A spokesman for George W. Bush says the former president has declined an invitation from President Barack Obama to attend an observance at New York’s ground zero.

via Bush declines Obama invitation to ground zero – Yahoo! News.

This strikes me as the way diplomacy, or inter-party relationships, should work. Obama gets credit for inviting Bush, and Bush gets credit for letting Obama take the credit. Does Bush deserve more credit for Bin Laden than he is getting in the press? Probably, but sometimes life just ain’t fair.

For what it’s worth, I think if Bush showed up at the observance that it is entirely possible that he would have received more applause than Obama (especially if he was allowed to speak). Just my two cents.


Here is a graph depicting gas prices from the first term of Bush and the first term of Obama:

Posted from WordPress for Android

I found a story on the internet from WorldNetDaily.  The story highlights a few examples of the NEA’s (National Education Association) attitude toward people who don’t share their vision.  The purpose of the WorldNetDaily article is to highlight the scripted profanity found in retiring general counsel Bob Chanin’s remarks to an NEA convention (I couldn’t easily find the date of the convention but the video was posted on YouTube July 6, 2009).

I’ll embed the video here, but I wouldn’t recommend watching the whole thing (if anyone knows of a way to edit videos in order to highlight certain content, I would like to hear from you).  If you want to hear what the retiring counsel of the NEA thinks (profanity and all) about Bush, conservatives, and those who generally do not share the NEA’s values, start just before 16 minutes.  If you want to hear why Chanin thinks the NEA is successful, go to minute 20 or so.  Ultimately, he says it’s about power.

That educators would clap in the places that they clap is unsettling.  That Chanin celebrates the NEA’s liberal views and lays bare some of the fundamental tenets of the union should not be surprising, but I find it shocking nonetheless.

Update (7/9/09): The Heritage Foundation has a brief analysis of this video with links to other reports.

I’m not going to get too worked up about this, but I wanted to throw it out there because it came to mind as I was perusing the news.  This was from a UK Telegraph article on the return of a bust of Winston Churchill that resided in the Oval Office as a gift on loan from the British government:

Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill’s second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President’s grandfather.

So, should we be worried about going to war with the British?  If I followed the same demented logic of our liberal brethren we might at least pause to wonder if a coming conflict with Britain is in the works.  You see,  Bush allegedly went to war with Iraq to avenge the attempted assassination of his father (among other reasons).  Will Obama, as he assumes the mantles of power, march us off to war with the UK because of what they did to his grandfather half a century ago?  Maybe just a trade war, or war of words, but a war nonetheless.  Will he be vilified just as his predecessor was for such familial back-scratching?

Like I said, I’m not really going to get worked up about this, but I thought I would throw it out there into cyberspace for anyone who is looking for the latest conspiracy theory.