I grew up in Providence, Utah–a small town in Northern Utah. As I was visiting my parents last week, I saw a front page story in the local paper titled, “The Spoils of Security.” A picture showed what the local emergency response officials had purchased with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The picture showed a tent to wash victims of chemical and biological attacks and help victims of terrorist attacks. I sure looks like a waste of money to me.
I now live in Arlington, Virginia–the home of the Pentagon and site of a terrorist attack. When I watched the fireworks on July 4, and noticed the tents for helping the victims of chemical and biological attack, it made sense. Spending money to provide the same type of safety for small towns in Utah doesn’t make sense.
While it doesn’t make rational sense for the Department of Homeland Security to give grants to small towns in Utah, sadly, it makes political sense. As soon as the pork barrels start rolling, politicians will keep them rolling so that federal dollars flow freely to everywhere in the country, regardless of the threat of terrorism. It’s too bad, since all of us will end up paying for protection from terrorism in places that don’t need it.
I can’t help but wonder what Dina Matos McGreevey was thinking when she appear so demurely next to her husband as he announced he was gay. From the Post, here’s some interesting commentary on her and modern political marriage:
Surely, it’s taking the moral high ground to be loyal, not simply to ditch a person you’ve loved enough to have a child with. It might be argued (and I would agree) that Dina McGreevey’s most intimate feelings are not the public’s business. And there’s something admirable about remaining silent and displaying grace under pressure.So perhaps what’s troubling is the way that Dina McGreevey’s sphinx-like presence at her husband’s side seems like yet another aspect of the message we’ve been getting lately about the role of the wife, the political wife in particular, and, by extension, women. The stalwart, forgiving angel with endless patience and charity for the prodigal husband is the Victorian model, noble enough to be sure, but lacking certain qualities that we now recognize as fully human. What about pride and dignity, integrity, self-awareness?
Though this summer’s remake of “The Stepford Wives” rapidly disappeared from the movie theaters, the robotic spouse remains alive and well in the American psyche. As our culture grows more conservative, men (and many women, too) have less trouble admitting that actually they prefer our women compliant, supportive, free of troubling personality quirks like outspokenness or ambition.
If Hillary Clinton, who is incredibly smart, driven, and ambitious, didn’t speak out about her husband’s infidelity, will any woman married to a politician speak out?
Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners
I think Nick Gillespie has a great point about the Kerry and his Vietnam troubles:
An observation: You’ve got to hand it to the Democrats. They enter a presidential race against a guy who clearly worked to evade active service in Vietnam and manage to nominate a multiply decorated vet whose service record somehow becomes the focus of attention. Yes, there is an orchestrated attempt by the GOP to throw questions onto Kerry (a process he’s abetted with his changing Cambodian story, among other things). But if anybody is wondering why the Dems are on the threshold of becoming a permananent minority party, this latest screwup is one indication of incompetence that used to be a Republican hallmark.
This Swift Vet stuff wouldn’t be a story if Kerry hadn’t spent the entire Democratic Convention touting his war record.
This is according to Drudge, so take it with a large grain of salt:
Kerry’s campaign now says is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound…
- Kerry received Purple Heart for wounds suffered on 12/2/68…
- In Kerry’s own journal written 9 days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, ‘hadn’t been shot at yet’… Developing…
Via Hit and Run:
Fox News pulls together some of the brewing controversy about a forthcoming report from the inspector general of Iraq’s former Coalition Provisonal Authority indicating that they can’t adequately account for $8.8 billion they spent.
…
In one example reported by Reuters, “8,206 guards were listed on a payroll but only 603 people doing the work could be counted.”
Check out the entire post on Virginia Postrel’s blog about the Christmas in Cambodia story. It provides better background that other stories. Virginia concludes her post with this:
And once you’re done checking out this story, could you give us some information on Kerry’s likely policy toward Iranian nukes?
This NY Times article is awfully irritating. The Times opines:
The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the “baby killer” and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’ prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men’s own statements.
That may be true, but it is also true that Kerry is lying about his war record, a record which the NY Times calls “a pillar of his campaign.” As the NY Times only acknowledges at the end of this 3,500 word article:
This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry’s campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry’s Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.
The Times doesn’t bother to explain why it is important that Kerry said he was in Cambodia for Christmas of 1968. Kerry said on the floor of the Senate that being in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968 when Nixon was President was an experience that was “seared” into his memory.
Kerry lies. He has lied for years and he is lying now. The man cannot be trusted, and while I dislike that George W. Bush has done as President, Kerry is lying scum.
The NY Times doesn’t believe in freedom of speech. That is the unexcapable conclusion from reading this NY Times editorial. This is what Mickey Kaus has to say about the NY Times’ attack on the freedom of speech:
I do know that if freedom of speech means anything it means that a group of citizens can get together to bring up this sort of charge against a presidential candidate, subject to the laws of libel. But read this New York Times editorial and see if you can avoid concluding that the Times doesn’t think the Swift Boat Veterans Ad should be stopped because it might be financed with corporate or union money in violation of the spirit of McCain-Feingold. The Times doesn’t even really think it should be stopped because it was financed by a rich individual Republican (something that’s clearly perfectly legal under McCain-Feingold as long as the group running the ads is not incorporated). The Times thinks the ad should be stopped because you just shouldn’t be able to make such “outlandish” independent charges in a campaign. They’re against the speech, not the financing. Like Kerry, they’re trying to come up with a “process” reason that avoids the inconveniently messy issue of truth. But their process reason–an attack on “independent” criticism per se–seems particularly dangerous.