Pakistan's government is not helping it's own cause by insisting that Bhutto died from hitting the sunroof of her armored car and that there was no bullet damage or bomb blast damage that contributed to her death.
New video shows that Bhutto's head scarf was flapping wildly immediately after the gunshots began and just before she slumped forward. The scarf was clearly flapping in the opposite direction of where the gunmen opened fire.
It looks like Pakistan's government is engaged in a cover-up and that they got caught red-handed. This does not bode well for their attempts to be transparent in this situation.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a Major Setback: Pakistan in Chaos
Yesterday was a very bad day for all of Pakistan, and for the U.S. as well.
The assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at the hands of terrorists in Pakistan was a major blow to U.S. counter-terrorism efforts in the region, and a major setback for efforts to reform Pakistan into a democratic state.
Pakistan was already volatile; with the death of Bhutto, rioting has broken out all over the nation; her followers blamed the government of Pakistan for having a hand in the assassination; close to thirty people have died in the violence. Troops are on the streets, with orders to shoot to kill.
I think there's a very real danger of the government of Pakistan collapsing; the time may soon come where U.S. forces will have to swoop in and seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to keep them out of the hands of the extremists who will take over and have possession of the launch codes. I can't see India sitting idly by either if the nukes fall into the hands of terrorists. This could be very bad.
It would be better if President Musharraf resigned immediately and turned the power over to a caretaker government. He's causing more problems than he's solving by staying in office. And the U.S. government has to make a choice in either supporting the people of Pakistan, or supporting the troublesome Musharraf at the expense of the Pakistani people.
What a mess.
The assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at the hands of terrorists in Pakistan was a major blow to U.S. counter-terrorism efforts in the region, and a major setback for efforts to reform Pakistan into a democratic state.
Pakistan was already volatile; with the death of Bhutto, rioting has broken out all over the nation; her followers blamed the government of Pakistan for having a hand in the assassination; close to thirty people have died in the violence. Troops are on the streets, with orders to shoot to kill.
I think there's a very real danger of the government of Pakistan collapsing; the time may soon come where U.S. forces will have to swoop in and seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to keep them out of the hands of the extremists who will take over and have possession of the launch codes. I can't see India sitting idly by either if the nukes fall into the hands of terrorists. This could be very bad.
It would be better if President Musharraf resigned immediately and turned the power over to a caretaker government. He's causing more problems than he's solving by staying in office. And the U.S. government has to make a choice in either supporting the people of Pakistan, or supporting the troublesome Musharraf at the expense of the Pakistani people.
What a mess.
Michigan Voters Told Their Vote is Worthless in One Party's Primary and Only Worth Half A Vote in the Other: Tell Me Again Why We Should Vote on 1/15?
The Michigan primary is coming up on January 15th, and the ballot is still a mess.
One party has completely disenfranchised Michigan's voters, while the other has stripped Michigan of half of its delegates to the party's national convention, effectively turning every vote into a half-vote.
The Democratic Party added insult to injury when most of the Democratic candidates decided to withdraw their names from the ballot and announced that they were boycotting Michigan's primary. Not one of them had the guts to come into the state and announce it in person.
As far as I'm concerned, the candidates that withdrew their names shouldn't be able to fundraise here for their primary campaigns either. They should be writing refund checks out to every Michigan voter who has contributed money to their campaigns from the time that they announced their candidacy to today.
They can go to the Federal Election Commission web site to figure out who to write the checks to. In the meantime, they can go play in traffic.
On the GOP side, the Republican National Convention stripped Michigan of half of it's delegates to their convention, along with all the other January primary states. Following that same formula, the GOP candidates should also return 1/2 of the money raised here. They can take my half-vote and stick it where the sun don't shine.
So, since our votes are worthless in the Democratic Party, and worth a half-vote in the GOP, why exactly should Michigan voters show up on January 15th?
I'm not voting on the 15th; and I'm voting 3rd party in the fall. And all because the two National Committees chose to defend the current system and punished states that dared to buck the system to protest the inherent unfairness of the current primary system. There should be one national primary day, with all states being treated equally, not four of the states being elevated at the expense of all others.
It would be poetic justice if there was a tie in the electoral college in November, and it all fell to Michigan to cast the deciding vote. That won't happen, of course, but then, who figured that it would all boil down to Florida in 2000, which both parties have chosen to disenfranchise as well as Michigan? They really ought to think about that.
One party has completely disenfranchised Michigan's voters, while the other has stripped Michigan of half of its delegates to the party's national convention, effectively turning every vote into a half-vote.
The Democratic Party added insult to injury when most of the Democratic candidates decided to withdraw their names from the ballot and announced that they were boycotting Michigan's primary. Not one of them had the guts to come into the state and announce it in person.
As far as I'm concerned, the candidates that withdrew their names shouldn't be able to fundraise here for their primary campaigns either. They should be writing refund checks out to every Michigan voter who has contributed money to their campaigns from the time that they announced their candidacy to today.
They can go to the Federal Election Commission web site to figure out who to write the checks to. In the meantime, they can go play in traffic.
On the GOP side, the Republican National Convention stripped Michigan of half of it's delegates to their convention, along with all the other January primary states. Following that same formula, the GOP candidates should also return 1/2 of the money raised here. They can take my half-vote and stick it where the sun don't shine.
So, since our votes are worthless in the Democratic Party, and worth a half-vote in the GOP, why exactly should Michigan voters show up on January 15th?
I'm not voting on the 15th; and I'm voting 3rd party in the fall. And all because the two National Committees chose to defend the current system and punished states that dared to buck the system to protest the inherent unfairness of the current primary system. There should be one national primary day, with all states being treated equally, not four of the states being elevated at the expense of all others.
It would be poetic justice if there was a tie in the electoral college in November, and it all fell to Michigan to cast the deciding vote. That won't happen, of course, but then, who figured that it would all boil down to Florida in 2000, which both parties have chosen to disenfranchise as well as Michigan? They really ought to think about that.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
Fistfight on the House Floor: Not the Lawmakers...the PAGES??!
The congressional page saga continues to go from odd to outright weird. One year after a Florida congressman resigned and went home in disgrace because of his sexually explicit text messages to male pages, other pages are getting into the act.
Five pages have been sent home in the last three months for everything from oral sex in an elevator at the page dorm to shoplifting to fistfighting on the House floor.
What the??!
These kids are supposed to be the cream of the crop from across the country. What is happening with the House page program? I thought this stuff was being addressed in the wake of the scandal involving the congressman mentioned above. Instead, two Republican House members have resigned over how the program is being administered.
Can't Congress get ANYTHING right?
Five pages have been sent home in the last three months for everything from oral sex in an elevator at the page dorm to shoplifting to fistfighting on the House floor.
What the??!
These kids are supposed to be the cream of the crop from across the country. What is happening with the House page program? I thought this stuff was being addressed in the wake of the scandal involving the congressman mentioned above. Instead, two Republican House members have resigned over how the program is being administered.
Can't Congress get ANYTHING right?
Oprah Joins Obama Campaign: Is This a Smart Move on Obama's Part?
The news media is making a big deal about the fact that Oprah Winfrey is joining the Barak Obama campaign for part of a tour through Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire.
Does Obama really want the distraction that someone like Oprah will bring with her? Who's the media going to be more interested in talking to: Obama or Oprah?
Can Obama really afford this, with the race being as tight as it is?
While I compliment Oprah for becoming involved in the campaign as actively as she has, I don't think that celebrities should be sharing the stage with the candidates. It takes the focus off the candidate. Part of the public's imagination will be captured by the Obama/Oprah alliance, but who will the media pay more attention to?
Mark my words, they'll tune in to Oprah, every single time.
Does Obama really want the distraction that someone like Oprah will bring with her? Who's the media going to be more interested in talking to: Obama or Oprah?
Can Obama really afford this, with the race being as tight as it is?
While I compliment Oprah for becoming involved in the campaign as actively as she has, I don't think that celebrities should be sharing the stage with the candidates. It takes the focus off the candidate. Part of the public's imagination will be captured by the Obama/Oprah alliance, but who will the media pay more attention to?
Mark my words, they'll tune in to Oprah, every single time.
Reid Proposes Doing Cartwheels Down Aisles of Senate to Draw Attention to GOP Blocks of Democratic Legislation: Poor Baby
Senate Majority Leader Reid is growing more frustrated with his inability to get the Senate to pass Democratic bills and stooped to proposing that legislators do cartwheels on the floor of the Senate to draw attention to President Bush's "49 puppets" who are in his way.
Poor Senator Reid. Perhaps he should resign and turn the leadership of the Senate over to someone who is more capable of working with the puppets to pass needed legislation.
But first, I'd like to see him try to do a cartwheel, along with some of his associates. The fat ones can stay in their seats. No need to break a hip or anything else and cause more of a farce in the Senate above and beyond what's happening right now under Senator Reid's outstanding leadership.
Cartwheels, my afterburner!
Poor Senator Reid. Perhaps he should resign and turn the leadership of the Senate over to someone who is more capable of working with the puppets to pass needed legislation.
But first, I'd like to see him try to do a cartwheel, along with some of his associates. The fat ones can stay in their seats. No need to break a hip or anything else and cause more of a farce in the Senate above and beyond what's happening right now under Senator Reid's outstanding leadership.
Cartwheels, my afterburner!
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Venezuela's Collapsing Economy Should Be Watched Carefully in This Country: There's a Valuable Lesson for the U.S. Government to be Found Here
Venezuela's out-of-control spending increased their inflation by an amazing 4.4% last month to 18.6%, according to international economists. And it looks to get much worse unless it's government reigns in it's own spending. If it keeps up at that rate, Venezuela's oil profits will not be enough to keep it above water.
And now there are reports of shortages of basic goods and food in Venezuela, which could seriously destabilize the communist wanna-be government of Hugo Chavez. Food costs in Venezuela have gone up 33% in spite of government attempts to influence prices of major domestic commodities.
People in our own government should be watching what's happening to prices in Venezuela's economy and declining currency, as the same thing could happen here if Congress and the White House don't get a handle on OUR out-of-control government spending.
As it is, the U.S. debt is somewhere near $10 trillion. Venezuela's debt is a fraction of ours, but Venezuela doesn't have the economic power that our nation does and so is much more vulnerable to economic chaos than we are. When our economy declines, it's a gradual event. But in a smaller nation like Venezuela, it's like someone's hit the fast forward button. Changes are quite sudden and get real bad, real fast.
Are the decision-makers in this country paying attention?
And now there are reports of shortages of basic goods and food in Venezuela, which could seriously destabilize the communist wanna-be government of Hugo Chavez. Food costs in Venezuela have gone up 33% in spite of government attempts to influence prices of major domestic commodities.
People in our own government should be watching what's happening to prices in Venezuela's economy and declining currency, as the same thing could happen here if Congress and the White House don't get a handle on OUR out-of-control government spending.
As it is, the U.S. debt is somewhere near $10 trillion. Venezuela's debt is a fraction of ours, but Venezuela doesn't have the economic power that our nation does and so is much more vulnerable to economic chaos than we are. When our economy declines, it's a gradual event. But in a smaller nation like Venezuela, it's like someone's hit the fast forward button. Changes are quite sudden and get real bad, real fast.
Are the decision-makers in this country paying attention?
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Romney Shouldn't Have to Make a Speech on His Religious Views to Appease Religious Right
It seems to me that religious Conservatives shouldn't be criticizing Mitt Romney over his religious views. If he adheres to his religious beliefs, which at it's base professes a belief in God and in Jesus Christ, then there really shouldn't be an issue.
This all sounds familiar. The arguments being made against Romney's Mormon faith are similar to what fundamentalists have made against Catholic candidates ever since the country was founded. "That religion isn't even Christian" is nothing but 18th and 19th Century Protestant propaganda. Yet it shares some of the beliefs of both Protestant and Catholic churches, despite having some major differences.
People have a narrow view of history. Since our country was started, there have been four Baptists, one Catholic, one Congregationalist, three Disciples of Christ, two Dutch Reformed, twelve Episcopals, one Jehovah's Witness (later a Presbyterian), four Methodists, five Presbyterians, two Quakers, four Unitarians, and four people who did not belong to a religious denomination (including Abraham Lincoln) or didn't have a belief in God at all, who have served as President of the United States.
People use the JFK speech on his Catholic beliefs to justify what Romney is doing now. I don't think it's necessary. Haven't we, as a nation and as an electorate, evolved beyond this?
What should be worrisome should be where Romney stands on abortion now, where he stands on seeking an eventual end to the ground war in Iraq, what kind of judges he will nominate, and where he stands on protecting the Constitution vs. "National Security."
There are aspects of the Mormon faith that I do find very troubling, but I've known enough Mormons to know that there's two sides to an issue when discussing this religion. And it seems that those who are criticizing Romney are focusing on one side exclusively (their issues with Romney's religion) versus how the man has lived his life, which is quite a bit better than some of the others on the GOP ticket that the fundamentalists themselves are supporting.
Personally, I think Huckabee and Romney would be a great GOP ticket against the eventual Democratic nominee and his/her VP choice.
This all sounds familiar. The arguments being made against Romney's Mormon faith are similar to what fundamentalists have made against Catholic candidates ever since the country was founded. "That religion isn't even Christian" is nothing but 18th and 19th Century Protestant propaganda. Yet it shares some of the beliefs of both Protestant and Catholic churches, despite having some major differences.
People have a narrow view of history. Since our country was started, there have been four Baptists, one Catholic, one Congregationalist, three Disciples of Christ, two Dutch Reformed, twelve Episcopals, one Jehovah's Witness (later a Presbyterian), four Methodists, five Presbyterians, two Quakers, four Unitarians, and four people who did not belong to a religious denomination (including Abraham Lincoln) or didn't have a belief in God at all, who have served as President of the United States.
People use the JFK speech on his Catholic beliefs to justify what Romney is doing now. I don't think it's necessary. Haven't we, as a nation and as an electorate, evolved beyond this?
What should be worrisome should be where Romney stands on abortion now, where he stands on seeking an eventual end to the ground war in Iraq, what kind of judges he will nominate, and where he stands on protecting the Constitution vs. "National Security."
There are aspects of the Mormon faith that I do find very troubling, but I've known enough Mormons to know that there's two sides to an issue when discussing this religion. And it seems that those who are criticizing Romney are focusing on one side exclusively (their issues with Romney's religion) versus how the man has lived his life, which is quite a bit better than some of the others on the GOP ticket that the fundamentalists themselves are supporting.
Personally, I think Huckabee and Romney would be a great GOP ticket against the eventual Democratic nominee and his/her VP choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)