indications of the species' slow decay
sigh...
good news, everyone: our country has nearly completed its transformation into a john grisham novel. all that's left is for the young upstart lawyer to emerge with the damning evidence and save the day.
i try to avoid letting my outrage get the better of me, driving me to post stuff like this, because it makes people fight and is ultimately futile and exhausting. i think a lot of people feel like me, wishing that we could fast forward past the next year and three months, so totally worn out by what they see in the headlines about our administration that we want it to just go away.
so let's brighten things up. whose sentence would you commute if you were president?
Uh, how about Pete Rose, can I do that?
Oh wait, I got one...OJ...oh wait, they already let him off...
J...I am so dismayed about politicians in general that I don't see anything changing with the next election. In order to get a party nomination, a candidate has to sell their soul (if they even have one to begin with). While I disagree with many of Bush's decisions, I don't think he is responsible for the current state of the political climate.
The American people need to demand better...but I am afraid there are not many choices. I don't see a U.S. President among any of the current candidates...for both parties. This is scary on such a volatile world stage.
I agree Nick. It is a very scary world climate and it doesn't look good for our future.
Pardoning your cronies when they get busted breaking the law is nothing new, but it sure doesn't help the image of an administration mired in controversy and scandal.
On the other hand, I think Bush is very much the one to blame for the current climate of vanishing civil liberties. And I voted for him.
I voted for him twice, but I don't think I'll vote for him a 3rd time.
But in all seriousness, as much as it pains me to say, at this point I don't think it matters who is elected. They're all corrupt. It's a big nasty effed up game. 3rd party needs to emerge.
Obama '08, at least he's pretending to be something different. Honestly though, how is the time we're in more volatile than the Cold War? No, we need a leader who can do more than just throw bombs and troops at our nation's largest PR problem.
Oh, and I'd pardon Nixon. And OJ.
During the cold war we had basically Russia and a couple other world powers to worry about. Now the entire world still hates us and their technology is finally catching up to ours. That is why I am a little more anxious now.
Besides we started the Cold War on purpose so we could build up our arms. Think about when the cold war started. The United States accused Russia (a Country that just finished one of the biggest Wars in history and went flat broke doing it) of building up its arms. Yet, they had no money! We, however, were wealthy beyond any nation in history and we wanted to protect ourselves from any world power. It was brilliant on America's part.
I don't know, I think folks were pretty freaked out during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The end of everything prob. seemed more likely then than now. Now, if they're lucky, a terrorist org gets their hands on a nuke or two and blows up DC. Then, Russia could launch an attack that would wipe out the planet. And that's despite the fact that they had no money.
I agree that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a far greater concern than what we are facing today. So on that point I stand corrected.
...and yes Russia could have nuked the world as easily as the U.S. at the time. I just wonder how far the starving people of Russia would have been willing to follow their leaders when their entire food supply was destroyed by nukes. It just seems like they were less of a threat now that we know more about their situation. It is hard to admit, but the United States is largely at fault for the malnutrition and starvation of the people of Russia for vast majority of the Cold War. Had we not told the world that they were building up their arms (so we could build up ours) they would have likely used what little money they had to serve their people.
I agree that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a far greater concern than what we are facing today. So on that point I stand corrected.
...and yes Russia could have nuked the world as easily as the U.S. at the time. I just wonder how far the starving people of Russia would have been willing to follow their leaders when their entire food supply was destroyed by nukes. It just seems like they were less of a threat now that we know more about their situation. It is hard to admit, but the United States is largely at fault for the malnutrition and starvation of the people of Russia for vast majority of the Cold War. Had we not told the world that they were building up their arms (so we could build up ours) they would have likely used what little money they had to serve their people.