Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. This is literally the 10th time this month that the Red Line has been delayed during rush hour.
Red Line 100% guaranteed on time 60% of the time
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
A Slogan for DC
DC is looking for a new city slogan, I would like to throw my hat in the ring with the following top ten list of new slogans for our nations capital.*
10. Washington, DC.....City of Partisan Bickering
09. CHERRY BLOSSOMS, GET YOUR CHERRY BLOSSOMS HERE!!
08. Washington, DC....stand to the right or get out
07. Washington, DC....we build ball parks at no extra charge!
06. Washington, DC....no longer ranked #1 in murder!
05. Washington, DC....home of Congressional subpoena power!
04. Washington, DC....soon to be bush free!
03. Washington, DC...every tenth visitor gets a free dime bag courtesy of the mayor for life!
02. Come for the monuments, stay for the congressional investigations!
01. Vote free since 1790!
*Just in case Letterman ever reads this, the top ten is yours I'm just borrowing it ok?
10. Washington, DC.....City of Partisan Bickering
09. CHERRY BLOSSOMS, GET YOUR CHERRY BLOSSOMS HERE!!
08. Washington, DC....stand to the right or get out
07. Washington, DC....we build ball parks at no extra charge!
06. Washington, DC....no longer ranked #1 in murder!
05. Washington, DC....home of Congressional subpoena power!
04. Washington, DC....soon to be bush free!
03. Washington, DC...every tenth visitor gets a free dime bag courtesy of the mayor for life!
02. Come for the monuments, stay for the congressional investigations!
01. Vote free since 1790!
*Just in case Letterman ever reads this, the top ten is yours I'm just borrowing it ok?
An Accomplishment for Bush
Bush has so few accomplishments in his time in office I thought that it was time that I highlighted something he has done very well.....stink:
The latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds 34% of Americans approving of the job George W. Bush is doing as president. His approval rating has been highly stable in recent months, averaging 36% since last October, and 34% so far in 2007. Bush was last above 40% approval in September 2006, and his run of six consecutive months below 40% is one of the longest in Gallup's polling history.
Nice streak Dubya, but this is common right?
Given the rarity of approval ratings below 40%, extended runs of sub-40% approval ratings are also uncommon. A review of Gallup historical data finds only nine instances in which a president consistently had approval ratings below 40% for three months or longer. Only six presidents endured such a run, with Truman, Jimmy Carter, and Bush suffering through such a fate on multiple occasions.
Well, at least he didn't get another comparison to Herbert Hoover. Keep up the awful work George!
P.S. Once your term is over you and Rove can join forces as rap battlers.
The latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds 34% of Americans approving of the job George W. Bush is doing as president. His approval rating has been highly stable in recent months, averaging 36% since last October, and 34% so far in 2007. Bush was last above 40% approval in September 2006, and his run of six consecutive months below 40% is one of the longest in Gallup's polling history.
Nice streak Dubya, but this is common right?
Given the rarity of approval ratings below 40%, extended runs of sub-40% approval ratings are also uncommon. A review of Gallup historical data finds only nine instances in which a president consistently had approval ratings below 40% for three months or longer. Only six presidents endured such a run, with Truman, Jimmy Carter, and Bush suffering through such a fate on multiple occasions.
Well, at least he didn't get another comparison to Herbert Hoover. Keep up the awful work George!
P.S. Once your term is over you and Rove can join forces as rap battlers.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Do You Have The Time (Line)?
Surprisingly it looks like the spending bill on the war in Iraq will make it through with the time line in place. True to form Dubya has promised to veto anything that forces him to admit that Iraq is a never ending quagmire.
"President Bush accused congressional Democrats Wednesday of meddling in Iraq war policy and setting a deadline for a U.S. pullout that would have disastrous repercussions for both countries."
Please. Bush has no credibility to accuse anyone of creating a disastrous situation in Iraq. That responsibility lies solely with him. Congress has a responsibility to monitor and distribute tax payer money, they are not meddling, they are doing what they should have done years ago. No one in their right mind would keep paying for a plumber if he couldn't fix a leak, so why should tax payers keep paying for a foreign civil war that has destroyed America's military, popularity in the world, and made us less safe at home? Democrats (and a few republicans) have insisted that if Bush wants the money he is going to have to accept compromise and a time line. This of course prompted Bush's usual "they don't support the troops" rally cry which seems to finally be falling on deaf ears.
"Why doesn't he get real with what's going on with the world?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said after Bush's speech. "We're not holding up funding in Iraq and he knows that. Why doesn't he deal with the real issues facing the American people?"
Clearly he doesn't deal with the real issues facing the American people because that is not whose best interests he is concerned with, he is more concerned with his own. The election of 2006 was a mandate for Democrats. They won by listening to Americans and promised more oversight with regard to the war. Now they are actually living up to that promise, but Bush simply does not want to believe that he is wrong. He is.
There is no question that this war is a disaster and was a huge waste of life and treasure, it's nice to see that Congress finally has the juevos to says enough is enough. There is no way the bill can survive a veto, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
"President Bush accused congressional Democrats Wednesday of meddling in Iraq war policy and setting a deadline for a U.S. pullout that would have disastrous repercussions for both countries."
Please. Bush has no credibility to accuse anyone of creating a disastrous situation in Iraq. That responsibility lies solely with him. Congress has a responsibility to monitor and distribute tax payer money, they are not meddling, they are doing what they should have done years ago. No one in their right mind would keep paying for a plumber if he couldn't fix a leak, so why should tax payers keep paying for a foreign civil war that has destroyed America's military, popularity in the world, and made us less safe at home? Democrats (and a few republicans) have insisted that if Bush wants the money he is going to have to accept compromise and a time line. This of course prompted Bush's usual "they don't support the troops" rally cry which seems to finally be falling on deaf ears.
"Why doesn't he get real with what's going on with the world?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said after Bush's speech. "We're not holding up funding in Iraq and he knows that. Why doesn't he deal with the real issues facing the American people?"
Clearly he doesn't deal with the real issues facing the American people because that is not whose best interests he is concerned with, he is more concerned with his own. The election of 2006 was a mandate for Democrats. They won by listening to Americans and promised more oversight with regard to the war. Now they are actually living up to that promise, but Bush simply does not want to believe that he is wrong. He is.
There is no question that this war is a disaster and was a huge waste of life and treasure, it's nice to see that Congress finally has the juevos to says enough is enough. There is no way the bill can survive a veto, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Drawing a Blank
Attorney-gate is in the eye of the storm right now, opening day is still a few days off, and its a quiet and grey day in the Nation's Capitol. I'm at a loss for topics today so any help would be appreciated. Here are some random ideas, but I'll entertain all comments:
My alumni softball team won it's first game in over a year this weekend.
I've learned that the kennel I volunteer at has an unnaceptably high kill rate.
I think that I may have lost a regular pool partner in favor of a "healthy lifestyle."
Hot dogs, neither hot, nor made from dogs....discuss.
(Spell check seems to not be working)
My alumni softball team won it's first game in over a year this weekend.
I've learned that the kennel I volunteer at has an unnaceptably high kill rate.
I think that I may have lost a regular pool partner in favor of a "healthy lifestyle."
Hot dogs, neither hot, nor made from dogs....discuss.
(Spell check seems to not be working)
Friday, March 23, 2007
What Would War With Iran Look Like
In short, it would be a disaster. Unfortunately unless the current political climate cools we are quickly heading in that direction. This wouldn’t be the type of conflict we have grown accustomed to over the past two decades. Casualties would be severe, acts of terror would sky rocket, and a draft would be all but certain. A war with Iran wouldn’t just be us against them either, it would quickly escalate into a regional conflict that would no doubt involve Israel, Syria, and possibly Saudi Arabia. It would be a no win situation for the United States. The aftermath of such a conflict would destroy what's left of our credibility in the Middle East for generations, and Osama Bin Laden would be completely justified in the eyes of the Arab world.
Analysts agree that if a conflict with Iran becomes a reality the US and Israel would launch a massive air campaign dwarfing any bombardment in the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. The first targets would no doubt be nuclear facilities, although US intelligence is terrible on where and or how deep these installations are. No doubt this would lead to huge civilian casualties which would embolden the Iranian population to fight. Iranian defense planners have stated publicly that they have learned from the cases of neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. They are acutely aware of the U.S. military’s heavy reliance on aerial strikes and have planned accordingly for just such an attack. And unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran does have a competent Air Force.
Israels conflict with Lebanon last summer was a preview of the type of rocket melees we could expect. This time we wouldn't be talking about Hamas and their home made rockets though, we would be talking about return fire from highly sophisticated Iranian rockets that would not only be raining on Tel Aviv, but also on the Green Zone in Baghdad. It is not out of the question that some of the Israeli return fire rockets could be tipped with tactical nuclear missiles, especially if Israel is on the brink of collapse.
While US forces would most likely not initially invade Iranian territory, Iran would no doubt invade Iraq. The 150,000 US troops scattered across the country would be up against a wall, and an escalation to approximately 500,000 combat troops would be necessary. The problem is that the US does not have that many fit for duty units...so...hello selective service.
If this scenario were to happen it is certain that suicide bombers would find their way to the streets of major American cities. It would be a severe psychological blow to a population that is used to seeing war only through a TV screen, and not as a daily reality.
Oil prices would sky rocket if such a regional conflict were to take place, most likely leading to a global economic crisis. Particularly if oil wells are targeted (which they most certainly will be) the price of a barrel of oil could triple (not to mention the environmental tragedy).
So how realistic is this scenario? Put it this way, we have already dispatched an additional carrier group to the region, the Iranian's have been preparing with war games, and uranium enrichment talks are falling apart. With this latest news regarding the capture of 15 British sailors, I would put the chances of conflict at about 40 / 60......and that is downright terrifying.
Analysts agree that if a conflict with Iran becomes a reality the US and Israel would launch a massive air campaign dwarfing any bombardment in the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. The first targets would no doubt be nuclear facilities, although US intelligence is terrible on where and or how deep these installations are. No doubt this would lead to huge civilian casualties which would embolden the Iranian population to fight. Iranian defense planners have stated publicly that they have learned from the cases of neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. They are acutely aware of the U.S. military’s heavy reliance on aerial strikes and have planned accordingly for just such an attack. And unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran does have a competent Air Force.
Israels conflict with Lebanon last summer was a preview of the type of rocket melees we could expect. This time we wouldn't be talking about Hamas and their home made rockets though, we would be talking about return fire from highly sophisticated Iranian rockets that would not only be raining on Tel Aviv, but also on the Green Zone in Baghdad. It is not out of the question that some of the Israeli return fire rockets could be tipped with tactical nuclear missiles, especially if Israel is on the brink of collapse.
While US forces would most likely not initially invade Iranian territory, Iran would no doubt invade Iraq. The 150,000 US troops scattered across the country would be up against a wall, and an escalation to approximately 500,000 combat troops would be necessary. The problem is that the US does not have that many fit for duty units...so...hello selective service.
If this scenario were to happen it is certain that suicide bombers would find their way to the streets of major American cities. It would be a severe psychological blow to a population that is used to seeing war only through a TV screen, and not as a daily reality.
Oil prices would sky rocket if such a regional conflict were to take place, most likely leading to a global economic crisis. Particularly if oil wells are targeted (which they most certainly will be) the price of a barrel of oil could triple (not to mention the environmental tragedy).
So how realistic is this scenario? Put it this way, we have already dispatched an additional carrier group to the region, the Iranian's have been preparing with war games, and uranium enrichment talks are falling apart. With this latest news regarding the capture of 15 British sailors, I would put the chances of conflict at about 40 / 60......and that is downright terrifying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
