A Few Things To Ponder

A Few Things To Ponder: Here are some things I wanted to mention that probably weren’t quite developed enough to merit their own posts…

— I don’t have a problem with keeping the name of rape victims out of the media to avoid stigma, but why should their accusers be given the same courtesy? Does their reputation not suffer as well because they’re being accused of rape? I bring this up since Kobe Bryant now stands accused. Is he guilty — is he innocent — I don’t know. But if they’re going to keep the woman’s name quiet, Bryant’s name shouldn’t be revealed either.

— Howard Dean has picked up a lot of momentum by winning the moveon.org primary and I can’t say that displeases me. First off, I think he’s unelectable — in fact the campaign commercials practically write themselves…

(In The South) “Howard Dean said signing gay civil unions into law was the ‘most important event in my political life’ — does Howard Dean represent North Carolina (fill in the Southern state) values?” Then of course, there’s “Can we trust Howard Dean to defend America?” You have to love Dean as an opponent for Bush.

Perhaps better yet, Dean may push Bush to the RIGHT on a couple of issues. Dean has an excellent record on gun rights and on balancing the budget. That could mean that Bush will feel compelled to perhaps introduce a Balanced Budget Amendment or really beat the drum for the NRA crowd in order to keep Dean from stealing any voters away. That would be a big plus.

— A lot of people on the right don’t like Ann Coulter. Want to know why? Here’s a quote from Coulter about Joe McCarthy that could just as easily be applied to Annie herself…

“McCarthy was a popularizer, a brawler. Republican elitists abhor demagogic appeals to working-class Democrats. Fighting like a Democrat is a breach of etiquette worse than using the wrong fork. McCarthy is sniffed at for not playing by Marquis of Queensbury Rules — rules of engagement demanded only of Republicans.”

I believe the Conservatives who don’t like Coulter have a problem with her largely because she “Fight(s) like a Democrat.” I for one am glad we have her around because she hammers home some very important points and brings them to the public’s attention in a way few others can.

This is the first time I’ve heard a full and complete explanation for why the power isn’t on in Baghdad yet. Apparently they’re having the same sort of problems California did — they just don’t have enough juice to go around…

“The two also conceded that the electric power level in Baghdad was now lower than before the invasion of Iraq earlier this year because reconstruction officials were using improvements to the national grid to distribute more power to the rest of the country.

“Here in Baghdad, they typically enjoyed 23 to 24 hours of power” before the war, Strock told reporters. “But there are other places in the country that only got two.”

“And as we have brought the system back on line, we have tried to get more equitable in the distribution of that power. So what you’re seeing here is the people of Baghdad are receiving less than they did before, but about 80 percent of the population (of Iraq) is receiving more.”

Byron York points which political party really has the support of the “little guys” and which party is really “party of the rich”…

“A new study by the Center for Responsive Politics found that in the last election cycle, people who gave less than $200 to politicians or parties gave 64 percent of their money to Republicans. Just 35 percent went to Democrats. On the other hand, the Center found that people who gave $1 million or more gave 92 percent to Democrats – and a whopping eight percent to Republicans.”

David Warren explains Bush’s “Bring em on” comment and a couple of benefits of having our troops in Iraq that have not often been discussed…

“What the media, and U.S. Democrats affect not to grasp, is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians, both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation — and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists, compelling their response — is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper…

…At the moment it appears that most of the infiltration of Iraq is coming from the west, through Syria, and consists of Lebanese-based Hizbullah elbowing their way into Saddam’s old territory. Their intention is to do to the U.S. Army in Iraq what they did to the Marines in Beirut in 1983. The chief source of both men and materiel is what Gal Luft has called “Hizbullahland” — the 1,000 square kilometre patch, that Hizbullah now rules under Syrian protection, which was formerly Israel’s security enclave in southern Lebanon (until they withdrew in a peace initiative in the year 2000).”

I hate to see our troops in Iraq under fire, but better to have the terrorists fighting and dying against our military in Iraq rather than slaughtering our civilians here on the home front. Moreover, if Hizbollah attacks our men, it proves that they’re enemies and it gives us every reason to swoop in and slaughter them (or to make Syria do it rather than risk our wrath).

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend