I sometimes think our politicians like that all things involving politics have to either be inconsistent or seemingly involve some irregular process.

With Rep. Gabrielle Giffords resigning her seat in the U.S. House of Representatives this week, Arizona is left with a real muck of a situation. A special primary election to replace her won’t take place until approximately April, followed by a special general election for either June or July. Put all the stuffy bureaucratic policies to the side — why the f*** does this have to take so long, especially when the Congresswoman has theoretically been out of office for over a year?

I get that for the past year, Giffords’ office has proceeded to stay busy, doing whatever they possibly can considering the awkward situation they were in. Still, don’t those in her district deserve better?

Only speaking from my vantage point as a complete outsider to the Congresswoman’s situation, I have long reckoned it seemed fairly obvious she would not return to regular work during this current term.  Would it not have been more appropriate for the Congresswoman to resign any earlier? The state of Arizona will now spend millions of tax payer dollars to elect an individual to finish out her term for the better part of six months — while Arizonians in her district will then either re-elect that person or elect someone new to begin serving a new term in 2013.

In Illinois, we are not too keen to the idea of a state governor appointing a replacement, thanks to the actions of our former idiot Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his eventual appointment of Roland Burris when it came time to filling the senate seat left vacant by then President-elect Barack Obama. Be that as it may, instead of wasting several months and taxpayer money, a special appointment by the Arizona governor would seem to be more appropriate than thumbing through the drawn out process of this special election.

Rather F’d up…

For the record, I don’t sincerely believe Giffords is at fault.  I do wish her the very best in her continued recovery, and do hope she can somehow make a return to politics down the line.

President Obama’s NO to the Canadian Keystone Pipeline has the potential to haunt him this coming November. Not because his decision was necessarily wrong (that’s a separate issue altogether), but because of circumstance.

When negotiating the extension of payroll tax cuts in December, Republicans agreed to the cuts in return for an Obama decision on Keystone within 60 days. I have no doubt that they knew he would ultimately vote no for the pipeline.

As planned, the Republicans now have one more talking point against Obama for November. They can make the claim that Obama is for the status quo when it comes to oil and energy production. Doesn’t sound like a big deal at the moment, since politicians are always embellishing “such and such” claims. However, if oil prices do soar out of control this summer, then the shit may really hit the fan…

The Wall Street Journal posted a special report yesterday speculating that such a rise in oil prices may indeed happen if the European Union does decide to ban Iranian oil imports. You ban Iranian oil, you’ve got the Saudis increasing their production capacity, while the margin of spare oil becomes more dense. Suddenly, you’ve got the perfect storm giving speculators more than enough reason to jack up oil prices.

Correlating the Keystone Pipeline decision into the equation could be the best tactic Republicans have against him. While damning “Obama Care” or the tight restrictions against Wall Street are all grievances that will be used by the Republican nominee (assuming Mitt Romney), they are essentially weak. They don’t hit home enough to the average person because they don’t have an immediate impact on one’s day-to-day existence.

Paying $4 plus per gallon, or worse, $5 per gallon does…

Up until now, I have vastly assumed that Obama would likely defeat whoever the Republican nominee is. If this oil situation plays out as projected above, I think the Republicans are dealt with a potential advantage.

It’s obviously too early to predict anything. As St. Louis talk radio personality Paul Harris wrote earlier this month, we haven’t even seen the Obama re-election machine in action yet.

While the United States negotiates with the Taliban, complicating such matter was the video surfacing showing U.S. marines urinating on Taliban corpses. The U.S. insists that such acts are deplorable. All involved have been identified and the assumption is they will be charged and held accountable.

What a bunch of dumbasses.

Not because they actually pissed on Taliban corpses… but because they got caught.

I get it. What the marines did was wrong. It makes our military and our country look bad (not that our government has never done that). I get how the United States is supposed to be better than this.

I don’t know why, but for some reason, I don’t find myself to be that offended. As a matter of fact, I’m not offended at all.

I wouldn’t have done the same thing. But if I had seen it happen, I wouldn’t have turned them in. I think there are just far worse things that could have happened. I’m not arguing that urinating on dead Taliban is not a big deal. It is. But the thought that those marines could spend several years in jail just seems wrong.

I would be ok with them getting a slap on the wrist.

And the next time, maybe the next bunch that does this will know better than to capture the evidence on camera or video.

The Economist’s Democracy in America blog summarizes the continued GOP/Tea Party identity crisis.

Specifically, it identifies how contradictory it is for the Iowan Tea Party to vote for GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum:

It is entirely possible that Mr Santorum is the least libertarianish candidate in the Republican field. Indeed, I’m not sure there’s a single issue on which Mr Santorum comes closer than Mr Romney to the alleged tea-party movement ideals of small government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty. And, obviously, Mr Santorum does much worse in these respects than Ron Paul.

Also interesting is the author’s conclusion on the Tea Party:

Which is to say, the tea-party movement is just another expression of the American right’s signature brand of identity politics. Its overriding concern is elevating the power and social status of those who hold dear a certain conception of American authenticity—white, evangelical, exceptionalist nationalism—and it does this, bizarrely, using the rhetoric of constitutionalism, limited government, and free markets.

The controversy surrounding Jaime Gonzalez is interesting. Police shot and killed him on Wednesday at his middle school in Texas, when he refused to drop the weapon and then allegedly pointed it at them. His parents are upset, while his community and church mourn his loss. He is said to have been a very nice kid — an avid church goer. His godmother claims he didn’t even bring the gun to school, but that he had taken it from another kid and was going to turn it into the principal’s office.

What should the police have done? He didn’t drop the weapon, and he allegedly pointed it towards them.Whether you’re at school, the mall or grocery store, when you’re showcasing a gun, the odds suggest you’re up to no good!

In this case, I am all for doing what is necessary to ensure that he does not hurt one person. It turned out he was carrying a pellet gut. My mind does not change.

I sympathize for the community and his parents, as I’m sure this is a horrendous shock. This is still the preferable outcome as opposed to sympathizing for another kid or group of kids or teachers hurt or killed as a result of Gonzales.