Friday, May 12, 2006

The Mother of all Double Standards

So a member of both the House of Representatives and the legendary Kennedy family drives erratically, and smacks into a barricade in the road. What happens next? Well, if it were you or I doing this, we'd be tested for drunk driving, and most likely spend the rest of the night in the slammer.
But when you're a highly-placed politician, apparently, you are given a ride home by the cops, without even the most cursory field testing for impairment. It's just not possible to imagine a more brazen example of a cover-up based on political favoritism.
Wondering where Mothers Against Drunk Driving might stand on this scandal, I checked their website, and was pleasantly surprised to see a statement (cycnically, I had fully expected to see no reference at all). However, closer examination revealed a complete fumble:

"Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) supports the United States Capitol Police Department’s decision to thoroughly review this incident and examine the Department’s current procedures concerning crashes where impairment due to alcohol or drug use is suspected. We have great faith that the investigation will clarify the facts and determine appropriate outcomes of this situation."

Can you imagine such a tolerant stance if the careening driver had been a Republican? The outcry would be deafening. So MADD supports a decision to "Thoroughly review" the incident? Where are the demands for procedures to be applied to everyone, regardless of political status or affiliation? Could MADD have a partisan reason to treat Patrick Kennedy with kid gloves? It certainly wouldn't be the first time, but it's sickening to see it on such brazen display in this day and age.

Way to stand up for your principles, MADD.

posted by ET @ 11:41 AM 0 comments

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

The Bush hatefest

What is the source of the vitriolic hatred of George Bush? He can scarcely be called a conservative; witness his orgy of federal spending, and his mild-mannered accommodation of abortion, borders, and other items dear to conservatives. Sure, he went to war and took out Sadddam Hussein, but even this by itself couldn't give rise to the mantra of "Worst president ever" that is quickly gaining acceptance among the cognoscenti.

There's something deeper, and it can't be just his Christianity; both Clinton and Kerry were careful to display their churchin'-up creds, so what could it be? "Miserable failure", "Bush is worse than Hitler" (not even an acknowledgement of the word "Hyperbole", here), and others too numerous to specify have been adopted by the national discourse, no matter how many zillions of dollars Bush pledges to spend on the AIDS lobby.

Those who say there's no difference between the two parties are probably onto something a bit more substantial than those who wake up and start shaking with anger at the realization that Bush is president instead of John Kerry - but even this position is somewhat bankrupt, as it fails to acknowledge the very different voting records of the House and Senate.

A quick scan of events reveals that Bush is to blame for failing to prevent 9/11, although the Clinton administration apparently had absolutely nothing to do with the build-up of preceding events. Bush also is 'responsible' for the ravages of hurricane Katrina, and for alienating Europe, as well. To the vast majority of those on the shrill spectrum, Bush can do absolutely nothing right, and will get credit for nothing when he leaves office.

But why? Sure, he cut taxes, but not by all that much, and not even permanently. He's met scarcely any government programs he disliked enough to try to cut funding for, and can hardly be accused of putting his weight behind truly conservative causes.

The answer is most likely that the Democratic party has succeeded in defining the Republican party as "Evil", and put way more effort into indoctrinating youth with this view, such that a legion of robots has grown up repeating this lie, and believing it wholeheartedly.

Whatever happened to the "Think for yourself" movement? Free speech is a wonderful accomplishment of our constitution, but there appears to be no way to legislate free minds. Oh, well.

posted by ET @ 11:49 AM 0 comments