A Few Points

This is our final day on the coast; we'll be leaving this ocean town Friday morning and driving back up to my cabin in the Sierra Nevadas. Unfortunately, but expectedly, I've contracted my wife's blooming illness and have a sore throat of biblical proportions, sore joints, aches, feeling like I've been hit by a runaway Peterbilt. Yesterday was gorgeous; beautiful blue skies for a time. Today the wind is up, the seas are very rough, and we both were in no condition to board a whalewatching boat -- much to our very great disappointment.

I'll still see if I can enter a few photos from the trip on this particular post (nope, won't let me).

In the meantime, some points I've noticed over the past day . . .

1. McCain's Alleged Indiscretion With Lobbyist

This story first surfaced in 2000. The New York Times just re-released the story Thursday, which indicated:

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries.

If this was an issue way back in 2000, there is only one reason to bring it to the surface this week: an attempt to sabotage McCain due to his recent strength in the polls.

Even the massively Left-leaning The New Republic thinks the NYT story is shabby:

The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of
decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice.

I find this reprehensible. If you wish to disagree with McCain, do so by the obvious methods: attack him on his politics, on the facts. Disagreeing with McCain, pointing out his flaws is akin to shooting fish in a barrel -- yes, that easy. That he had an alleged "affair" according to unnamed sources is puerile and transparent.

2. Bush: More Money To Mexico via the Merida Initiative

Perhaps too little too late (after all, I've been out of the info and political pipeline for over a week), I heard on TV recently that President Bush is sending $500,000 to Mexico -- which, it turns out, is actually $1.4 billion -- in the HOPES that it will be used in the "fight against drug cartels."

Once again (this is such a bleating complaint -- when will it end?), President Bush: what in the hell are you thinking? Mexico's government is just about as stable and trustworthy as that of present-day Cuba, even with Fidel gone.

Then, to make matters even more insane, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said in re the funding:

MEXICO CITY: President Felipe Calderon on Wednesday accused U.S. presidential candidates of "swaggering, macho and anti-Mexican" posturing and warned the U.S. Congress not to impose conditions on a $1.4 billion anti-drug aid package.

"The only theme in the (U.S.) electoral campaign is to compete to see who can be the most swaggering, macho and anti-Mexican," Calderon told a local radio station, Enfoque. He did not name any particular candidate or party.

But wait; his comments portray the height of arrogance:

Calderon also appeared to reject any added conditions on a proposed $1.4 billion U.S. anti-drug aid package that had been negotiated with American officials, saying, "I cannot accept any submission or subordination."

The penultimate arrogance:

I need that technology," Calderon said. "Give it to me. And give it to me without conditions."

I cannot find any reaction to those sentences that wouldn't include every F-and-S word extant.

I have an idea: why don't we just cut to the proverbial chase?

Calderon wants to run our country. Mexico's plans are to simply override American demographics -- after all, "demography is prophecy" -- and flood this country with illegal Mexican invaders. Most average Mexican citizens simply believe that it's nothing more than the re-taking of what the United States took from them, and that they have every right (and not just a right, an obligation) to Reconquista. Let's just cave in totally, step away from all our political offices and buildings and let Mexicans and Mexico do what they will with the nation.

I don't believe most would label me an inherent "Bush-Basher" but, by logical extension, how is it that I may support the president when he continues to literally give away my tax dollars and my country?

BZ