What do you think of the radio spots running for the Sarah Palin money grubbin,' er, book tour? The one wife tells the other wife to keep your “husband on a short leash” when he sees Sarah.
What the hell is that all about? Is Sarah such a temptress that even married men aren't safe around her?! What's that got to do with good governance?
Imagine if Bill Clinton had run ads like that. “Hey guys, keep the chastity belts on the ladies when you come to see Bill.”
I got an old rancher friend in Nebraska who used to say that folks like Sarah are “All hat,” they look good but got nothing under it to back it up. I wish the press would push the fact that she quit the job she had to promote herself.
Someone needs to just ask the question: “Mrs. Palin, can you tell us exactly again why you quit your elected office?”
When she stomps off or ignores the question, we have our answer.
The Observer's story about salting the ice (Feb. 4) reminded me of another ice story. In the mid 1980s some friends of mine owned Mott's Bar-B-Q on US 167 south of Sheridan and one icy day a state highway department salt crew stopped by to relax and coffee up. When they bundled up to leave Mott told them the coffee was on the house in appreciation of their work on the highway. The crew left but a few minutes later one crew mem-ber came back in and told Mott she needed to do something with her parking lot because it was dangerous. They were aware of that but had not had time to do anything about it. Later, when they got a break, Mott went outside to see what they could do about the parking lot ice. By the door, leaning against the outside wall, was a “commercial size” bag of salt. The type the highway department used.
West Memphis 3
I read with great interest the recent article concerning Judge Fogelman's statements on the West Memphis Three. In his Jan. 20 speech, Judge Fogelman commented on the new evidence that exonerates the West Memphis Three.
An examination of Judge Fogelman's statements shows that, sadly, he still doesn't understand the basic facts of this important case.
Judge Fogelman stated that “they found a hair that belonged to a stepfather on one of the boys and another hair belonging to a friend of that stepfather ... but, what is really unusual about finding a hair from a stepfather on his stepson? I would think that would be something expected.”
Initially, his statement that “they found a hair that belonged to a stepfather of one of the boys” is simply not true. The hair at issue wasn't found on the stepfather's (Terry Hobbs') son, Stevie Branch. It was found in the binding of Michael Moore, one of the other boys who was murdered. Applying Judge Fogelman's logic, this is, indeed, “unusual.”
Next, Judge Fogelman states that “they found ... another hair belonging to a friend of that stepfather.” The judge raises this vital issue — that a hair was found belonging to a friend of Terry Hobbs whom Hobbs hadn't seen until after the boys were reported missing on May 5, 1993. The judge then ignores the issue he raised. Could that be because there is no possible innocent explanation for it? How does the hair of a man that Mr. Hobbs had not seen until after the boys disappeared end up at the crime scene?
A man sits on death row and two others have been living in hell for 17 years. It is deeply disturbing that the man who put them there, and who now wants to be a Supreme Court justice, has no better grasp on the facts (and inevitable conclusion) today than he had in 1994.
As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I admit it's been a tough go the last few months. People like me, who felt that his presidency was the last real shot we had for a new tone in Washington and at accomplishing some truly significant bipartisan reforms were quickly shown that the honey-moon was to be short-lived and that apparently nobody will ever end the gridlock. Friends of mine on the left feel he's not living up to what they expected. Friends on the right can't seem to get past this caricature they've created of the president.
The country is fed up with the entire process, which is certainly justified at this point, no matter your political leaning. But I hope people see what's really been happening: we have the political party that controls 40 percent of the legislative body thinking they should dictate 80 to 90 percent of the legislation. That's just a ridiculous way to begin any debate, especially given the way that many of these same people governed when they had the (slim) majority. That same party is so fenced in by its own rhetoric now that any move towards working with this admini-stration could cost them their next election. How will we ever move forward like this?! Are we in an era where nothing important will pass unless one party has complete control of all branches of government?!