial after all. Like I said, we do not know. But really, did they think it would really fly well with the American public? A public that, sadly, they (The White House) have conditioned to react like xenophobes when all things Arab are mentioned (anybody who thinks this was not a racially focused strategy is an idiot)? What did they really expect? "Trust us, Arabs want to harm us but this is a good deal with ARABS?" Last I remember, the White House is running very low on trust these days. What happened to the well oiled PR machine that spun itself into reelection? I mean, if you can spin a war that is going badly, a deficit that is sky rocketing, turn a decorated Vietnam war hero into a traitor (although Kerry didn't do much to help himself either), and propel yourself into another four year term, you got some serious talent on your team. Because let's face it, you did not have much to work with in Bush and Cheney. So what is happening? Where's the beef? I wonder, the way this past year has gone, if some in the White House are wishing they had lost the election? Right about now, I would not be surprised if John Kerry is happy he did not win (though in all honesty, I do not know if he would have done any better with the mess we are facing). I would think it rather Machiavelian if Kerry did think that, after all it is his/our country going down the drain. Right about now I do not envy any of those staffers in the White House because the atmosphere must be toxic. So back to our first question: do you really wonder why the president's approval rating has hit an all-time low of 34%? I didn't think so.

On a more interesting note, I did not think it was possible for Bush's aproval to drop below 40%. Remember he has always had a very loyal base support him blindly and the fact that his approval has gone so low can only mean that he is losing their support. If he is losing their support, then things must really be heading south.

P.S. And let's not even mention Cheney's dismal 18% approval. Oh, I just did!

Bush job rating falls to all-time low: poll

New Orleans Reborn? No! But it's a Start!

I went to New Orleans this past weekend to celebrate Mardi Gras, as I have done in the past. This year, though, it was very different from my past experiences. Not because the party was any different, or the drunk debauchery any more civil, or the nudity any more toned down. New Orleans is a city facing an enormous challenge. There is no way the magnitude of the challenge can be understood until you physically go down there and take a look. I have been to New Orleans many times in the past, and now I have been there after Katrina ravished the area. It is a scene straight from armageddon, a woven path of destruction that is disguised by the images of happy revelers on Bourbon Street. It is hard not to have a good time on Bourbon Street. There are a lot of people, not as many as in previous Mardi Gras', but still a lot of people. You can feel the energy flow, the hope for the future redemption of a city in the middle of rebirth. That is until you drive a few blocks outside downtown. There, the thin veneer of progress is shattered. Destruction worthy of a Michael Bay movie can only do it little justice. Houses standing on their frames with no walls, cars in the middle of the road, debris piled in front yards, complete darkness in some areas (no working street lights or street signs), but nothing quite gets to you like the realization that this could be like some areas in Harlem, NY, or South Central Los Angeles, CA, except that these areas in the Big Easy are completely desolate, abandoned. There is no fear of being attacked or getting robbed because there are no people. And along with that desolation are left the hopes and dreams of hundreds, thousands. The deeper you get into this dead territory, the more you feel the anguish, the anxiety to run and get out as fast as you can. I was looking for a gas station and an ATM, and it was the most difficult task I've had in a while. No working stations, pharmacies, grocery and convenience stores.

I went to New Orleans to return to Mardi Gras and try and put my two cents in. But I also wanted to see for myself what had happened. It has been six months since the hurricane came. I got lost driving around the Superdome, site of so many barbaric events. There were some abandoned floats on the southeast side of the stadium, but for the most part it was fairly quiet and empty. The closer you got to Canal Street and the French Quarter, the more activity you saw. I was lucky enough to find a parking spot in front of the Hard Rock Cafe, about a block from the New Orleans Cathedral where President Bush spoke from in September of last year. What an eerie and disappointing feeling to pass that site because it makes you realize the size of the government's failure, at all levels. President Bush vowed to bring back New Orleans, promised a lot of money. Today, all you have to do is go down there to know that it is not happening. We are the richest most powerful country in the world. We are en route to spend half a trillion dollars on the unjustified destruction of another country, but we cannot spend the money and resources to rebuild one of our own. Showering money on problems does not solve them, it just provides the resource to solve them. The work has to be done by the people. And the Bush White House has not done its part. How can we live with ourselves knowing that we will first pay attention to the problems outside before we look at our own problems? Why do we spend half a trillion dollars on another country and not on our own? Do we expect a foreign power to invade New Orleans and fix it, as we have so claimed in Iraq?

Katrina did something to this country that no one has done before: it taught us humility. It very violently demonstrated that the United States, as powerful as it is, is not perfect and can also learn from others. The Netherlands lie far below sea level, but they have learned to plan and protect themselves. They have done their homework and built powerful engineering marvels to adjust. They have put the time and money into these structures and we have much we could learn from them. The Bush Administration has, for far too long, focused expenditures on far less important things than protecting our cities. They have ignored the problems at home while focusing our money and our military on the problems of others. They have buried us in the largest federal budget deficit while failing to improve our national security. This catastrophe was predicted, and simulations were run as recently as 2004. I suppose that, to the White House, the cost of a $500 billion war is less than the $20 or so billion (I think) needed to properly fortify the New Orleans' levies. Strange math it seems, but after their math on medicare and the federal budget that always seems to be off the projected mark, it does not really surprise. Point to fact, nothing this administration does really surprises me anymore.

New Orleans will come back, the Big Easy will not. That swagger that used to define this ragin' cajun city is missing, gone along with so many that will not return. New Orleans was a predominantly black city, and that cultural demographic gave it its taste. It has been transplanted to other parts of the country, one of them being here in Houston. Those that have chosen to stay will rebuild. It will be the folks that stay and those that decide to return that will rebuild New Orleans, not the governments, federal and state. They have shown their worth. But it will be a different city, a city with a traumatizing event in its past, one that will forever remain at its heart. Something of this magnitude does not happen without changing the people.

This Mardi Gras celebration was the most important New Orleans has had in decades. There are those that say it is not a time not celebrate. I can understand that view, and I can even sympathize with it. But I say to you, to not have this Mardi Gras would be to admit defeat, to say that New Orleans and all it has stood for in the past is really dead. It is also an economic infusion that is direly needed. That was one of the reasons I felt this urge to go and at least leave some money there. I had vowed in the past to not return for a Mardi Gras celebration because I was just tired of the huge crowds. This year was different. I wanted to be there and say I did a little bit. Even if it is just a tiny, tiny bit.

Some news organizations, mainly CNN and its rising star Anderson Cooper have done a very good job of capturing the devastation and also the renewed hope that lies within the resilient folks who will not let nature and an incompetent federal government doom a city. As I mentioned, you have to be there to fully appreciate the scale of devastation, but if you want to at least see a little bit, CNN has done the most. You have to put the spirit, the meaning of Mardi Gras in perspective. You have to realize that while there is hope and desire to rebuild, all is not well. But to extinguish the fire that Mardi Gras represents is to kill its spirit. New Orleans will take years to rebuild. It is just that devastated. But it will be rebuilt, by the people who care, those who love it. It will be different, like a mended athelete after a serious injury. It will live on. Some see the devastation and ask where to begin? You start at the beginning, brick by brick, stone by stone. But realize that rebuilding starts with laying down the first brick, not throwing money at it in hopes that it will lay itself.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

More Idiocy!

The White House is saying that the President was unaware of the UAR ports deal until after the deal was approved, but he still supports it, going as far to threaten a veto. WHat?

...And I suppose this excuse is supposed to give us some comfort? The Captain is unaware of what his underlings are up to? How does that reassure the people? The President of the United States is not aware of what goes on under him? That is even worse than the Presiedent simply being stubborn and wanting this deal past, atleast this would imply that he is fully aware of what the deak entails. Does that not make more sense to you as far as PR goes? How can they think that suggesting that the President was unaware of th deal is any better?

Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Case

Boy, it sure did not take them long to butt in. So much for transparency. Whoever suggests that newly confirmed Supreme Court justices Alito and Roberts are not right wing will get his answer soon. The Supreme Court decided yeaterday that it will hear a case involving late-term abortion. An almost exact case was decided 5-4 declaring the ban unconstitutional in 2000, of course Sandra Day O'Connor was the deciding vote. Do people really think that each party is really interested in nominating and confirming a justice because he will strictly interpret the Constitution? Please! These hypocrits on both sides are interested in advancing THEIR agendas. The nominees will almost always, if not always, be someone who thinks alike and is most likely to vote the way they want them to. That is why the confirmation of Alito, more than the Roberts one, was so appeasing to the right wing of the Republican party. They know that Alito will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade when the chance comes. And it will, believe me, it will. They do not have any qualms about it. They will give a straight answer if asked. Not the politicians though, such as Bush, Frist, Santorum, Reid, Kennedy, Clinton, etc... they (in this case Republicans since they nominated the men) claim that they are nominated because of their excellent qualifications. No argument there, butthat is not the only bar set. I guarantee you that someone with the same or even better qualifications than these two accomplished men but with differing idiological and political views, would not even get the passed the first stage in the selection process. Why? Because it is always about advancing the party line and ideology. Yes qualifications are extremely important, they are essential to at least getting past the Senate judiciary committee. Else, you get a fiasco like the Myers nomination.

I do not have a stone set opinion on abortion. I understand why both sides argue their positions so fiercely. I think abortion can be barbaric at times, but I also think there are situations where it is the best, though extremely difficult, choice to make. I do not however believe that life begins at conception, or that each sperm is a living human being. If it is so the masturbation is the equivalent of murder and should be made illegal. I understand both sides when they argue with logic and science, safety and morals, not with ideology and God. If you are going to defend your side do so with strong sensical arguements supported by facts and statictics, what the dangers are, financial impact and ability or inability to support, not with God fearing diatribe, or in the liberals' case with a woman's choice should be hers no matter what. It takes two to tango, unless you are the Virgin Mary, and I highly doubt she would have opted for abortion.

In my somewhat strange and Machiavellian view, I would view the abortion issue as punishment and responsibility. Those who have opted to have sex, with all the contraceptives and warnings regarding their efficiency available today, should be aware of the possible consequences and therefore responsible for them. If someone gets pregnant, they knew the risks in having sex, why should they now get a free pass? They ought to assume the responsibility associated with the risk. They knew what they were doing, they screwed up, now pay up. If they do not like it, well that's just tough! Punishment baby! On the other hand, in a situation were a woman is raped and gets pregnant, or the mother's life is in danger, of course you should have abortion as an option. Also another question: why only the woman to decide? I said it takes two to tango. Should the father not a have say in the whole thing? Like I said, I do not have a stone set opinion on this issue but I can understand both sides, I just do not dismiss one or the other as completely wrong like politicians and parties do. You know what's funny, I will probably end up being in a situation as I just described above, both scenarios, as punishment for meddlesome rant on an issue so hearty to so money. Some would even call me blasphemous. But hey, freedom of speech right? At least I am not a hypocrit.

Supreme Court to weigh late-term abortion ban

Monday, February 20, 2006

Who Better to Run Port Security than our Best Friends the Arabs!

Somebody call the Nobel Prize commitee, we have a peace prize nominee: the Bush Administration!

I usually refrain from namecalling or insults because it is counterproductive and downright nasty, but sometimes there is no other way to accurately describe actions and blunders. I am talking about the White House and Homeland Security contracting the United Arab Emirates to run 6 major U.S. ports. I am sorry but this is just so incredibly stupid, that it would seem like a bunch of incompetent imbeciles are running this country. I do not care how many safeguards they claim are built into this contract, just the idea of an Arab country, who has financed terrorism in the past (allbeit they are now "allies" in the War on Terror), running 6 of the access points into this country is absolutely idiotic. Karl Rove was right! I guess Democrats and Independents (like me) do have a pre-9/11 frame of mind because I still think that handing over port security to Arabs that probably hate us is plain stupid. I guess I am the idiot.

Why an Arab country? Are there no American companies that can handle this? Damn, I'll even contract Halliburton and hire Michael Brown as a consultant to the operation before the hiring the UAE! It is the same as hiring a recovering alcoholic as your head bartender! How long can he stay on the wagon with so much temptation? Why the added risk? You don't have a drug addict guarding the stash the DEA just confiscated, do you? Who in hell thought of this outrageously moronic idea? He shouldn't get fired, he should get beat up for being so dumb! Is it a sound idea to hand over port security to a country at the heart of the current conflicts, even if they are our allies? Is this not an extra risk? Even Inspector Clouseau can figure that one out.

This contract was drawn up by humans, very flawed and imperfect humans, just as we all are. Is it not reasonable to expect the possibility of these safeguards failing?. Hell, we just had two air marshals, who are suppossed to safeguard the security of our airways, arrested here in Houston for drug smuggling. Was the air marshal program not designed to protect our skies? It had safeguards too did it not? What happened to them? Is it too farfetched to think that those ports might face a similar situation, such as employees taking advantage of very sensitive positions for other purposes? I thought the White House and Republicans were supposed to be strong on fighting terrorism? How do you justify turning over port security to an Arab country with a history of terrorism? What's next? Mexico handling border security? Exxon CEO Lee Raymond in charge of our energy policy (though he probably already is) or head of the EPA? Hell, we already have drug companies in charge of Medicare. How about Tom Delay as head of the ethics committe in the House? Or Jack Abramoff as chairman of the independent commission (as if there will ever be one) to reform lobbying? Or even better, how about the Democrats in charge of winning elections!!!!! Ha ha ha... now that is funny.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Chertoff Under Fire

Homeland Security honcho Michael Chertoff is in a war zone. Congress that is. He was questioned a few days ago by senators and today by House representatives. He was oft criticized and even admitted that there was a failure in the Department's response. In all fairness to him, all levels of government failed in Katrina's response. I also happen to think that anyone in Chertoff's position would have had a difficult time, not because of incompetence, but because the Dept. of Homeland Security is a bureaucratic nightmare. It is becoming increasingly clear that its creation has done more to harm the country than actually help it, unintentionally of course. I do not think Congress was aware of the monster they were creating. I give a few points to the White House for being oppossed to it at first (though that opposition was more to avoid diluting White House power than them knowing how bad it could turn out). Still, Chertoff defended himself and the Bush Administration when accusations that they were disassociated with the situation in the days leading up to the disaster were leveled (some say they were too focused on terrorism). Chertoff aggresively defended himself saying he and the Administration were fully aware of what was going on and that any suggestion otherwise was simply false. Well pardon me if I choose to believe the facts on the ground in the disaster areas regarding awareness and response before I believe a word Chertoff or the White House says. I think those facts speak for themselves very graphically!

Chertoff Acknowledges Lapses in Response

FEMA's Blunder

FEMA has done it again! They have managed to basically throw away (this may be a bit exagerated) $300 million. The agency has $300 million worth of mobil homes sitting in a field which is rented for $25,000 a month in Arkansas. Yes that's right, Arkansas. Not New Orleans, not Mississippi, not Lousiana. Why? Because of governmental red tape that does not allow those homes to be moved into a flood prone area. While thousands of people are being kicked out of hotels and thousands more live in their cars, FEMA cannot get around bureaucracy to get the aid where it needs to go. Not only that, but because the mobil homes are sitting on trailers and on muddy unstable ground, their infrastructure is in danger of being permanently damaged. FEMA will now have to spend approximately $8 million more to try and fix this problem. Hmmm... what could be done with $308 million? I don't know about you, but I think a lot!

Bush to Request $75 Million to Promote Democracy

The Bush Administration will ask Congress for an additional $75 Million to "promote democracy in Iran". This will be presented in the form of an emergency supplemental budget, much like the funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, meaning it doesn't show up in the federal budget as it should. My question is: why? Does it not sound like the dumbest waste of money? Is that money not better suited to help New Orleans? Are the people in our own country not more important than say, Iranians?

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Crazy Happenings in Washington

How much can happen in two weeks? Well, it just seems my luck that all sorts of different things (and some really strange ones) suddenly pile up when I do not have the time to update this site.

First and foremost I think we all know is VP Dick Cheney's hunting accident. Who has not heard of this. It is a media frenzy over this. To be honest, I think this is just an accident and Cheney truly is sorry about the whole incident. That being said, the way it was handled by the VP's office (whether it is because of incompetence or intentional) is what has turned this thing into a scandal. You will not sell me on the idea that Cheney did not know this was going to a huge story. The utter stupidity in trying to keep a lid on this unfortunately has, like Katrina, focus the light on a much bigger issue: The Secrecy of Dick Cheney and his Vice Presidency (the title to my next book... just kidding). A tragedy had to occur once again to focus on the troubling behavior by some in the Bush Administration. Now the VP is faced with a great many questions that could have been avoided if they came out immediately and spoke to the press. Oh, that and also if they had a more believable story to explain the injuries sustained by the victim. The official version is that Cheney shot at a shot distance of about thirty yards with a 28 gauge shotgun. Anyone with a decent knowledge of guns knows that the spread pattern which the pellets follow would not cause the type of damage sustained by Mr. Whittington at a distance of 30 yards. It would have to be closer. Also, Mr. Whittingford was not taken to a better a more suited hospital in Corpus Christi, he was taken to a smaller lesser equiped hospital. Why? Distance was not an issue. Why? Those are pressing questions that put the delay in going public in a more suspiscious light. Whether there is something there or not is not for me to investigate. So media: Do your job this time!

Reliable Alternatives net ring
This site is a Reliable Alternatives net ring member.

Thanks to RingSurf | Join? | Nominate? | Questions? |<