Getting a call from the Kootenai County Farmer's Market this morning that our first meeting has been canceled due to the weather... Yeah, snowing and blowing and the temp readings on my HP are 27*. Wow. Now that is what you would have to call one crazy winter. Ground Hog, you fouled up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Crooks writing in his Smart Bombs column on this Saturday the 29th of March (calender must be off by two months, you sure this is March?) in full rebuttal to GW's latest position on Iraq. I had listened to GW's Iraq speech before heading off to work and started rolling my eyes at the highly blatant fabrications. Having an opportunity to get a bit more of a handle on the mess, seems the Al Maliki gvt has chosen to start a war with the Mahdi Army. We shall recall that Sadr had announced a ceasefire which enabled a calm of some months to be established around parts of Iraq inclusive of Baghdad. But following the pull-out by the British troops from Basra, seems the vacuum that was created by the pull-out was as much about turf as who would get the black gold--oil. It looks to me that the Al Maliki gvt had the time to work with the majority Shi'ite populace in Basra over peaceable allocations of anything and simply did not choose to do so. Then when the power struggle began because of the in-action of the al Maliki gvt., it became this "defining moment" according to GW that upon an announced direction of the U.S. that al Maliki would send in the Iraqi security forces to take on and defeat the "criminal elements." Of course, as Mr. Crooks was to affirm, the Iraqi Security Forces weren't exactly taking on the enemy by themselves. They had plenty of U.S. Military assistance.
Just wondering, if the attacks on the international green zone were in response to the events in Basra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found, a couple of letters in the Spokesman-Review's Roundtable. Sandie Lowry of Spokane Valley and Leonard C. Johnson of Moscow, Idaho were reacting to the death of a child, Nevaeh Miller. Seems the baby was killed by a "shaken baby" syndrome. Lowry was sniveling about those irresponsible women who have babies and don't want to "take care of them" by handing them off to the "boyfriend of the month" who then turns on the child for whatever excuse that Lowry can dream up. And Johnson wants to blame Planned Parenthood for the boyfriend who caused the child's death.
Interesting. Couldn't have been two letters that were definitely poles apart as to interpretations of events. Planned Parenthood primarily works with women to have only the children they actually want and at the time when they actually care to have them. And so, one of Planned Parenthood's jobs is to dispense birth control measures. On the other hand, anti-abortionists such as Johnson absolutely oppose even birth control measures linking them to abortions. Then comes Lowry who absolutely opposes irresponsible women having baby after baby. Sounds like an argument for birth control. If Neveah's mother had practiced birth control then Neveah wouldn't have been born to suffer becoming a victim to her mother's boyfriend. But, but, but sputters Johnson.
Don't you just love how tangled up "moral judgments" can become when they are linked to politics?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't love "Bob's" clever concepts of an Idaho "conservative" on the Huckleberries on-line (S-R) blog. But then they like ITK (In the Know) or John Duh for example who love spouting don't seem to love seeing the mirror shoved into their faces. The case of the "Idaho conservative" is like that of the radicals who oppose what ever on the principle that it is there to be opposed; who act like an ignorant type out of the backwoods, or a highly vocal bully. Never mind what the "conservative principles" happened to be in the 1992 GOP platform; let's label anything "conservative" because it sounds purtier than wild-eyed radical. Even when it trots hell-bent toward the deep end off the left side of the pool. Because I am an Idaho native, I fully appreciated "Bob's" very snarky and truly funny comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Crooks writing in his Smart Bombs column on this Saturday the 29th of March (calender must be off by two months, you sure this is March?) in full rebuttal to GW's latest position on Iraq. I had listened to GW's Iraq speech before heading off to work and started rolling my eyes at the highly blatant fabrications. Having an opportunity to get a bit more of a handle on the mess, seems the Al Maliki gvt has chosen to start a war with the Mahdi Army. We shall recall that Sadr had announced a ceasefire which enabled a calm of some months to be established around parts of Iraq inclusive of Baghdad. But following the pull-out by the British troops from Basra, seems the vacuum that was created by the pull-out was as much about turf as who would get the black gold--oil. It looks to me that the Al Maliki gvt had the time to work with the majority Shi'ite populace in Basra over peaceable allocations of anything and simply did not choose to do so. Then when the power struggle began because of the in-action of the al Maliki gvt., it became this "defining moment" according to GW that upon an announced direction of the U.S. that al Maliki would send in the Iraqi security forces to take on and defeat the "criminal elements." Of course, as Mr. Crooks was to affirm, the Iraqi Security Forces weren't exactly taking on the enemy by themselves. They had plenty of U.S. Military assistance.
Just wondering, if the attacks on the international green zone were in response to the events in Basra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found, a couple of letters in the Spokesman-Review's Roundtable. Sandie Lowry of Spokane Valley and Leonard C. Johnson of Moscow, Idaho were reacting to the death of a child, Nevaeh Miller. Seems the baby was killed by a "shaken baby" syndrome. Lowry was sniveling about those irresponsible women who have babies and don't want to "take care of them" by handing them off to the "boyfriend of the month" who then turns on the child for whatever excuse that Lowry can dream up. And Johnson wants to blame Planned Parenthood for the boyfriend who caused the child's death.
Interesting. Couldn't have been two letters that were definitely poles apart as to interpretations of events. Planned Parenthood primarily works with women to have only the children they actually want and at the time when they actually care to have them. And so, one of Planned Parenthood's jobs is to dispense birth control measures. On the other hand, anti-abortionists such as Johnson absolutely oppose even birth control measures linking them to abortions. Then comes Lowry who absolutely opposes irresponsible women having baby after baby. Sounds like an argument for birth control. If Neveah's mother had practiced birth control then Neveah wouldn't have been born to suffer becoming a victim to her mother's boyfriend. But, but, but sputters Johnson.
Don't you just love how tangled up "moral judgments" can become when they are linked to politics?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't love "Bob's" clever concepts of an Idaho "conservative" on the Huckleberries on-line (S-R) blog. But then they like ITK (In the Know) or John Duh for example who love spouting don't seem to love seeing the mirror shoved into their faces. The case of the "Idaho conservative" is like that of the radicals who oppose what ever on the principle that it is there to be opposed; who act like an ignorant type out of the backwoods, or a highly vocal bully. Never mind what the "conservative principles" happened to be in the 1992 GOP platform; let's label anything "conservative" because it sounds purtier than wild-eyed radical. Even when it trots hell-bent toward the deep end off the left side of the pool. Because I am an Idaho native, I fully appreciated "Bob's" very snarky and truly funny comments.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment