Wow - It's Been A While!

My friend Laurie just started a blog, which inspired me to post on mine. Not that I have anything really important to talk about, mind you. Just that I have to keep up with the Joneses. Sooooo....politics are pretty interesting right now, but not if you watch the MSM. They're all obsessed with Weiner and whether he'll resign. Democratic leadership is calling for his resignation, but you wouldn't know that if you listened to Republican leadership - they say the Dems are not being hard enough on Weiner (pun intended). Let's take a trip back to the David Vitter scandal, shall we? Republicans gave him a standing ovation when he returned to the Senate (after admitting to using prostitutes with the DC Madam, which, by the way, is ILLEGAL). And how about John Ensign? He cheated on his wife with a member of his staff (punny) and used campaign funds to bribe them to keep quiet (again - ILLEGAL). He only resigned after two years because the Ethics Committee was going to recommend he be removed from the Senate. Meanwhile, John Edwards, a Democrat who did essentially the same thing, is currently facing charges in his little dealio.

So yeah, there's a double standard - just not the way the Republicans THINK there's a double standard. And if they want the same standards, that's fine - they just better remember that they asked for them when it's THEIR people being forced to resign.

It's been a while...

Well, it's been a while since I've posted, and a lot has happened. I've moved to a much "bluer" state - Minnesota (from Red, and I mean RED, Florida). Interestingly enough, I ran into many more self-proclaimed Democrats in Florida than I have here. Weird.

At any rate, we're headed for an interesting election - historic even! Can't wait to see if my vote counts!!

Why are talking points allowed to direct debate?

I'm one of those people who does research, as I'd expect TV news hosts to do. Why, then, are talking points never disputed?

One of the recent ones I've been hearing is, "There is a reason the United States has not been attacked since 9-11; it is not an accident." This is used in regard to the press publishing "classified" information about terror tracking programs. Nobody - not the moderator of the program or the other guests - brings up the fact that this argument is faulty. If they are talking about attacks on US soil, attacks weren't frequent before these programs. The last time we were attacked on US soil by foreign terrorists (before 9-11) was the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The terrorists responsible were caught and tried, and not one of our civil liberties was tramped upon in the process. We managed to stay terror-attack free on US soil (barring the Oklahoma City bombing, which was by Americans) without programs that limited civil liberties. If they are talking about foreign attacks on US citizens, they are also incorrect - we have been attacked on a constant basis following 9-11. The attacks have increased exponentially, for that matter, since we invaded Iraq.

Another talking point is that we "elected the Congress and this President to protect us, the citizens of the United States." I've discussed this in a previous post. Our elected representatives, including the President, have several jobs - the most important of which is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, the Presidential oath states, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not once does it even mention protecting the citizens of the United States. Without our Constitution, there is no America. There is just another country that claims to have democracy without protection of freedom or equality.

There are numerous other talking points that bother me, but these are the main two regarding national security. Reasonable people need to dispute incorrect or invalid talking points to ensure that the American people are getting the truth rather than the spin of those with power.

What is it with America?

Why don't our citizens understand that we OWN the country, and that we have a right to say how we want it run? Somehow the current CEO has us all jumping at our own shadows, scared to say "boo" because it may empower the evildoers. Well, what if the evildoers we are empowering are the ones running the country? Does nobody consider that?

The President has an obligation to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution, so help him God. He keeps saying, however, that his number one priority is protecting the people, presumably at the expense of the Constitution (e.g. wiretapping without warrants, arresting enemy combatants without counsel, etc.). Somebody needs to tell him that without the Constitution, there is no "America" to protect - just another dictatorship that somebody may need to come liberate.

Double Negatives

Okay, so most people down here in "Cracker Country" use double negatives (e.g., "I ain't got no money today"), but to fit a double negative in one word is amazing to me. That word is irregardless. I've heard teachers use it down here. So when they say something like, "Well, Bush is President - irregardless of the fact that the recounts were stopped," I have to wonder what they mean. Are they saying he's only President because the recounts were stopped? WTF?

I'm a bit hyperanalytical...

When I listen to music, I actually listen to the words. Which poses somewhat of a problem, as most songs are not well written.

Case in point: Destiny's Child's song "Independent Women" from Charlie's Angels. The opening lyrics are, "Question: Tell me what you think about me." That's not a question!

And another: Faith Hill's song "The Way You Love Me," which begins, "If I could grant you one wish, I wish you could see the way you kiss." I'm pretty sure if she could grant him one wish, it would have something to do with beer and naked women and a desert island. She wants to grant him the wish that she's already picked! What's up with that?

I could go on forever, but there's more music to be heard.....

Michael Jackson Trial

I heard that Michael Jackson's attorneys are going to call several famous young stars to testify that Michael didn't molest them. If that works, won't Scott Peterson be upset his attorneys didn't call everyone he didn't murder?

Extraordinary stuff

I don't understand the word "extraordinary." Wouldn't that mean more ordinary? How is that a good thing?