As I perused the NYTimes.com homepage and saw the link for tomorrow's lead editorial, The Sago Mine Disaster, I laughed and said to myself, "I bet they try to blame it on Bush".

They're so predictable.

Whether or not that was a factor in the Sago mine's history, the Bush administration's cramming of important posts in the Department of the Interior with biased operatives from the coal, oil and gas industry is not reassuring about general safety in the mines.

Ooooh...OPERATIVES. How sneaky sounding. At least they're upfront in saying that it's not important to them if Bush or any of his people actually had anything to do with the disaster. And of course they're also admitting that they don't feel they need to research the issue before leveling criticism. Perhaps a simple statistic like how many mining deaths/accidents have there been in recent years compared to the past? I mean, how hard could that be to get from their union friends?

Was there any thought involved in putting together this editorial or was that the sound of a knee jerking?

According to the Dept. of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration, the number of coal mining deaths and injuries declined 20% in the first three years of the Bush presidency. Whether or not Bush's choices for the Dept. of Interior leadership were any factor, it has to make us feel good that he's in charge. See how stupid that sounds when the shoe's on the other foot?