Wednesday Potpourri!

Happy St. Patrick’s Day! Not that I really consider myself Irish (or Irish-American), but “Coughlan” is an Irish name — at least some of my ancestors hail from the Emerald Isle.

I took Sasha to the vet this morning, for her first diabetes regulation appointment. Yes, we’ve decided to go ahead and try treating her with insulin. It’ll cost a lot of money, but I’m more concerned with the logistics. She’s been on oral antibiotics for the last several days, and it’s tough enough catching her for that. Add an injection into the mix, and I have serious doubts we’ll be able to get her to come out of hiding on a regular basis. Still, some insulin is better than no insulin; we may not be able to continue treatment, but we owe it to her to try.

Tom recently brought up three “Political Trends I Can Live Without” I only agree with him on one of the three, but it’s good food for thought (after all, he mentions me specifically in his first point). As to his second point — the steadfast refusal of some of us to recognize Duh-bya as a legitimate president (for example, Joseph Finn over at In Apprehension... continues to refer to Dennis Hastert as the Constitutionally mandated president) — I’d point you to a little Flash presentation I recently ran across, Grand Theft America. Not that it’s going to convince anyone who’s already aware of the depth of corruption in the 2000 election. But since the recounts are all anyone heard about in the media, this might help inform some of those who didn’t know that a judicial coup wasn’t the only thing that swept little George into office. And it’s fun to watch.

Is anyone else seriously looking forward to seeing Bush’s Brain? From what I’ve read, it’s a flawed picture, but if it’s at all watchable, I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t radically alter the perceptions of the American people. Then again, I can’t imagine the American people tearing themselves away from Fear Factor long enough to actually watch anything of import.

Quick recipe on how to lose an election: Rush out to blame your personal bugaboo for your country’s most devastating terrorist attack in modern history. Keep pounding that point home, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Watch as actual evidence shows you were completely wrong. Hmm... is there a lesson to be learned here? A parallel with someone else? Anyone? Anyone?

David Bach, in an Op-Ed column in today’s Post, says that he doesn’t think the terrorists will come away with the message that their tactics worked. I wouldn’t go that far — I think the terrorists will believe what they want to believe — but I do think his central point is valid: The Spanish people didn’t vote out the Popular Party because they feared the terrorists. They voted them out because the administration lied to them. All of the Bush regime’s not-so-veiled efforts to paint the Spaniards as cowards aren’t likely to win them any friends; as usual, they’re completely missing the point.

It looks like the Dems are finally starting to get the message: For the foreseeable future, there can be no truce with the Republican establishment. Particularly when it comes to ethics violations. All I have to add to that is what the hell took you so damn long? The GOP machine declared war on you years ago.

And finally, the Bush propaganda machine is demanding that Kerry name those foreign leaders who he alleged have told him they hoped he would win the upcoming election. I’m not one to defend little George’s goon squad, by any stretch of the imagination, but — unlike his “most crooked... lying group” comments, which were right on the money — this was a really stupid claim for Kerry to make. Not only because it smacks of truth-stretching (Kerry hasn’t left the country anytime recently, so when did these supposed conversations take place?), but because given its very nature, it can’t really be supported with proof. You’ve got to assume that, if true, these sentiments were conveyed off the record, which puts Kerry into an untenable position. If he doesn’t name names, people can’t help but suspect he’s lying (or at least exaggerating). On the other hand, if he does name names, he betrays the trust of the very foreign leaders who’ve expressed their support. Of course, I think in reality, you’d be hard-pressed to find a foreign leader who supports Bush, at least if the opinions of their nations’ populations are any indication.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home