Big Dogs Weblog

This Partly Explains Kennedy’s Lack of Brain Function

Oct 13, 2007 Uncategorized

Senator Ted Kennedy, a man who has been in the Senate for 45 years, just underwent surgery to open a blocked carotid artery, a blood vessel that provides oxygenated blood to the brain. Kennedy’s blocked artery was discovered when he received an MRI that he gets every once in a while to follow a back injury he suffered in a plane crash years ago. Most people with a back injury get one, maybe two MRIs and get treated. When you have a great health care plan you can have them as part of a routine follow up, but that is a story for another time.

Tests showed that Kennedy’s carotid was 70% blocked which really explains quite a bit. Kennedy is usually incoherent and babbles about a lot of things. It is just a given that since he is a liberal he would babble on but now it appears that his brain only received 30% of the amount of oxygenated blood that it should have (at least the quantity provided by one carotid) so this might explain why he sounds retarded. The problem is, many in the Democratic Party look up to this guy so wither they have blocked carotids or they are just brainless.

Ann Coulter’s new book is If Democrats had any Brains they’d be Republicans so it might have been a waste of money to do the surgery since he does not have, according to her, any brains that would need oxygen. In any event, I would think that a reduced blood flow to his brain would be OK since he killed off most of his brain cells with all the booze. Matter of fact, they ought to be careful letting all that hi octane ethanol enhanced blood flow back into his cranial cavity because that much booze at once might make him a vegetable, though who would really know.

Ted should use this as a wake up call and retire. It will do him a world of good and it will do the country a world of good.

Tags: Commentary

General Sanchez Sounds a Little Bitter

Oct 13, 2007 Military

Retired General Ricardo Sanchez, who was the commanding general of all the troops in Iraq, has spoken publicly giving his opinions about the war and the way it was handled. General Sanchez is entitled to his opinion and he knows a lot more than I do about running a war but he seems to have placed blame on everyone but himself.

General Sanchez said that the war was a “nightmare with no end in sight” and blamed Congress, the State Department, the Bush Administration and any number of other government agencies. He said we did not have enough troops and equipment going in (I agree with that) and that surge was a desperate attempt to make up for misguided policies. That might be partly true because we should have had more troops from the start. However, the assessment of General Petraeus is slightly different and a bit more optimistic, probably because he has been in Iraq recently and Sanchez has been out for a little while.

Sanchez is entitled to his opinion and I think he might be a little bitter because his was a rocky command. This is not to say that he is a bad leader, I do not know him, but he had to spend part of his time fending off the problems associated with Abu Ghraib. He was eventually cleared of any wrong doing but that had to have consumed a lot of his time, time that should have been spent leading the troops in war. I can certainly understand his sentiments and his anger at the government and while I disagree with him on what actions he could have taken while in command to let his superiors know how he felt, I certainly understand why he is bitter. The problem is, General Sanchez placed blame squarely on everyone in government. He picked the administration, Congress, and other government entities. However, the left will cherry pick his comments and make the criticism all about President Bush. This statement will be used in a Democratic political campaign to blast the right:

“From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power,” Sanchez said.

And this one will be ignored:

“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.”

Mark my words, the first quote will be used by MorOn.org and Democratic candidates to show how terribly the administration did and will ignore the quote that places blame on everyone, including a Congress that takes decisions based upon polls and fails to actually lead. It is unwise to give the enemy anything that can be used as propaganda and Sanchez’s words can be blasted all over al Jazeera and at the DNC (the same entity).

The interesting thing is that the very groups who will latch on to the words of General Sanchez and hail him as a truth telling hero who thinks the war is a failure and use this to claim they support the troops are the ones who attacked General Petraeus because he did not say what they liked.

I wonder if General Sanchez is thinking about running for office or if he is lining up a gig as a war analyst at some cable news network because he has come out with both barrels blazing. I am not sure Sanchez would be good for political office and I would be weary about voting for him (though he would not be running in my state anyway) based upon his admitted silence about things he thought were wrong because I think leadership involves expressing those opinions.

I wish Sanchez well in whatever he does but I think he might have done the troops more good if he had spoken up a few years ago rather than wait. I also think pointing the fingers in every direction except inward is just a defense mechanism to deflect some of the blame that certainly rests upon his shoulders.

If you fail to speak up about something that you know is wrong you are just as responsible for it as the folks who did it.

Sources:
My Way News
Stars and Stripes

Tags: Abu Ghraib, Commentary, Iraq, Pace, Petraeus, Sanchez, war

Does CDC Recommend Shots for NASCAR Fans?

Oct 12, 2007 Uncategorized

Congressional staffers who visited two sites where NASCAR races were taking place were advised to get immunizations for Hepatitis A and B, Influenza, tetanus, and diphtheria. These staffers made trips to local hospitals that would respond to emergencies if something happened at one of these events. I am not sure who actually advised them to get the shots but it should have been a doctor. Most of these shots are unnecessary or should already be up to date.

Hepatitis A is a disease that is transferred via the fecal oral route. In the US we do not have sewage running all over and though an outbreak can occur from improper hand washing by food workers, the staffers are no more likely to get it at the hospital than they are at the Congressional Cafeteria. Hepatitis B is passed from blood from an infected person and involves certain exposures (like sex, IV drug use, and birth) none of which I think the staffers would be involved in. However, the vaccine is part of the series children now get. While it is prudent for health care workers to receive it (and require it to work in health care) it is unlikely that these staffers would be exposed to blood or other body fluids in the scope of their duties. They are probably less likely to get the disease than the people who visit loved ones who are hospitalized and we do not routinely recommend that they get the vaccine. Though I think it is a good idea for everyone who is able to get the vaccine do so I do not think this mission specifically required it.

Tetanus is required as a child and boosters are given every 10 years and most people get one after some kind of open would injury though puncture wounds (like stepping on a nail) are most problematic. I doubt that the staffers were working where they would be at risk though one could argue that they would be walking around the NASCAR event where various objects might present as hazards. However, a tetanus shot may be given when they injury is treated and will just as effective.

Diphtheria is a respiratory illness (it ialso has a cutaneous or skin component) transmitted via direct person-to-person transmission by intimate respiratory and physical contact. While it is unlikely that this would occur on this mission, there would be a great number of people around breathing all over each other. Since diphtheria is bundled with tetanus, this might be the reason it was recommended.

The flu shot is the only one that makes sense. This is flu season and there will be a lot of people running around. Plus they will be visiting hospitals which are full of sick people.

Since these shots were recommended to perform a job, the employer is required to provide them without charge. Perhaps this was a way to allow staffers to update their shot record at taxpayer expense. One must ask if the CDC recommends these shots for NASCAR fans who spend a great deal more time at these events than do Congressional staffers.

Story:
McClatchy

Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, , DeMediacratic Nation, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Tags: Commentary, diphtheria, hepatitis, influenza, Link Fest, NASCAR, tetanus

Ghost Whispers; MA Dems Speak for the Dead

Oct 12, 2007 Uncategorized

There is an election next Tuesday to fill a vacant US Congressional seat in the state of Massachusetts and the Democrats have sunk to a new low, if you can believe they could get lower, by invoking the name of the Republican candidate’s dead brother. Here are the players in this story:

• Jim Ogonowski – Republican candidate for the vacant seat
• Niki Tsongas – Democratic candidate for the vacant seat
• John Ogonowski – Deceased brother of Republican candidate. John was a pilot of an airplane that was hijacked on 9/11 and he was killed when the terrorists who hijacked it, crashed it.
• Peg Ogonowski – Spouse of deceased pilot John
• Chester G. Atkins – Former Congressman who held the contended seat until he was defeated in 1992. Now has a public affairs firm

Jim is running for an open seat in Congress and he is very much against ILLEGAL immigration. He does not believe that ILLEGALS should receive amnesty and he believes that immigrants should have to learn English. His opponent, Niki, has a very opposite view on ILLEGAL immigration, much closer to the Ted Kennedy school which is why we have had two amnesties and now have millions of ILLEGALS here. Interestingly, immigration was the issue that cost Atkins the seat, oh so long ago. Atkins was an advocate for Cambodians coming here and settling in the Merrimack Valley district. John had no problem with the Cambodians because they came here LEGALLY. He allowed them to farm a portion of his property to grow specialty crops, stuff used in the Asian community. Atkins lost because of his support of the Cambodians.

Fast forward to today and Atkins, who supports Niki, is saying that Jim’s dead brother John would side with Tsongas on the immigration issue and that he had a better understanding than Jim does. Jim states that this is ridiculous because the Cambodians came here legally and the immigrants that Jim is against are all the ILLEGAL ones. Like many Americans, Jim does not like the way ILLEGALS come here, use services, get Social Security, take jobs, crowd emergency rooms and speak their native language and expect us to do the same. Jim does not agree with ILLEGAL immigration.

I cannot imagine that the people of this area of Massachusetts would vote for Tsongas and support allowing ILLEGALS free reign. These folks put Atkins out of office for supporting LEGAL immigrants so I find it very hard to imagine that they would support someone who is siding with the ILLEGAL ones. I know this is Massachusetts but even as liberal as they are, they have to be able to see the difference and which candidate supports our laws and which one does not. The problem is that the Liberals always neglect to discuss the ILLEGAL part. They always say that we are against immigrants (just before they call us racists) when none of us are against immigration, we are against ILLEGAL law breakers who sneak in like thieves.

Back to John and Atkins’ claim that John would have supported the ILLEGALS and was better than Jim, who Atkins calls a racist for his views. Just to clear it up, Mexican is not a race, it is a nationality. It is an old trick from the left’s play book to call the race card. No matter what the issue, they will find a way to call a Republican a racist regardless of the circumstances. Let me make this clear for Atkins and any other idiot who was educated in the public school system, Expecting people to obey the law, expecting the government to enforce the law, and refusing to reward those who break the law are not racist acts. If a black man robs a bank and his white neighbor saw it and calls the police and a white cop arrests him, the white guys are not racists. They simply respected the rule of law, something the left finds increasingly difficult. However, invoking the name of a dead man who cannot attest to the veracity of the claims made by Atkins is just wrong. It is also plain wrong to bring up his name and put the family through this.

To her credit, Peg called this politics at its worst and she was right. The Democrats in this situation chose to use a hero from 9/11 to score points with voters. If this is not bad enough, the dead hero is the Republican candidate’s brother. They are trying to convince voters that even Jim’s brother would be on their side. As Jim points out, it is ridiculous. He states that it is ridiculous for the Atkins to make like he would know John better than his family and, as Jim indicates, he would not likely support ILLEGALS especially since many of the 9/11 hijackers were here ILLEGALLY. Peg and Jim both question whether Atkins actually knew John. Neither remember him ever mentioning Atkins and since John is dead it would not be beyond a Democrat to do pretend he knew him just to score political points.

I hope the voters of Massachusetts will see through all of this and will elect Jim Ogonowski and his tough stance on ILLEGAL immigration. I hope that they will not only reject Tsongas for the support of ILLEGALS but also for the lowness to which the Democrats have sunk in this race.

One last thing. Ever notice how when President Bush mentions 9/11 the left goes nuts. They claim he is using scare tactics and is using 9/11 to stir emotions. They tell us that it happened 6 years ago and we need to move on, let it go, blah, blah. Interesting how they will invoke the memory of someone killed on 9/11 if they think it will further their quest for power.

I also think it is worth noting that it is possible that John would support the Democrats. It would not be the first time in history that dead people supported Democrats though usually they show their support by voting for them on election day…

If you live in the 5th District in Massachusetts and you want to honor the memory of John, vote for his brother Jim next Tuesday.

This story is from the AP.

Others:
Blogs for Bush

Tags: 9/11, Democrats, election, illegals, Immigration, Massachusetts, Political Commentary

Did Hillary Clinton Admit She is Incompetent?

Oct 11, 2007 Uncategorized

In an interview Hillary Clinton sat down to tell everyone how she would run the country differently than George W. Bush and how all her plans are the right ones. She wanted to make sure we knew she had the answers to our problems. Like all politicians, she does not recognize that government is the cause of most of our problems. Hillary made two troubling statements. The first was that there are two branches of government. There are three and her failure to recognize the Judicial indicates how much the left has used that branch to get done what it is unable to pass in the Legislative branch. It shows that activist judges have legislated from the bench so frequently that Hillary, an accomplished lawyer, does not recognize it as a different branch:

“It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a much more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people.” [emphasis mine]

If this is not troubling enough, the smartest woman in the world admitted that she did not know that security contractors in Iraq are immune from prosecution (actually they are not) and she dismissed her lack of information on the matter by stating:

Clinton was asked about a statement she made on Tuesday when criticizing the Bush administration’s conduct in Iraq. She said she hadn’t known that Blackwater USA, the military contractor accused of killing more than a dozen Iraqi civilians last month, had immunity from prosecution in Iraq because of an exemption approved soon after the US invasion.

“Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it,” she said yesterday. [emphasis mine] boston.com

It might not be troubling to many people but Hillary wants to be President and she sits on the Armed Services Committee. That committee has had several bills sent to it that specifically address the contractor issue. Coincidentally, a recent bill was introduced by he opponent, B. Hussein Obama.

There was also a recent memo from the Secretary of Defense reminding the services that contractors fall under the UCMJ, a change that was implemented in January of 2007. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) is referenced in the memo and has been on the books as Public Law 106-523 since November of 2000. Section 552 of PL 109-364 Expanded UCMJ jurisdiction to persons serving with or accompanying the armed forces in the field during contingency operations. This was passed by the Senate and Clinton voted for it.

It is obvious that all these items have been in the open for quite some time and that some of the legislation in question was presented to the Armed Services Committee, a committee that Clinton sits on. It is also obvious that Clinton voted on legislation that, in some part, addressed this. All of this begs the obvious question; Why does she not know about this? In addition to learning this from her official duties, the information has been on TV and radio for quite some time, more so in recent weeks. How can she possibly not know about this? Is she so focused on winning that she has neglected to do her job?

One also has to ask what she means by “Maybe she should have known” when it is obvious that there is no maybe about it. She sits on the committee that looks at this stuff and to which information was given. How can she claim that she knows nothing and dismiss it so casually? Is she ignoring the recently introduced item because Obama is the author? How can she expect to be President when she is unaware of these things?

Democrats like to believe that George Bush ignored the threat of radical Islam and that he misinforms Americans. It is amazing that they fail to hold their anointed to any kind of similar standard. If we accept that Bush is as incompetent as the left portrays him, we must also accept that Hillary is mush more incompetent because she cannot seem to even do her Senate job.

If she cannot handle one seat in the Senate, how will she ever run an entire country?

Tags: Blackwater, Hillary, Obama, Political Commentary