If their father had been home to teach elementary safety rules this accident would never have happened; so these two boys are victims of George Bush's war on terror.
He would have told them, "Don't pull the pin until you're ready to throw it into a crowded restaurant."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hj_VEag9J7Nz_r_N9uq6Ng3hBMqAD97ODIVO1
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What's all the hubbub about?
Some of the news lately has been very bad for my state of mind.
For instance, until the other day I used to enjoy watching the squadrons of robins turn over leaves on the lawn. And I used to enjoy watching flocks of crows harass a hawk. But then Linda pointed out to me that the news experts have been reporting that a "flock of birds" caused that airliner to crash up in New York last week. How can I look with equanimity on those flocks of robins and crows now?
Then again, I used to enjoy watching the local youths skate on the pond in former winters. But I can no longer look on them with such equanimity since the news media began reporting that generic "youths" were responsible for the rioting and burning of thousands of cars in France. For all I know those youths down by the pond will become riotous one day and burn my car.
And further, as I've been pondering on this matter of the news media limiting it's descriptions to such broad terms as "youths" and "flocks of birds," I've been moved to wonder what all the hubbub is about on the national scene. For surely, if it's sufficient to blame a generic "flock of birds" for the airliner crash and a generic group of "youths" for the riots and mayhem in France, it must also be sufficient to describe the current turnover of power down in Washington in terms that render it no big deal.
What's all the hubbub about? Why is everyone so excited about this inauguration being a historical event? In terms that CNN and The New York Times use in other contexts the ceremony at noon today will result in no more than one mammal replacing another mammal atop the great dungheap down in Washington. Heck, the two mammals involved even belong to the same genus and species.
For instance, until the other day I used to enjoy watching the squadrons of robins turn over leaves on the lawn. And I used to enjoy watching flocks of crows harass a hawk. But then Linda pointed out to me that the news experts have been reporting that a "flock of birds" caused that airliner to crash up in New York last week. How can I look with equanimity on those flocks of robins and crows now?
Then again, I used to enjoy watching the local youths skate on the pond in former winters. But I can no longer look on them with such equanimity since the news media began reporting that generic "youths" were responsible for the rioting and burning of thousands of cars in France. For all I know those youths down by the pond will become riotous one day and burn my car.
And further, as I've been pondering on this matter of the news media limiting it's descriptions to such broad terms as "youths" and "flocks of birds," I've been moved to wonder what all the hubbub is about on the national scene. For surely, if it's sufficient to blame a generic "flock of birds" for the airliner crash and a generic group of "youths" for the riots and mayhem in France, it must also be sufficient to describe the current turnover of power down in Washington in terms that render it no big deal.
What's all the hubbub about? Why is everyone so excited about this inauguration being a historical event? In terms that CNN and The New York Times use in other contexts the ceremony at noon today will result in no more than one mammal replacing another mammal atop the great dungheap down in Washington. Heck, the two mammals involved even belong to the same genus and species.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Perspective
Looking forward to Barry O's inauguration and the expected crowds, the government has officially declared that Washington D.C. will be a disaster area on January 20th.
I think that's a little over the top, openly declaring it to be a disaster area I mean, even though I started thinking of D.C. as pretty much of a disaster area at about the time Lyndon Johnson won reelection when I was a sophomore in high school in 1964. I was pretty ill informed back then. As the years went by I became better informed. I did enough reading about American history to attain some perspective and realize how naive I was back in high school.
Now I know that Washington D.C. has been a disaster area since at least July 4th of 1826 when both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died and the corrupt rapscallions down there realized there were no more of the founders around to look over their shoulders. July 4, 1826; that was the date when they started losing all shame. Not that they had a heck of a lot of shame to lose, because they were the natural product of democracy. And American Democracy, like all democracies, was doomed from the start. The amazing thing is how long it's more or less lasted. Even more amazing is that it seems well enough established to have at least a a certain amount of limping life in it, thank God.
For Winston Churchill was right on the money on the subject. "It has been said," he famously pronounced, "that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Which sort of gets me back to my point about officially declaring Washington to be a disaster area. It's much too late in history to take that step. And it's much too early in Barry Obama's contribution to history to make his inauguration seem like the reason for doing it.
Meanwhile, here's a pretty funny article by Robert Ferrigno of National Review that puts some perspective on the changeover from George Bush to Barack Obama.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWQ0YTk4YWY5ZDU5ZWE4ZGU1YTk0YWU3NzYyNzY4OTM=
I think that's a little over the top, openly declaring it to be a disaster area I mean, even though I started thinking of D.C. as pretty much of a disaster area at about the time Lyndon Johnson won reelection when I was a sophomore in high school in 1964. I was pretty ill informed back then. As the years went by I became better informed. I did enough reading about American history to attain some perspective and realize how naive I was back in high school.
Now I know that Washington D.C. has been a disaster area since at least July 4th of 1826 when both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died and the corrupt rapscallions down there realized there were no more of the founders around to look over their shoulders. July 4, 1826; that was the date when they started losing all shame. Not that they had a heck of a lot of shame to lose, because they were the natural product of democracy. And American Democracy, like all democracies, was doomed from the start. The amazing thing is how long it's more or less lasted. Even more amazing is that it seems well enough established to have at least a a certain amount of limping life in it, thank God.
For Winston Churchill was right on the money on the subject. "It has been said," he famously pronounced, "that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Which sort of gets me back to my point about officially declaring Washington to be a disaster area. It's much too late in history to take that step. And it's much too early in Barry Obama's contribution to history to make his inauguration seem like the reason for doing it.
Meanwhile, here's a pretty funny article by Robert Ferrigno of National Review that puts some perspective on the changeover from George Bush to Barack Obama.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWQ0YTk4YWY5ZDU5ZWE4ZGU1YTk0YWU3NzYyNzY4OTM=
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
We deserve better!
The Demos are trying to sell Joe Biden as a po' boy from Scranton. If Barack Obama bought Joe Biden as a coal miner's daughter type Pennsylvania native scion he's a lot less smart than he appeared when he rolled over Bill O'Reilly on taxes last night.
Here's a random thought that struck me while watching Obama swish O'Reilly around on the floor like a dust mop and then unscrew his head and slam dunk it.
After this election we're going to have to look at either Obama's big wart or McCain's turkey wattle neck for the next four years. Not pleasant. And then there's that thing with the tongue Palin does behind her lower lip when she's thinking.
And if that's not enough; all three of the above pale next to the thought of listening to Biden talk out of both sides of his mouth for four years. What a supercilious asshole. Caligula's horse is a lot more believable as a popular favorite for a Senator's stall and trough, and he didn't get re-elected 6 times. At least half of the three or four dozen voters down in Delaware must be brain damaged from smelling all that chicken shit.
Anyway, after eight years of putting up with George W's earnest Alfred E. Neuman imitation we deserve better.
Here's a random thought that struck me while watching Obama swish O'Reilly around on the floor like a dust mop and then unscrew his head and slam dunk it.
After this election we're going to have to look at either Obama's big wart or McCain's turkey wattle neck for the next four years. Not pleasant. And then there's that thing with the tongue Palin does behind her lower lip when she's thinking.
And if that's not enough; all three of the above pale next to the thought of listening to Biden talk out of both sides of his mouth for four years. What a supercilious asshole. Caligula's horse is a lot more believable as a popular favorite for a Senator's stall and trough, and he didn't get re-elected 6 times. At least half of the three or four dozen voters down in Delaware must be brain damaged from smelling all that chicken shit.
Anyway, after eight years of putting up with George W's earnest Alfred E. Neuman imitation we deserve better.
Monday, August 11, 2008
We cannot be responsible for the whole world
Michael Rubin, on National Reviews blog The Corner, like many other commentators is decrying President Bush's apparent inaction as Russia is beating up on a little country named Georgia which is just north of Turkey on the Black Sea. Rubin, correctly I think, points out that many other small countries around the world will no doubt draw a lesson about our likelihood to come to their aid based on what they see us do in this situation.
One problem I see with his post is that he compares the situation of Russia versus a very small country right on its border with other situations, like Taiwan and Poland, where the defensive tactical situation is not nearly as stark, and other situations where the relative power of the potential aggressor to the potential victim is not nearly as great, like Israel and other Middle East countries vs Iran and like Colombia vs Venezuela.
The stark fact is that Russia can apply heavy conventional military power against Georgia, which is right on its border at relatively low cost, while we, and all of the NATO allies for that matter, simply can't apply equivalent power in Georgia without a major mobilization. And there is no way our citizenry is going to support a major mobilization right now even if that were wise.
Another aspect of this situation is that it was perfectly predictable by countries who have a lot more fat in this fire than we do and who could have prepared themselves to oppose it. The Russian action primarily threatens Europe, so any action against it should be lead by the European nations and they should do any heavy lifting with us at most acting in support. T he fact that none of the European powers, separately or together, have the military capability to confront Russia is a problem that the Europeans should have done something about years ago. If this Russian action frightens them they can easily afford to increase their defense budgets and build up their military cababilities to forestall any future Russian conventional movement further west.
We cannot and should not take responsibility for the safety of the whole world.
Michael Rubin's post is here : http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGNmMjQyZjJjNDBhNDFjOGM3MWE0NzRlZmRmOGJiMjM=
One problem I see with his post is that he compares the situation of Russia versus a very small country right on its border with other situations, like Taiwan and Poland, where the defensive tactical situation is not nearly as stark, and other situations where the relative power of the potential aggressor to the potential victim is not nearly as great, like Israel and other Middle East countries vs Iran and like Colombia vs Venezuela.
The stark fact is that Russia can apply heavy conventional military power against Georgia, which is right on its border at relatively low cost, while we, and all of the NATO allies for that matter, simply can't apply equivalent power in Georgia without a major mobilization. And there is no way our citizenry is going to support a major mobilization right now even if that were wise.
Another aspect of this situation is that it was perfectly predictable by countries who have a lot more fat in this fire than we do and who could have prepared themselves to oppose it. The Russian action primarily threatens Europe, so any action against it should be lead by the European nations and they should do any heavy lifting with us at most acting in support. T he fact that none of the European powers, separately or together, have the military capability to confront Russia is a problem that the Europeans should have done something about years ago. If this Russian action frightens them they can easily afford to increase their defense budgets and build up their military cababilities to forestall any future Russian conventional movement further west.
We cannot and should not take responsibility for the safety of the whole world.
Michael Rubin's post is here : http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGNmMjQyZjJjNDBhNDFjOGM3MWE0NzRlZmRmOGJiMjM=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
