I have heard a lot about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys General in the news lately. I see Alberto Gonzales on the TV everyday. People are always asking him questions. He is always answering in a round about way that basically boils down to “I don’t know.” He really is an awful liar. If you think CNN is doing some wacky video editing then just watch C-SPAN. They give it to you straight. Just be sure to pick your jaw up off the floor after you see this guy try and defend himself. Anyway, I was wondering why I haven’t been hearing about the time Clinton fired all 93 attorneys general. Was Clinton’s decision to release all 93 as controversial, or is bringing this up supposed to be some sort of defense for what the current administration did? It turns out those 93 slots are politically appointed positions. I didn’t know this until I did a little research. It is also commonplace for the President to replace all or a lot of them when he begins his term. Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter. It’s your choice when you’re the Pres. These firings came during the middle of Bush’s second term. This is unheard of and I think this might be the first time it has ever happened. I didn’t want to attack or defend any of the actions made by the current administration regarding this controversy. I wanted to share with you what I learned about those positions and why Clinton’s removal of all 93 isn’t the same as a midterm firing of 8. Maybe you already knew that, but I just got it.
Anticipation for the 2008 election is at a high, and there are still 17 months to go. It seems a little early, but I can’t blame the media or others for being excited. The candidates are intriguing to many people. The number of people excited about replacing the current administration is growing by the day. True story. Sure, I think the expectations of any candidate are unrealistic—they aren’t going to turn things around on day one—but there is a lot of hope that one of them can get this country moving in the opposite direction it has been moving for the last six years. I’d say that’s worth getting excited about. Wouldn’t you?
Sometime while I was in London a whale swam up the River Thames. It was all over the news. People flocked to the edges of the river to get a glimpse of it. There were helicopters all over trying to get a good aerial shot of the thing. And then it died. And people got on with their lives. Now the same thing is happening in San Francisco. Whenever something like this happens I always start thinking about the circumstances that millions of humans face every minute/hour/day that are so much more tragic than two discombobulated whales in a river. Why aren’t we hearing about those stories? It is two stinking humpbacks, against millions of men, women, and children. It’s not even close. Sad, but true.
No comments:
Post a Comment