Thanks and Sorry

Every now and then I end up on someone else's blog and I find myself reading, if not for entertainment, for sheer morbid curiosity. I mourned the loss of Spicy Monkey, and the other guy that only posts about once a month. I even check out the womanizing Tony Pierce sometimes. But lately I've found myself here. It all started with him commenting on mine, me commenting on his, and now I've seen him link to me a few times. He's even checked out my photos. I find it kind of weird that someone would find my blog interesting enough to not only read it for more than 10 seconds, but to return AND tell other people about it. However, it's also kind of flattering. So thanks.

But I am tired of the generalized name-calling.

In general, I try to keep my political rants to a minimum, mostly because I feel that nearly every politician is full of shit, republican or democrat. Or green or libertarian or whatever they're calling themselves nowadays. So I link to political places instead of talking about them (that ticker board for the Cost of War sure was interesting). People should make up their own minds when they get the facts, not let someone tell them what to think. So I disseminate information rather then spew opinions.

But here is the question: Why do republicans so often rebut criticism of Dub. by screaming ..but Clinton!!....? I suppose democrats aren't the only dodgers.

It's almost like the old ruse of pointing and yelling "look, up in the sky!" and then running like hell when your opponent looks away. Clinton wasn't perfect. He let a lot of people down. In fact, I don't think there has been a single great president during my lifetime. But I really hate Dub. Make no mistake about it. I hated him from the second he announced that he thought drilling in ANWR was a good idea. You know, for business. Oil business. For all those needy Hummers. And that was before the WTC.

So anyway, aforementioned blogger Bobensero cited an article from the Washington Times, but left out tidbits like this: "Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," (those words "for Wartime" are the important part) and this "In 1997, there was grumbling that the inauguration cost too much." and this "A Jan. 20, 1997, story by USA Today estimated about $12.7 million of Mr. Clinton's inauguration was financed by U.S. taxpayers. Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year." So if you really want to compare, Herr D made his good hosts in the District of Columbia pay for more than the scapegoat. And that's to make sure someone doesn't bust a cap in his ass, even though it would serve him right. In case you really wanted to read the fine print.

But I'm not blind. I know that everyone in politics is shady. But while there is a republican in the White House (actually, just this one) I'm going to let everyone know that I wish he weren't. And the mantra of Clinton did such-and-such is no defense for the man that sent my brother to war, raised the deficit by astronomical amounts to do so, lowered the regulations and standards for the meat packing inustries, and raised the difficulty of being anything other than a white straight christian male to the point he thinks he needs Constitutional Ammendments to back him up.

Every day I hope that he will finally be outed as the criminal he is, and be put to death by the very system he set up.