ramblins of buddy don: thursdys this n that

lemme see ifn i gut this strate. ifn ye gut a problem with yer cathlick priests molestin kids, tiz on a counta havin such a librul local cultchur. lack in boston, noted hotbed of libruls frum the boston tea party to paul reveres ride, bofem ackshuns agin the cunservativ innersts of the gummint of the time. senator rick santorum wuz trine to hep us beware of this whenever he rote this:

"Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture," Santorum wrote in a July 12, 2002 article for the Web site Catholic Online. "When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

since he sed that way back in july of 2002, mayhap he's dun been readin sum of the ackshul facks about the abuse n changed his mind, right? rong:

Since Santorum wrote those words, the scandal has spread from Boston to almost every diocese in the country, has forced three bishops to declare bankruptcy and has cost the church close to $1 billion. In a study for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice reported last year that 4,392 priests had been accused since 1950 of abusing more than 10,600 children.

Asked by the Boston Globe this week whether he stood by his remark, Santorum said he did. "I was just saying that there's an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant" in Boston, the Globe quoted him as saying Tuesday.

mayhap he mite wonta read sum of them facks now:

Based on statistics publicly reported by many of the country's 195 dioceses, the Boston-based lay activist group BishopAccountability.org has calculated that the highest percentage of abusive priests from 1950 to 2003 was in the diocese of Covington, Ky. Boston was among the 10 worst dioceses, but several other cities commonly regarded as liberal culturally and politically had relatively low rates of abuse. Just 1.6 percent of San Francisco's priests have been accused of abuse, for example, compared to more than 4 percent nationwide.

hmm. who knew? covington kentucky is a bastchun of librul cultchur? n whutever happend to the libruls in san fransisco n new york? have they dun lost thar influents?

then thars the bizness bout how sum folks count moren otherns, lease whenever it cums to whuther it matters ifn they die. heres a fine articull on it, witch i wish i had red it yesterdy befor postin:

50 people killed by bombs in London last Thursday. 54 killed by bombs in Baghdad, Mosul, and Kirkuk over the weekend. Why do we react so differently? Because the attack in London was the worst attack in since WWII, whereas in Iraq 1500 people have been killed in various kinds of terrorist attacks – meaning random attacks on civilians designed to sow terror and signal opposition to something – since April? But that response makes the question sharper still. Why do we react so differently? Why don’t we react even more strongly to the deaths in Baghdad?

corse, thangs is gittin better, rite? rong agin:

Data Shows Faster-Rising Death Toll Among Iraqi Civilians
By SABRINA TAVERNISE

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi civilians and police officers died at a rate of more than 800 a month between August and May, according to figures released in June by the Interior Ministry.

In response to questions from The New York Times, the ministry said that 8,175 Iraqis were killed by insurgents in the 10 months that ended May 31. The ministry did not give detailed figures for the months before August 2004, nor did it provide a breakdown of the figures, which do not include either Iraqi soldiers or civilians killed during American military operations.

While the figures were not broken down month by month, it has been clear since the government of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari took over after the Jan. 30 election that the insurgency is taking an increasing toll, killing Iraqi civilians and security workers at a faster rate.

In June the interior minister, Bayan Jabr, told reporters that insurgents had killed about 12,000 Iraqis since the start of the American occupation - a figure officials have emphasized is approximate - an average monthly toll of about 500.

but how minny has been killt since the war begun? as ye know, our gummint deecided twuznt importunt to count iraqi dead, so fack is they dont know. (could it be ye dont count folks that ye cunsidder no account?). but thays sum iraqis that duz figger they orta count thar own dead:

An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

Mafkarat al-Islam reported that chairman of the 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad, Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, said that the toll includes everyone who has been killed since that time, adding that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under.

tiz grate how taint a'happenin here, tho, aint it? so why wood we wonta make shore we defend them places mos lackly to be attacked? aint pork more importunt? ye kin thank senators lieberman n collins fer this:

This was a sad week for the war on terror. The Senate voted, disgracefully, to shift homeland security money from high-risk areas to low-risk ones - a step that is likely to mean less money to defend New York and California against terrorism and more for states like Wyoming. Before the vote, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a powerful appeal to the senators to distribute the money based on risk. But the Senate, led by Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and other small-state representatives, put political pork ahead of national security. It now falls to the House to fight for a financing formula that will keep the nation safe.

The 9/11 commission, after an extensive study of the best ways to defend America, urged that antiterrorism funds be divided "strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities." Mr. Chertoff, in a strongly written letter, urged the senators to enact a formula that would distribute money "based on risk and need," not one that is "static" and "inflexible."

But Congress likes inflexible formulas because they allow members to grab homeland security dollars for their own districts and constituents, whether they need them or not. Rather than dole out homeland security money according to a system based entirely on risk, Congress builds in guaranteed state minimums - money that goes to a state regardless of the risks and threats it faces. This way, money that the Homeland Security Department may want to use to protect New York's subways or Texas' chemical plants ends up in Nebraska.

the lucky thang is how them that has ackcess to classifide gummint secrets woodnt never let em slip, speshly not to put party above cuntry, rite? or maybe not. ye dont need lanks to rove. that news is everwhar.

but thays hope that thangs is a'gone git better, lease fer them that bleeves in the ideals of amurka. the sun is still a'risin on that dream! (miz bd tuck this fine pitcher of it tuther day: