Thursday, July 12, 2007

In the News

Most of y'all are news junkies like me. Doubtless you have heard, through one medium or another, that Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) is in some rather high temperature water because he's one of the 'sanctity of marriage' conservatives who happens to enjoy visiting houses of ill repute.

But that ain't the real news out of Louisiana on this day, especially down here in New Orleans. Down here in this part of the world, The District Attorney is under fire because he continues to not prosecute murderers and seems incapable of doing his job.

To say folks have been unhappy with this situation for quite some time would not do justice to how livid the population is with the city's current crime situation. Calls for the District Attorney to resign or be fired are rippling across the airwaves, mail, phone lines and interwebs. If anyone needs a reminder, the folks who do not take crime in this city seriously were duly warned by about 5,000 New Orleanians that January 11th, 2007 was their last chance to deal with a rational population.

Today is 6 months + 1 day post-warning. And, historically speaking, you don't want to have an agitated, radicalized populaiton ready to move in the heat of the summer. It ain't worked out so well, historically speaking, for the powers that be.

Please join us for some real news, in the links section to your right entitled "Crescent City." I'm sure there will be more to this shortly.


Dante said...

Louisiana politician likes hookers? Who'd a thunk it? To be fair, Vitter never said you shouldn't cheat on your spouse, only that the spouse should be of the opposite sex.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Well, he may not have said the exact words - "don't cheat on your spouse" - but he sure harped on that "sanctity of marriage" and "defend the family" and "traditional marriage" thing. He even called defending marriage the most important issue on the minds of Louisiana voters.

I reckon that we who thought he meant "cheating on wife = bad" are just guilty of making unfounded assumptions in this case, hunh?