Mama Land Shark, Gamal Racing, Oh I'm A Taliban And I'm OK...

Jimmy Carter

One sure way to get yourself in the news is to snipe at Sarah Palin, because she doesn't forget, and like a shark, she will always move forward to attack you back. Maybe she should be named Mama Land Shark... The latest round came from a leaked interview that Larry King had with Barbara Bush. When asked about Ms Palin, Barbara replied: "I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful," Bush said. "And I think she's very happy in Alaska -- and I hope she'll stay there."

Now, Sarah could have left this alone, almost any other Republican would, but on Laura Ingrahan's show she had to snipe back: "I don't want to concede that we have to get used to this kind of thing, because I don't think the majority of Americans want to put up with the blue-bloods -- and I want to say it will all due respect because I love the Bushes -- the blue-bloods who want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition." I've never thought of Barbara Bush as a privileged blue blood, she's had to keep her witty remarks to herself for many years, and self-censor what she says about her more conservative husband's views and her sons views... One can only wonder what she will be saying to the hordes of people talking about Bristol Palin losing out to Jennifer Grey on Dancing With The Stars. I'd make some snarky comment but I've never watched the show... But Sarah Palin is a polarizing figure. You either love her like the political goddess she has become, or you are not so enthralled with her and tend to make fun of her earnest attempts of self-publicity and puffery. Enjoy the second book she hasn't written on her own, out now in time for holiday buying...

And just to show that even with Sarah Palin, there can rest a kernel of truth in her arguments: "Palin also suggested that the Bushes upper-class status had contributed to "the economic policies that were in place that got us into these economic woeful times."

How long does a conservative's public committment against earmarks last? Apparently, about 3 days: "Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government.


Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government. Kyl's office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year." Does this mean the earmark ban is off? Will we go back to our old, profligate ways?

Most people, when debating earmarks, usually miss the major point - that they are immoral at best, criminal at worse. Ite earmark process has become entangled by lobbying firms and blatant bribery. Whenever some group has a project and they don't want to go through the process of having their Representative write up a bill, which then goes through a review as to its merits, they can hire a lobbying firm, and pay them an outrageous fee for their services. The lobbyist contacts the Congressman, who then agrees to earmark the project for an agreed upon amount of money to be donated to his/her campaign fund. If you or I tried this, either as the donor or recipient of an earmark, we would land in jail for bribery. But this is business as usual for our Congress, who doesn't seem to get too angry when corrupt practices are uncovered in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. But it's horrible when it happens in Iran, just horrible...

Iran and Afghanistan could use a few lessons on how to properly run a rigged election. Watch how Egypt conducts their next elections, and how Hosni Mubarak positions his son, Gamal Mubarak, into winning the next election. Usually the main opponent  in an Egyptian presidential race ends up in jail afterwards for sedition and treason. And if Hosni is really worried, he'll put the guy in jail  before the election.  Usually, elections go with a lot of rhetoric about democracy and the equality of each person, so it may be refreshing to see how an election without all of those elements takes place...

In Afghanistan, it looks like they are about to jail the only two honest men in the government, the head of the Elections Dept, and the man who has to investigate all election complaints. The Afghan Attorney General is being pressured by friends of Karzai who had been disqualified, and now they wish to see revenge. The only charges the AG can think of is that these two men have defamed the country by investigating election fraud and disqualifying disputed votes. In a less secular government, the two would be charged with crimes against Islam... In the meantime, we continue to have mercenaries roaming the countryside amped up on methamphetamines provided by the military, getting conned by people who claim to be in the Taliban and paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars to negotiate a fake peace... at worse, it reminds me of a Graham Green novel, The Ugly American, and at best it reminds me of a Monty Python skit: "Oh, I'm a Taliban and I'm OK, I work all night and I sleep all day..."