Bush Hates Kids

Part of selling an agenda, like it or not, is creating a dichotomy -- there are two choices, this and anti-this.

While I think, more than most people, that this habit has a lot of good in it, it can be greatly abused. One good example is a claim that some more virulent conservatives propagate. If you aren't pro-Iraq War, you're anti-U.S., or anti-troops.

While I think that many of those who are against the war are at least subconsciously feeding the latter two camps, it remains a terrible false dichotomy, and is a discredit to those who claim it.

But two of the best examples come to mind recently. One is the issue of the environment, and the other is health care. Let's keep it simple. Liberals love the earth, conservatives hate it. For whatever reason, they sit in their leather chairs and like to think about how to destroy it to get more money.

Likewise, the nation's governors are meeting to oppose Bush's threatened Veto of any measure that will reinstate a controversial child health care program, which amounts to free nationwide health care for children. On the one hand, the liberals want to care for innocent, unprotected children. On the other hand, conservatives would rather see those children die of cancer while they line the pockets of the HMOs.

But stop for a moment, and ask if this is really reasonable. Perhaps the throbbing question that underlies these "heartless" decisions is really coming from the caring side -- how will we pay for it?

While the opponents of these measures continue to look like villains, they are really being the most compassionate leaders, understanding that there are no easy solutions, and that the people must be protected from an increasingly ravenous government.

The other side practices the worst kind of bribery, cleverly disguised as a largess -- handing out popular measures knowing full well that they cannot stand under the budgets of tomorrow, unless the government taxes and swells, taxes and swells. So as they toss those few coins to the people, remember that the people will be paying tribute long after all the pennies have been used.

Mitt's Dog = John's Hair

Really, they're not exactly equal, though one might mistake Mr. Edward's "do" for a shrubbery, or a small furry animal.

I thought I ought to come to his bi-partisan defense and say that just as there can be no credence in attacking Mitt Romney for his choice of transit for his dog, one shouldn't disqualify John Edwards from the Presidency because he buys haircuts for $400. While one can, case-by-case, pick apart the wisdom or even the justifiability of certain large-dollar purchases, I think that this is hardly clean cut (forgive me.)

It's part of the rather ridiculous notion that people have that wealth necessitates contempt for the poor, or that true, honest and good rich people should not actually use their money, or use it only for things like donations.

I do think that one can attack John Edwards for spending $400 on a haircut that looks like poo. Mitt Romney's equally decried $200 cuts are somewhat better.

The worst anybody can say is that these guys are getting ripped off.

(one can disqualify John Edwards from the Presidency, howerver, on the basis of him being a Red.)

Crazy Frog Bros

This what public schools do to children.

Can't Get No Respect

As a protestant who certainly does not agree in any way with the Catholic doctrine, recently reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI, that the Catholic Church is the only pure church, and that all others are defective, I still find the following article by CNN Contributor and protestant Roland S. Martin to be immature and offensive.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/13/martin/index.html

Why That's Ironical!

Somehow the notion of Bill Clinton blasting someone for seeing the law as a "minor obstacle" is funny.

Especially over a an issue that stems from the breach of classified information. Hmm. We've been there before, I think.

Commutation and Spin

I hope all of you have seen the odd response of the Democratic Party to the Scooter Libby sentence commutation. It has been uniformly supported by Republicans and uniformly condemned by the Democrats.

Most of the Democratic reactions run along the same lines as Bill Clinton's: he was aghast, horrified, but not surprised. As he says, this administration will just do what they want to do, and treat the law as "a minor obstacle."

This statement ignores the fact that a commutation of a sentence is as lawful as the sentence itself. We may argue about whether or not it was appropriate or wise, but certainly not whether or not it flew in the face of law.

Pardons and commutations have historically been a priviledge of presidents because sometimes, the discipline and conduct of politics demands that kind of action. The pardon and the commutation were necessarily brought into being as legal actions to be granted to people who had lawfully and rightly been convicted and/or sentenced.

Take for example, the actions of George Washington. One of the greatest domestic crises in American history was the Whiskey rebellion. Washington sent the army to crush it, and its leaders were arrested and tried for treason, and found guilty. Washington, having achieved the necessary end, saw fit to promptly pardon those leaders. Was that politically motivated? Surely. was it wrong or did it trample on the law? Decidedly not.

Words Fail Me

Only slightly more interesting than the latest Scootering around Washington is the growing scandal surrounding Mitt Romney.

What could cause such a growing storm of a scandal for such an upstanding candidate? Well, it seems the good Governor, in 1983, put a dog carrier on top of his station wagon, secured it with straps, and then drove from Boston to Ontario for a family vacation.

This appears to be, in some peoples mind, ample evidence of such latent and vicious cruelty as to certainly disqualify the man for the office of President.

How could he?? Oh dear lord! Never mind any other trifles, like moral standing on political and social issues, or other matters of miniscule importance, like leadership ability and reputation.

He put a dog cage on his car in 1983! Draw and Quarter the fellow!