More, we want more!

Alright, we are finally getting somewhere with this so called Plame Gate investigation. The far left Bush haters are salivating at the prospect of expanding this current development into something more.
Yeah, more, we want more!
They will not stop their tenacious attacks on Bush via the media until they bring this government to its knees if that's what it takes.
Why? Extreme left wing mantra: “He lied and soldiers died.”
It could not possibly be that he was convinced by the multiple attacks against US interests around the world and finally a devastating attack on US soil by groups sharing a common cause. Wordwide Islamic terrorism with the US as prime target #1? Afghanistan and Iraq being the two countries signalling their hostility towards the US at that time.
Left wing’s response: Overblown by Bush, rush to war.
Why #2? Extreme left wing mantra: “Katrina..., just Katrina!”
The FEMA and pre-FEMA rule was that it normally takes 72 hours for the feds to get to disasters and that local/state officials should carry the burden till then. No, its Bush’s fault … he was a day late and he is the one that is 99% at fault. “Brownie”, who handled relief efforts successfully for several hurricanes before, was made the scapegoat.
Left wing’s stance: "Bush, incompetent and his staff, all incompetent."
It would be great to dispute some more left wing media slogans but I digress.

Don’t get me wrong, if “Scooter” was lying and he is proven to have done so, he belongs in jail.
Why, however, is it necessary to “throw the book” at him? Five indictments out of the same single question about who spoke to who first and the resulting alleged lie? Boy, the special prosecutor is really covering all the bases on this one.

“By piling on similar charges, legal specialists said, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is following a common prosecutorial practice of citing every statute that is relevant to the facts in order to bolster his case and make it more difficult for Libby to defend himself.”

Yes, it's "common" if a prosecutor is trying to make a name for himself or is under heavy pressure to make something, anything, happen.
My guess is that the investigation had to bear some kind of fruit because of all the political speculation during the preceeding months.
Why? Extreme lefties aiming high: First Libby, then Rove, then Cheney and finally that most evil of all evils, Bush.
Such prosecutorial zeal for what may turn out to be a simple case of one deficient recollection.
My concern is that we may be seeing the development of a newly refined tactic in our political process. The tactic is “smear till it utterly destroys” and use the media to make this happen.
By way of informed friends and bloggers there is still some semblance of common sense on both sides of these partisan divides. Unfortunately, there are many well meaning moderate liberals and conservatives who genuinely care about this country who are being hi-jacked into weakening this great country.
Destroy the country because Democrats need the White House.
Why? So those media hyped far left Democrats that never spell out their own platforms and whom the likes of Soros, Kerry, Kennedy and Michael Moore are promoting can come in and solve all our problems.

Intelligent Evolution?

What is wrong with ninth graders hearing about the concept of Intelligent Design. Would they be corrupted in some way because of this exposure?
I think not.
The operative word is "hear". Students would not be required to believe it. They would just hear about it. The same way that countless of generations of students did before them.
OK, OK, separation of church and state, I know. The thing is, no one is even talking about God here. It may as well be an advanced alien civilization with a master plan/experiment for all we know. Alas, it makes no difference to the proponents of evolutionary exclusivity.
The concept of intelligent design is not new. The concept, until the last century, has been the only logical explanation of how everything formed in such an "extremely complicated but constructive'' manner through the ages. As part of this discussion, it should be made clear that this is the concept that civilizations all over the world and throughout time immemorial have viewed their existence.
What's wrong with that?
The recent interest by some prominent academics , even though still in opposition, should give some renewed momentum for ID. I can only hope that more academics finally start to debate the issue pro or con and disregard the peer pressure from their colleagues to ignore it completely. At least challenge "the guiding hand" concept by citing better science and admit that the idea is not as bad as the ACLU and other so-called special interest groups make it out to be.

Looting. Why wait for a disaster?

I just saw this and I had to wonder "when did it become OK to loot?" When Katrina hit New Orleans the widespread looting that followed was certainly a national embarrassment. Watching this activity being perpetrated by my countrymen was humiliating. All I could envision is the reporting of this in the international press and having our status as the world's economic superpower be once again belittled.
Have the Mexican people in Cancun learned this behavior from us? Is this a case of learned behavior through the broadcast media? Is it really accepted behavior now?
Here on the South Shore of Boston, we recently had a lot of torrential rain storms and flooding has caused serious problems throughout the New England states. In Taunton, Massachusetts, there was an old wooden dam built about 150 years ago which was holding back water which, if it ever failed, would have flooded the downtown area with at least 6 feet of water. When the wooden supports started to buckle recently and the news media reported an evacuation of the downtown section, the local joke among neighbors and friends was as follows:
Why wait for the flooding to actually happen? Loot before it floods! That way, the groceries, televisions and sundries will be in pristine condition and not water-soaked like they appeared to be in New Orleans and Cancun.
I hope it remains just a joke.

Rove's error of omission.

OK, let me get this straight.
When interviewed by the special prosecutor investigating the alleged "outing of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent", Karl Rove forgot about a conversation that he had years ago with a reporter. When he discovered an old e-mail that jogged his memory, he immediately brought this to the investigator's attention. He did have other similar conversations later but they were all considered to be fairly innocuous when they were fully investigated.
The results: No laws were found to be broken!
So that should be the end of the story.

But NOOO!!
Now, the prosecutor is considering a criminal indictment for "obstruction of justice". His expected conclusion? Rove misled the investigation.
The lesson in all this: Avoid public service unless you are in command of a perfect memory or you're already a high ranking Democrat.
Let's contrast this with another special independent counsel investigation not so many years ago.
During the Whitewater investigation when Hillary was interviewed, she used the answer "can't recall" (or something similar) hundreds of times and her husband Bill used similar phrased responses even more times.
NO PROBLEM!
Rove one time? BIG PROBLEM!
With the great left-right partisan divide heating up the last few years, I pray that the Justice Department is not becoming a political tool. It is one Genie that should never be let out of the bottle. The consequences are too horrific too imagine.

Saddam, Mister Nice Guy?

What is it with the New York Times these days. Negative nabobs.. oops, sorry Spiro.
Their OpEd piece draws the conclusion that the US and Iraq government just can't get anything right. Their slant on the trial of Saddam Hussein is that its a circus (my word). Saddam's rights are being violated? Who are these self appointed left-wing proponents of defendants' rights?
Let me just indulge myself into one factor as the cause for this type of reporting and ignore, for now, the obvious left-wing slant that is politically inspired.
I can understand (don't agree with) the old-time concept of left-wing academics and their young hordes of converts for admiring revolutionary movements and their charismatic leaders.
Viva Che!
There were times when this adoration was "reasonable" with respect to movements to evict tyrannical fascist dictatorships and give power back to the "people".
Protest against all ills, real or imagined became fashionable here in the USA in the 60's and 70's.
The spirit of protest by these converts against "the people's" oppressors soon devolved into protest against the establishment, any establishment.
HELLO, establishment is good. Law and order is good. Ask any Iraqi, even a Sunni Arab if they would feel more safe if they had some semblance of law and order. I'll bet they cannot even imagine the system of justice that we here in the US enjoy and take for granted.
I suspect there are some elements of these converts, now in the full bloom of maturity, that still carry this derailed spirit of protest as part of their psyche. They view the establishment (government) as evil and always looking to "screw" the people and are still driven by the old spirit of protest to "expose" any perceived governmental failure. Their zeal and relish for exposing government shortcomings are of the same intensity as the quest to bring down the worst tyranny the world has ever known.
I'm afraid that some of these same converts are writing, reporting or editing for today's MSM.
Is the current phenomenon of giving favorable notoriety to the likes of Saddam Hussein (the butcher of Baghdad), a warped sense of reality by MSM? This pathology of left-wing ideology may be part of the answer.
Is it Viva Saddam now?
OK, that's "over the top", I admit, but reading the Op-Ed piece in the NYT just made me search my mind for any kind of plausible explanation for this type of negative slant to their opinions.

Intro

Hi there! Welcome to my blog! This is my first posting on my own blog page. I am a man who resides in the South Shore of Boston, Massachusetts. Politically, I'm slightly right of center. I used to be a liberal on most issues a while back but things have changed during the last few years and so have I. Most of the policies of this Bush administration are reasonable and I'm in agreement with them. Some of the policies I disagree with and I will not defend those policies. In fact, I will let my feelings be known about these unfair policies.
I will attempt to share some insights and maybe share some of my lifetime experiences. My only motive for this (without sounding pompous) is to learn and then share what I have learned with you.
I know that this brief introduction is sketchy at best but I would like to keep most of who I am to myself for now.
Journalism was never my forte but I will pay due diligence to the craft and pray I do not disappoint anyone who stops by my site.