Broken Little Person Sitting On A Tree Limb

As most of the postings on my blog illustrate, I've tended to refrain from commentary on weightier issues. Similarly (out there in the real world), while I'll participate in political discussions with friends, it typically takes a few beers to get me stoked up enough to engage in any real type of debate. My views are my own, and truthfully I don't feel any sort of need or inclination to have the opinions of others mirror mine. If we agree, fine. If we don't, that's fine as well. Debate simply for the sake of argument seems like a lot of work to me, and the time can be put to better use (naps, staring at the walls, sitting in the dark bemoaning my fate, etc.). My links to '3XHAR', 'Manual Override', and '2 Minute Sidebar' direct you to those much more adept than I am at commentary re/events of the day. However, seeing as how I've been fighting my most recent bout of insomnia over the last few nights I'm a bit testy and have decided to enter the fray. If nothing else, my views tend to be a bit more left of the stein than others in the Kilbot consortium, so a different perspective may be offered within. Idiocy can be found on both the right and left side of the aisle, so let's see what we'll find.

Two of my pet peeves are a general lack of civility in the world today (most noticeable in the political arena), and those who only see things in black and white and are adamant and hell-bent to disavow, ignore, or generally demean viewpoints other than their own. To illustrate this (and taking a page from the Reverend over at 'Manual Override', and using a variation of his "Idiot of the Day"), I share with you my "Insufferable Windbag of the Day".

Per dictionary.com, Insufferable: Difficult or impossible to endure and Windbag: A talkative person who communicates nothing of substance or interest. Yep ...that pretty well sums it up. To christen the feature we have a triple-header ...


Karl Rove
Mr. Rove, in a speech Wednesday evening to the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, said,

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Hmmm ...nothing like making a sweeping generalization to exaggerate your point, is there Mr. Rove? When Howard Dean made his foot in mouth comments re/the GOP a few days ago he was (correctly in my opinion) taken to task (including by some in the Democratic Party). Granted, many of the Democratic hierarchy have jumped on Mr. Rove's statements with a bloodthirsty gusto, but quid pro quo seems to be the method du jour of interaction with each other for our elected officials (i.e. monkey see, monkey do). Mr. Rove's comments elicited this response from White House press secretary Scott McClellan saying the president's chief political adviser was,

"simply pointing out the different philosophies and different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

I question if we'll see similar tisk-tisking across party lines as we did with Mr. Dean's verbal faux pas.


Much of the European public
International polls taken by the non-partisan Pew Research Center in various countries from late April to the end of May (with samples of about 1,000 in most countries) indicate that communist China is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many long-time Western European allies.

In Britain, almost two-thirds of Britons, 65 percent, saw China favorably, compared with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States.

In France, 58 percent had an upbeat view of China, compared with 43 percent who felt that way about the U.S. The results were nearly the same in Spain and the Netherlands.

Interesting ...I'm wondering how much foreign aid (in terms of economic development and military assistance) China has provided to those countries over the years. While I'm not the biggest fan of many foreign policy aspects of the Bush administration, it still gives one pause (in a head scratching way) to see that we're viewed less favorably than China by much of the populace of many of our 'allies'. Perhaps there's something to be said for an isolationist approach after all ...no, but sometimes you just have to wonder.


Supporters of Alliance for Life Ministries
Ahh, nothing like inflammatory statements and pictures meant to solicit heated, emotional reactions ...appearing in the Wisconsin State Journal on Thursday, 06/23 was a 2/3 page advertisement paid for by the aforementioned supporters of Alliance for Life Ministries with the caption Terrorism! and a picture of the burning Twin Towers. Within the text of said advertisement was the following statement ...

"On September 11, 2001, approximately 2,800 people lost their lives because an act of terrorism concerning the World Trade Center in New York City. That same day, approximately 3,561 Americans were killed through the terrorism of abortion. The World Trade Center attack was the result of foreign intervention, whereas abortion deaths are the result of Americans killing Americans. It is a documented fact that the terrorism of abortion instigated within our borders has been responsible for terrorism coming from outside our borders. When Iranian mobs, under the direction of Ayatollah Khomeini, overthrew their government (before invading the U.S. Embassy), they first ransacked the offices of Planned Parenthood. Terrorism will exist as long as abortion exists."

Hmmm ...so if Roe v. Wade is overturned, terrorism will cease to be ...who knew.

Abortion is a topic that solicits strong views on both sides of the issue. Whatever views and beliefs a person has are theirs, and they're entitled to them (and to share them if they so desire) ...that's a little thing called free speech. I'm not prompting a debate re/this within the meager pages of this blog (and as such have no intention of engaging in any sparring with anyone who posts their opinion). What I do take exception to though are zealots. Zealot is defined by dictionary.com as A Fanatically committed person ...Fanatic is described as A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause. Yep ...if you're going to try and sell the comparison of terrorism to supporting a woman's right to choose, you're pretty much a zealot in my book.