Repugnant
While browsing at Drudge (once again), I found this piece at The Huffington Post where Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. comes just short (and narrowly, at that) of blaming Mississippi governor and former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour for Hurricane Katrina.
Does Governor Barbour have some great mystical powers? Can he somehow control the weather? No, but if they could pin that on him, they most certainly would (I can see it now -- "Former RNC Head Has Demonic Powers). RFK Jr. tries to connect the dots between Barbour's stance on environmental policy and Katrina. To my knowledge, there have been no scientific studies that link emissions or atmospheric contaminants to the likely formation of hurricanes or atmospheric disturbances. So how is it that RFK Jr. can attempt to blame Gov. Barbour? He's a Republican and that's good enough, evidently.
This story itself is ludicrous. Not to be given any legitimacy. What gives me recourse to the title I've given this post -- Repugnant -- is that one day after Katrina hit the Mississippi/Louisiana coastline, Liberals are trying to play politics. The damage hasn't even been surveyed, the dead are not counted, the full measure of relief workers and rescue crews have not even reached the scene of the devastation. Speculations of the extent of damage are the best we have at the moment, yet Liberals have tried foist the calamity onto Gov. Haley Barbour. That is what is repugnant. RFK Jr. doesn't even take a moment to grieve with the grieving, to shed a tear for the dying, or to mourn those who have died at the "hands" of Katrina. No mention of the damage. RFK Jr. just rushes headlong into a diatribe about Barbour's and the Bush Administration's environmental positions. How sickening.
On a slightly related note, I just noticed that on the Home page of The Huffington Post is the banner text, "Delivering News and Opinion Since May 9, 2005." Does anyone else find this silly? Just because Huffington (and others) have been blogging for almost 4 months, this is supposed to give The Huffington Post some degree of credibility? I'm sorry but I don't expect to see a "Since...." banner on letterhead, home page, etc. until an organization has been around for several decades -- you know, until it has stood the test of time. But I guess that when you're as vacuous as Arianna Huffington and tag-alongs, having four months worth of content is an achievement.
Does Governor Barbour have some great mystical powers? Can he somehow control the weather? No, but if they could pin that on him, they most certainly would (I can see it now -- "Former RNC Head Has Demonic Powers). RFK Jr. tries to connect the dots between Barbour's stance on environmental policy and Katrina. To my knowledge, there have been no scientific studies that link emissions or atmospheric contaminants to the likely formation of hurricanes or atmospheric disturbances. So how is it that RFK Jr. can attempt to blame Gov. Barbour? He's a Republican and that's good enough, evidently.
This story itself is ludicrous. Not to be given any legitimacy. What gives me recourse to the title I've given this post -- Repugnant -- is that one day after Katrina hit the Mississippi/Louisiana coastline, Liberals are trying to play politics. The damage hasn't even been surveyed, the dead are not counted, the full measure of relief workers and rescue crews have not even reached the scene of the devastation. Speculations of the extent of damage are the best we have at the moment, yet Liberals have tried foist the calamity onto Gov. Haley Barbour. That is what is repugnant. RFK Jr. doesn't even take a moment to grieve with the grieving, to shed a tear for the dying, or to mourn those who have died at the "hands" of Katrina. No mention of the damage. RFK Jr. just rushes headlong into a diatribe about Barbour's and the Bush Administration's environmental positions. How sickening.
On a slightly related note, I just noticed that on the Home page of The Huffington Post is the banner text, "Delivering News and Opinion Since May 9, 2005." Does anyone else find this silly? Just because Huffington (and others) have been blogging for almost 4 months, this is supposed to give The Huffington Post some degree of credibility? I'm sorry but I don't expect to see a "Since...." banner on letterhead, home page, etc. until an organization has been around for several decades -- you know, until it has stood the test of time. But I guess that when you're as vacuous as Arianna Huffington and tag-alongs, having four months worth of content is an achievement.
Posts
