Good morning.
- A film noted.
- Hasn’t the Israel/Palestine thing shown that “permanent refugee camp” means big big big trouble down the line?
- Uhm, it might be a way to define themselves as not-Catholic?
- Car sales and cash-for-clunkers.
- Political TV shows and its effects (or not).
- As the Democrats work out how the government will have more influence and oversight over the fed … here’s a point as to why that’s a really bad idea. Remember they weren’t going to “influence” GM with politics. Right.
- A cartoonist from Canada on health care there.
- Broken promises by Mr Obama. Say it ain’t so! Oh, wait that’s the norm.
- How not to show you care for the troops. Hint actually caring a bit would help.
- Obama, trimming out those pesky philosophers working on, you know, philosophical questions of import.
- On faith and science.
- Signs of faith.
- Poverty and tourism.
- An explanation of the ice-cream kerfuffle.
- A feminist on father’s day.
- Slavery and the Bible.
How not to show you care for the troops. Hint actually caring a bit would help.
As honorable as the wounded vet is, I detect a bit of a spoiled child in his complaint. So he’s used to ‘celebrities’ visiting him and now ranks them according to whether or not they have a firm handshake and if they know off the top of their head exactly who he is and how he got his injury. Bush is better because he visited him knowing that. Did Bush visit 11 other wounded troops on the day this one got a visit? Did he know all their backgrounds? Does this soldier care about the wounded vets who languished at the Walter Reed hospital under Bush or is the only important thing getting visited by an endless parade of big wigs?
Boonton,
I’ve heard/read on numerous occasions Mr Bush was diligent, caring, and went “beyond the call” when visiting injured troops and the families of the deceased. This is a contrast to this report on Mr Obama. When I hear reports that Mr Obama has the same care and diligence for the troops, I’ll report that.