This week's Snapper Rant.


oh heck, so you dont have to go through that annoying registration process, here it is:

===================================================================================================
Recent events have made me wonder about the Right's so-called claim to "moral clarity."

The Bush Administration is planning on kicking off their re-election campaign for the coveted second term during the 2004 Republican Convention, to be held in New York City. That's fine, right? Conventions are a place for political showboating, campaigning, and power. The Democrats will be doing it as well at their convention in 2004. You might be asking, "Terry Pinder! What's the big deal? Give the guy a break!"

Well, the Republican Convention, held in New York City, will begin on September 2, 2004. The Convention will close out with the three-year anniversary of the day the entire world changed for the worst: 9/11. Simply put, the Bush Administration is going to begin their re-election campaign in earnest using the death and horror of that day to win one over on their opponents.

Cynical, because the last three years have seen record deficits, two costly nation-building projects, cuts in social programs such as benefits to our Veterans who fought for the freedom of this great land, unemployment, recession, underemployment, and a gradual and disturbing roll-back of civil liberties in the name of "freedom". Is using 9/11 as a political tool "moral clarity?" I'm just a tad confused, because I don't think it is.If it is, then "moral clarity" leaves much to be desired.

Of course, the Bush Administration's "moral clarity" consistently blocked and thwarted the efforts of members of Congress to form an independent commission to investigate exactly what went wrong on 9/11. Then, the Bush Administration's "moral clarity" manipulated the commission for political means by making it partisan. Kissinger's appointment was some good "moral clarity." Thankfully, he had the decency to resign for conflicting interests. Then, the Bush Administration's "moral clarity" ordered that the commission have barely a year to finish its work. Common sense, and maybe some respect for the dead, would think that the government would go to all possible lengths, overturn all possible stones, fire all possible incompetents, and bring all possible terrorists to justice by giving the commission as wide and independent a latitude as possible. Eh, well. I guess "moral clarity" obviously doesn't include common sense. What on God's green Earth was I thinking?

Of course, the "moral clarity" extends to Pennsylvania's own Rick Santorum. Third most powerful person in the United States Senate. Junior Senator from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, founded by the tolerant Quaker William Penn. Rick Santorum, in the last few days, has proved that his moral clarity means the Supreme Court, and therefore the federal government has the right to regulate acts between consenting adults. This is in response to the Supreme Court's recent hearing on a Texas law that bans same-sex, well acts.

Santorum's moral clarity extends out from there, he's said publically that Darwin was basically wrong (which science has proven that Santorum and his ilk have been and always will be wrong), he's blamed the Catholic Church (of with he's apart of) scandals on liberals, and basically said that the scandals themselves were consensual. Moral clarity, Ricky S? If that's moral clarity, I'm disturbed. The state has no right to interfere with the privacy rights of American citizens, which Santorum bascially endorses. What two consenting adults of either gender with either or the same gender do in the privacy of their own residence is none of the government's business. I think Ricky S. "doth protest too much."

I think the Right's claim to "moral clarity" leaves much to be desired. Try "moral bankrupt" on for size. I think the shoe fits and in the end, the American people can give these guys the boot.
===============================================================================