Mea culpa, mea culpa. I'm conservative, mea maxima culpa

For those of you who are not an old enough catholic (or not catholic at all) to know what it means "mea culpa" is latin for "through my fault". When the mass went to English (or the local language of the country it was being celebrated in) the phrase translated as "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault". But in reality I jest somewhat. I make no apologies for being a conservative.

I never intended this pulpit to be political (there are enough people out there in the blogosphere doing the political thing), but at times those views are going to show through just by the nature of other things I may be talking about. This time it is a little more direct.

There were several things that prompted me to consider this post and what finally got me going was the announcement today of Alberto Gonzales resigning from his post of Attorney General.
I'm sure this event in itself had many liberals - as Martha and the Vandellas belted out so long ago - "Dancing in the Streets". Probably not as energetically as when Donald Rumsfeld or Karl Rove resigned but dancing nonetheless. Unfortunately the celebration brings to mind the pictures of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after hearing of the events of September 11, 2001. Celebration rooted in hatred kills the spirit of those who engage in it. I can have some understanding of those who do it in countries where the majority of the population are un or under educated - where the major (if not only) source of information is the government. I have no such understanding for those who have access to almost every source of information in the world at their fingertips - via the remote or the computer keyboard. People who have this access and still indulge themselves in this hatred need to look inward to see to what degree their soul has shriveled and see if there is enough left to regrow. The only ones worse than those who celebrate out of hatred are those who foment the hatred for their own personal gain. But we'll save them for another day.

I belong to a group on the web. Most of the people in the group are liberal leaning. This is a good thing since belonging to it does not violate "The Groucho Rule" - not wanting to belong to a group that would have me as a member. Probably many there who would not have me as a member if it were left up to them - so I am in the clear. I must say that I find almost all the people in the group intelligent and willing to enter into discussions about almost anything - which is "a very good thing" (sorry Martha). But not too long ago one person said that George Bush had murdered people in New Orleans and someone else said that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, even poor Colin Powell had hijacked the constitution and were basically turning the United States into Cambodia under Pol Pot. Interestingly enough they left Condoleeza Rice out of the mix, but I doubt it was because they didn't think she was a guilty more because they didn't think they could take a shot at a double minority.

I am not going to get into the defense of everything that all these people did. Like anyone else they made mistakes. In fact as far as President Bush goes there things about his policy that I do not agree with, but most of them have to do with things like immigration, education, and not vetoing any spending bills, and trying to make nice (especially in his first term) with some pretty shady democrats (Ted Kennedy comes to mind). These are the things that a lot of liberals would give him very grudging approval for.

However when it comes to New Orleans I have to vehemently disagree. In fact President Bush even went so far as to request that Governor Kathleen Blanco allow the federalization of the Louisiana national guard. She refused. At that point other than trying to get people in place to clean up after the storm the federal governments hands were tied. They could not order the evacuation. They could not get the national guard deployed.

Now I am going to make an observation here. No one, and I mean no one, who lives in a place that is prone to disaster such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods should be without some kind of disaster kit. This doesn't amount to much - just enough water for the household for five to seven days, clothes that are sealed up so that you will have dry clothes if needed., flashlight and radio with extra batteries, and enough food that does not need to be heated. This is not expensive. Anyone - no matter their economic circumstances (because, let's face it everyone has a TV) - has access to the information and most of this stuff they already have in their house. And the one thing about a hurricane is that you know it is coming, and may hit, for days which is plenty of time to get things together. In any kind of disaster the rule is that you should be prepared to take care of yourself for a minimum of three days without any help from anyone.

Mayor Ray Nagin never ordered a mandatory evacuation until it was too late. Over a thousand school buses sat underwater (we all saw the pictures) that could have been used to evacuate the poor and disabled but they went unused. And Nagin's excuse - "We didn't have anyone to drive them". Really? Oddly enough one of the great stories to come out of the days was that of a fifteen year old boy who commandeered an abandoned bus and picked up loads of people and drove the thing damn near to Houston before the cops pulled him over. So to say no one could be found to drive the buses is so bogus. Who knows, maybe it was Ray's way of exporting a large portion of his crime to other cities to pave the way for his 'Chocolate City". So unless someone actually has pictures of George Bush leading a contingent of Navy seals - armed with loads of C4 - toward the levees the accusation is ludicrous.

As far as Mr. Gonzales goes it all came down to the firing of some US Attorneys. Now never mind that the constitution states that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. They are political appointees and are often appointed because of their political affiliation. Most of the time a majority of these attorneys are let go when a new president takes office. President Clinton got rid of all but three almost immediately after being sworn in to office. Nary a peep from anyone. However few were replaced when President Bush took office. Who knows, but I think he was trying to keep some continuity in order to try to make nice with the dems in congress. At any rate when eight or nine were fired a few months ago there was an uproar from the left side of the aisle and a whisper from the few on the right. When confronted with the argument that the president had the absolute right to let them go these drum beaters' retort was that it wasn't that they were fired but how and why they were fired. Well I have a word or two for them. GET A CLUE. It doesn't matter. If you want to change the process then amend the constitution. Nothing else to be said.

But both of these instances point to the underlying problem. The absolute hatred by most liberals of anything having to with the president or his administration. I'm not sure why the hatred started but personally I think it had to do with the 2000 election. Somehow these liberals seem to think the election was stolen. This however has been proven to be false by many entities (some of them liberal) when they recounted the votes and even examined the "hanging chads". Of course the hatred was exacerbated by the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote. Maybe all these people thought that if Al Gore had been elected global warming would be a thing of the past and even if we had been attacked by Muslim extremists he could have gotten Bin Laden and others to sit around the campfire with him to sing Kumbaya and everything would now be hunky dory. But again - too bad. If you don't like the electoral college - amend the constitution.

I once heard Ben Stein say that the reason he became a Republican was because in the neighborhood where he grew up almost everyone was a democrat and they walked around with long faces and bad attitudes most of the time. The only guy in the neighborhood who seemed to be happy most of the time was a Republican. Mr. Stein said he came to the conclusion he would rather be happy than miserable so he became a Republican. The same thing can be said of most of the liberal leadership and many of the Hollywood elite these days. They seem to be angry most of the time, just about the only time they seem to be happy is at the misfortune of others, and the only time they laugh is at the expense of someone else.

Not all liberals have had the hatred sour them, but most have and it is them I worry about. I fear for their shriveling souls to the point where they can never recover. Most of them before the Bush hatred started festering were pretty nice people. I hope at one point they can be again.

So my advice is........
Lighten up. Administrations change and the chances are that the next one will be just as flawed as the current one. So as my Mother would say "Don't get your knickers in a twist." Try to laugh a lot every day - rarely at others and often at yourself. It will help you stay in balance, grasshopper.