Suspended Campaign

I'm sure by now everyone has heard that John McCain wants to temporarily suspend his political campaign for President so he can help deal with the current economic crisis. WTF!!! As a dear friend of mine pointed out: when he becomes president, will he not be able to handle two things at one time???? I agree 100%.

I also think that McCain has probably done one of the more stupid moves in his political career. If one person - my dear friend - has the thought that McCain cannot handle more than one thing at a time (definitely not an assest for the leader of a country), than other people have thought the same thing. I know that if I had any confidence in McCain's ability as a leader in the first place, it would have completely disappeared after his latest statment.

Now, some might say - oh, it's a good thing, he's showing priorities by focusing on the economy. The question is: as President, what happens when there are two major things he needs to focus on at the same time? You can't just suspend one major thing to deal with another major thing. Life, unfortunately, is not that simple. We don't have the leisure to decide what we want to focus on in this life. To me, it is a slap in the face to the American people for John McCain to suspend his political campaign. He should be able to campaign and focus on the economic crisis. If he can't, then perhaps he needs to bow out of the election.

S

Clay Aiken is Gay

And this is news? I mean, unless you've been living under a rock, I think everybody figured out which team Clay played on. I mean seriously, folks, this is the biggest un-announcement since Ellen announced she was gay. I'm just saying . . . I mean, he's actually come out of his supersized closet and announced he was gay to the two people who did not know!!! Ah, the joys of living life in the Land of Delusion.

S

Women Cheat Too . . . and other things

Okay, I know that's an odd title, but . . . I was watching The View this morning and one of the hot topics was men cheating. The whole discussion centered on men - never once did any of the ladies of The View mention that women also cheat. It was all about the men today. Obviously, the ladies of The View have never watched Lifetime TV, because in those movies, women cheat all the time. I'm just saying . . .

Seriously, though, I think it's unfair that men were given such a hard time without recognizing the fact that women cheat on their boyfriends/husbands as well. The fact is, both men and women cheat on their significant others. Perhaps men cheat more than men. Perhaps only men get caught at cheating more. Perhaps women, possibly more clever than men, cheat more often, but only get caught cheating less. Now, there's a thought for the day.

Other topics on The View - Blackberries (the PDA) and speechwriters.

Here's my brief opinion . . .

Blackberries - don't have one, don't want one, and am perfectly content without one. I don't need to be in touch with the world 24/7. I don't want to be in touch with the world 24/7. When I come home a the end of the day, pour my glass of wine, and pick up my book, the last thing I want is an interruption, whether phone call, text message or email. The same thing applies if I am watching Project Runway. I want the solitude and the disconnect from the world. If I'm out to dinner with somebody - turn off your phone, turn off your Blackberry, and focus on me. I think it is the height of rudeness to text, email, or answer a phone when out to dinner with friends. If you can't focus on the people you are with, then perhaps you shouldn't have come out to dinner in the first place.

Speechwriting - the point raised was that the politicians hire speechwriters, so that we are not actually hearing what the speaker truly believes. Sarah Palin's RNC speech is the perfect example. It was a cleverly staged speech to present the views of the Republican Party, and not necessarily the views of Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, this dilemma plays across the board of politics and is not limited to a single party. Whoopi - like me - wants to hear what the person actually believes and feels they can do for the country, not what some highly paid speech writer feels the candidate should believe and do for the country. For the most part the other ladies of The View agreed with Whoopi. Hopefully, in the debates, the true personas of the candidates will emerge since the speech writers - should - have the night off.

S

The Honeymoon is Over!!

For those who even care . . .

• Sarah Palin's favorable rating drops, unfavorable rating rises
• Barack Obama regains lead in national polls
• Obama has been aggressively attacking John McCain's economic policies
• Neither candidate has shown expertise on economy, David Gergen says

The above bullet points come from this article.

As you'll find out if you're not lazy and actually click on the linked article, the honeymoon with Palin is over. Her favorable rating has dropped and her unfavorable rating has increased. I guess more and more people are checking out the fact websites and realizing that there is more - not necessarily better - to Sarah Palin than the Republican hype first seemed to indicate. I could have told you that much - please see earlier posts about Palin and the links to anti-Palin sites and well as political fact checker sites. In all honesty, Sarah Palin's emergence into this election was cleverly staged by the Republican Party. Her speech was written for her, and I'm she she had hours of rehearsals and couching to make her appear invincible. Obviously, the people behind her presentation failed to consider the fact that the majority of the American public is NOT stupid, and has the capability of googling Sarah Palin and learning the actual facts that she, and the Republican party, don't want them to know.

The election is far from over. Anything can, and probably will, still happen. What we, the American public, need to do is stay informed, stay involved, and keep checking those facts. The political ads are slanted and very biased. The political ads take things out of context and paint a very inaccurate picture. The only way to learn the truth is to research the facts and make an informed decision on Election Day.

Okay, I'm done with this rant . . . and very little snark was involved.

S

Credibility Takes a Nosedive

Sorry for the title of this blog, but I really couldn't think of anything better . . . or more snarky.

By now everybody knows about, and has probably seen via YouTube or someother site, Tina Fey as Sarah Palin. As far as I know, everybody knows that Saturday Night Live is all about satire and making fun of people. Well, obviously - see below article - I was wrong: everbody does not know. Carly Fioriona (former CEO of Hewlett Packard) . . . well just read the article.

I mean, really, somebody obviously needs to get a life and is taking things a little bit too seriously . . . kind of like Cindy McCain attacking the ladies of The View for asking tough questions. Uh, isn't that what running for office is all about?? I'm just saying . . .

McCain Advisor Calls Tina Fey 'Sexist'
Viewers liked Tina Fey as Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live, and so did Sarah Palin. But another member of Team McCain says Fey's portrayal was sexist. "Well, I think she looked a bit like her," former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said on MSNBC. "I think, of course, the portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial."I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean she lacks substance. She has a lot of substance."The 30 Rock creator may be weirded-out to be accused of sexism. As SNL's first female head writer, she's helped women move ahead in entertainment — just as Fiorina did for women in technology.Were you offended by Fey's portrayal? Watch it again below and tell us what you think. — Tim Molloy (tvguide.com 09/16/08)

One broken pledge . . .

If Sarah Palin cannot do what she pledged to do for her state, how can anyone believe she will do what she pledges to do for the entire country?

According to this article on cnn.com, in regards to a legislative probe regarding the firing of an Alaska state official, "Palin originally pledged to cooperate with the investigation and disclosed that members of her administration had contacted state police officials nearly two dozen times to discuss Wooten. But last week, she asked the state personnel board to conduct its own probe, and a string of witnesses has failed to show up at scheduled depositions with the investigator hired by the Legislature."

First - if she made a pledge, she should stick to that pledge. Second - so, now that Palin has backed off her pledge, all these witnesses are failing to show up. Well, isn't that odd? I wonder why the witnesses aren't showing up. Could it be that they have close ties to Palin and don't want to mar her political chances???? Excuse me while I go and look for a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Oh, silly me, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Okay, while I'm at it, let's talk about her "thanks, but no thanks" fairy tale she keeps telling about the bridge to no where. The facts - easily checkable on http://www.factcheck.org/ or http://www.truthout.org/ are quite different. Initially, Sarah was all for the bridge, especially with all the earmark money - something McCain is allegedly against - she could pull in for the state. The fact is, she didn't say "thanks, but no thanks" until wait late in the game after the whole bridge idea was basically dead.

Lastly, check out this blog. There are some very interesting facts. Please note, I italicized the word because the site is obviously not run by pro-Palin people. Even biased blogs contain kernels of the truth. You just have to really look at the kernels, go to the other sites already mentioned, and spend a little time googling to discover the truth. In the end, it's really worth the effort to figure out the truth.

Okay, now really last - the thing everyone has to consider is: do you want Sarah Palin as president of this country. The fact is, John McCain is not a spring chicken. The fact is, nobody knows when their time is up. My brother-in-law died at age 24. A friend of mine passed away a couple of years ago at age 59. Death happens. As a manager I used to work with once said, "you just never know when you're going to be hit by a doughnut truck on the way to work". If John McCain is - by some cruel chance of Fate - elected President and hit by a doughnut truck on the way to work . . . the woman unable to keep a pledge might just be running this country. I'm just saying . . .

S

Elvira Sat Alone

Elivra sat alone.

Elivira is a 90+ year old woman who lives at the same retirement center as my mother. I recently had dinner at the retirement home with my mother and noticed this woman sitting by herself at a table for two. I finally asked my mother about the woman. Mom’s response: Oh, that’s Elvira, she has Parkinson’s disease. I asked why she was sitting alone. Again, mother made the comment about Parkinson’s disease and that it was hard to understand Elvira when she talked. She also mentioned that she’d heard that Elvira’s family requested that she sit alone.
In counterpoint, there were tables – large and small – filled with people throughout the dining room. My mother, on a normal night, sits at a table with six other women. My mother never eats dinner alone. In fact – flashback to high school – she seems to sit at the popular table where all the other people want to sit as well. That night alone, two different women came up to mother before dinner and asked if there was space at her regular table. Go figure. Mom – 83 now – has become one of the popular girls.

Elvira, however, sits alone.

So what if Elvira is hard to understand. Companionship does not need words. Companionship needs nothing more than a smile or a nod of the head. Words, too often, are misunderstood or misinterpreted. What’s to misinterpret about a smile? A nod? A light touch on the hand to say, hey, I’m here for you? Elvira has none of that. She only has an empty chair across from her dinner after dinner, day after day, week after week, into the months and years of her golden years. How golden are the years when you have to eat alone – allegedly at the insistence of her family – at dinner when all around you are groups of people eating together?
Now, in the absence of truth, when only rumor abounds, is the alleged tale of Elvira’s family insisting she eat alone! Try as I might, three days after first seeing Elvira eating alone, I cannot understand what reason could exist for a family to be so inhumane! Was Elvira a horrible mother and this is their way of punishing her? Did/does – in their ultimate wisdom – family think she is better off eating alone, isolated from the companionship of others? What crime – real or imagined by her family – is so great that they would deny their mother friendship in her final years?

I don’t have the answers to these questions, or the many other questions that run through my mind every time I think of Elivra eating alone. All I see is a woman, alone in a room full of people. All I see is a family devoid of humanity forcing this upon their mother. I see no rhyme or reason to Elivira sitting alone night after night. I cannot – not even within the great scope of my imagination – understand the situation. I can only feel a deep sorrow that a woman – 90+ years of age – eats alone every night. I can feel anger – perhaps misplaced – at her family for insisting she eat alone.

I can feel shame at myself for not walking over and saying hi to Elvira that night once I heard the tale my mother had to tell. What harm is a smile, a nod, a hey, how’s it going, even from a stranger? Perhaps any of those things would not have made a difference in Elvira’s life. Then again, perhaps any of those things would have made the greatest difference in Elvira’s life.

Now, please understand that it is not like everybody in the retirement center ignores Elvira. I’m she sure has friends and people speak to her on a daily basis, smile at her, and ask her about her day. She does not live in complete isolation. But, at dinner, night after night, Elivra sits alone.

Careful how you filter!!

From the current issue of The Advocate (Issue 1013 - August 26, 2008):

AFA Keeps Gay at Bay - By filtering "gay" from its news site, the conservative group becomes a laughingstock.

The American Family Association hates the word gay. The organization's distaste is so strong that it's online news site, OneNewsNow.com, filters gay out of all Associated Press articles and replaces it with the anachronistic descriptor homosexual. On June 29, Tyson Gay won the 100-meter trials for a shot at the Beijing Olympics, but because of the filter, conservative Christians everywhere read that "Tyson Homosexual" clocked in at 9.68 seconds in the premier sprinting event. The story's filtered version read: "Wearing a royal blue uniform with red and white diagonal stripes across the front, along with matching shoes . . . Homosexual dominated the competition. He started well and pulled out to a comfortable lead by the 40-meter mark." While blogs had a field day with OneNewsNow's error, the site quickly fixed the gaffe, and AFA spokeswoman Cindy Roberts told The Washington Post, "It was just a fluke." Maybe so, but it could cause OneNewsNow.com bigger problems than embarrassment - AP stipulates that it stories not be rewritten upon publication, and it has been going after websites for even small attempts at re-purposing original work. - Michelle Garcia.

Okay, don't you just love irony at work. I can just see some of the other flukes caused by the AFAs dislike of the word gay.

BenGay is the perfect cure for your aches and pains becomes . . . Ben Homosexual is the perfect cure for your aches and pain.

Marcia Gay Hardin becomes Marcia Homosexual - who knew? - Hardin.

The possibilities are endless in the whole scenario set up by the AFA. I mean, can we just put these people on an island somewhere? Then again, without such conservatives going to such extremes, there would be less people to laugh at in this world. Laughter is, after all, the best medicine. While the AFAs attempts to eliminate the word gay are kind of frightening; they seem to have gotten bit in the nether regions by their own homophobia. Again, irony at it's best.

I wish everyone a gay - homosexual if your part of the AFA - old time.

Scott

Random Thoughts

Dunkin' Donuts is going to offer a healthier menu. Isn't that an oxy-moron?? Donut Shop and healthy menu??? I'm sorry, but if I'm going to a donut shop, I'm going full force for food that's bad for me. I'm just saying . . .

Irony at it's ABSOLUTE best!!!

From cnn.com:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A measure seeking to commemorate President Bush's years in office by slapping his name on a San Francisco sewage plant has qualified for the November ballot.

The measure certified Thursday would rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

Supporters say the idea is to commemorate the mess they claim Bush has left behind by actions such as the war in Iraq.

Hedviga Golik is dead!!!

Hedviga Golik is dead. In fact, she died 35 years ago. The problem: no one realized she was dead until just recently - see this article.

How is it, that a woman's body remained undiscovered for 35 years? How is it that neighbors did not become curious? As a small part of the article stated: The discovery of Golik's body on Tuesday prompted media debates on how it is possible for a woman to die so long ago without anyone noticing. One local journalist said it showed people were becoming more alienated - cnn.com 05/16/08. Is this true? Have we become so alienated as a society that we no longer pay attention to the world around us? Have you seen your neighbor lately? If not, have you bothered to ask someone when was the last time they saw your neighbor? Would you - the reader of this blog - even care enough to ask that question?

I guess I'm just disconcerted about how a woman could die and no one noticed. Do we, as individuals, as parts of a larger society, make such little impact on each other that a death can go unnoticed for 35 years? Well, this article obviously provides the answer to that question. Yes, we obviously make such little impact on each other that a death can go unnoticed for 35 years. The sad fact is, this is not the first such story - though probably the first 3 decade not noticing - about a death going unnoticed. Are we - the United States, the world, the population that is society - becoming too alienated, too content to live in a cyber (online banking, automated gas pumps, amazon.com, groceries online, etc.) world so that human interaction is no longer necessary? Are we - again, larger society - content to have less and less interaction with each other? Can society, as a whole, survive when interaction becomes extinct, people die and no one notices for 35 years?

I do not think society can survive such isolation. I think - as Merita Arslani wrote about the situation - that society needs to do the following: My dear neighbors! Please keep on being curious and a bit tiresome, as you have been so far" - cnn.com 05/16/08.

Curiosity might have killed the cat, but lack of curiosity let Hedviga Golik's death go unnoticed for 35 years. I think curiosity is the better option.

Scott

Neanderthal Views

It was mentioned today, by a dear friend, that I had not ranted lately. It's not that I haven't had plenty of reason - current election, Hillary Clinton, etc. - to rant; just, that I have not felt an overwhelming urge. Well, this article definitely gave me the urge. Basically, the California Supreme Court has overturned the same-sex marriage ban. Of course, the opponents have much to say about same-sex marriage:

• "The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.
  "So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

Where do I begin to rant with such a bountiful source of material??

• "So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage"
• "Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman."
• "We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and father."
• "To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

Okay, let me start with the last one. It's just too easy! Mr. Barber's alleged ignorance is deplorable. It is amazing the man can walk upright with his alleged neanderthal views.

Now, since I'm working backwards (it must be a gay thing), the next item from the bottom (that's a gay thing too, but I'm not going to explain) up: I have never understood why people think it is in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and father. My sister - for the most part - raised her children by herself after her husband left. Both her boys turned out fine and one of them is currently in Iraq serving our country. My siblings and I were basically raised by our mother. The four of us turned out fine as well. Oh, wait, I'm gay, so maybe that's what - insert heavy dose of sarcasm for the uninformed here - happened to me. Single parents, whether male or female, can be the best interest for a child. The mistaken belief that two parents are in the best interest of the child, in my lofty opinion, is . . . well . . . neanderthal. Go figure!

Mr. Barber's other two comments really are not worth responding to or ranting about. Marriage, in present day society, is nothing short of a sham. The vows spoken are easily broken. I've never been, nor will I probably ever be, a huge proponent of marriage, whether opposite or same sex. A golden band about a finger does not stop a man/woman from cheating on their spouse. A golden band about a finger, vows in a church, does not stop a marriage from imploding. Whether marriage is between opposite/same sex members is not the point. Commitment is (should be) the point. The fact is, when things go bad in a marriage, more people simply walk away than trying to fix whatever problems exist.

Now, since I'm basically forced to confront the issue. Counterfeit marriage. Give me a break! I'm at the top (another gay thing I'm not going to explain) now, just in case anybody is keeping track. Hetero marriage, in many instances, is counterfeit - see above paragraph.

Lastly, there is Mr. Barber's comment about judicial activism. I think it's awfully odd (perhaps he's thinking of running for office one day, because he sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton) that Mr. Barber considers the court's legal opinion activism, rather than following the law. I can guarantee you that if the court had agreed with him, he would be praising the justices, the court, and the allegedly hallowed ground he walks upon.

In the end, the only thing Mr. Barber is tasting is sour grapes. Hate it when that happens.

S

The High Price of Postage

Ever wonder why postage keeps increasing year after year, even though many people no longer use the postal service? Well, perhaps this little tidbit will explain why . . .

. . . In another case, USPS spent $13,500 on a dinner at Ruth Chris Steakhouse for employees who were attending a national postal forum in Orlando, Florida. The dinner included more than 200 appetizers and the agency paid for about $3,000 of alcoholic drinks, including more than 40 bottles of wine and top-shelf liquor, the study said. It deemed the dinner as an "excessive cost." - cnn.com (04/09/08)

The above is only one example of highly excessive government spending. See this article for more info.

If you've now read the linked article, is it any wonder the deficit keeps increasing?

Just my thoughts for the day and one of those WTF!!! moments in life.

S

The Death of a - future - Political Career

Does Secretary of State Condeleeze Rice not want a political future? Has she decided that she'll leave politics after she is no longer Secretary of State?

In my opinion, the answer is a resounding YES!

At what point, does selling your soul become commonplace? I understand, it is her job to agree with President Bush. He pays her the alleged big bucks; therefore, it is in her best interest to agree with him. BUT . . . in agreeing with him, it seems she sacrifices more and more of herself, and whatever political future she may (or may not) want beyond Secretary of State. If she were to run for any political office at a later date, her opponents would have more than enough material to destroy whatever hopes she had of being elected.

The time for blindly (blithely) agreeing with the policies of a dying regime need to end. The time for standing up for what is best for this country, needs to begin. No job, no amount of money, is worth the blind devotion - required - given to the current Administration. Free thought should still exist in this country. Congress should not be forced to act on something by a duck with two broken legs.

What brought about this latest post? Why, our dear President who is forcing Congress to vote on a trade pact with Columbia.

What was Condeleeza's response? Well . . . Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised the agreement in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal Monday. She said the free trade bill "could strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. workers; support a democratic ally on the cusp of achieving lasting national success; weaken those who would sow instability and autocracy in our hemisphere; and send an unequivocal signal to the entire world that the United States is a confident, capable global leader that acts not only in its own interest, but in the interest of its friends. (cnn.com)"

Does she actually believe what she wrote? Has her free-will been totally decimated by her tenure as Secretary of State? Where has the greater good for our country gone?

I'm just not sure that any job is worth the alleged sacrificing of a person's soul.

S

Truth, Lies, or Convenience

As most people probably know by now (unless they're living in a remote area without access to cable or Internet), Hillary was caught in another . . . lie. It seems, poor old Hillary just can't remember the truth of her life. Suddenly, a peaceful visit to Bosnia, became a sniper laden event where she had to run for cover. The linked article is very thought provoking.

The facts are (in my humble opinion), everybody embellishes. It is a part of life. How often have people said, I've told you that a hundred times???? Of course, that's an embellishment (unless you were talking to my partner after his colonoscopy and the administration of the amnesia drug - at that point, a hundred times is not an embellishment - trust me on that one). Hillary's statement about sniper fire is a tad bit more than an embellishment.

In the end, Hillary's truth seems more a convenience to advance her political career and tout her alleged experience, which, btw, now seems less experience and more convenient embellishment. What do you think?

S

In defense of Sarah Jessica Parker

Okay, odd title for this blog. Recently Maxim magazine named Sarah Jessica Parker (Sex and the City) the 'unsexiest' star. By rights, Ms. Parker was hurt by this label. I would be too. In my opinion, what qualifications do the people at Maxim have to make this distinction? In a larger scope, what right/qualifications does/do any one on this planet have to make that distinction?

In my honest opion: no right at all. The fact is, generation by generation (for the most part) society is becoming . . . well . . . MEAN! Why? At one point did humans begin to drift away from humanity? From compassion? So, Sarah Jessica Parky is unsexy to the editors at Maxim. She's obviously sexy to her husband. Other men find her sexy. So, why should Maxim's opinion be granted a greater weight/authority? Why should - forget Freedom of Speech, for one minute - they be allowed to demean someone without thought/regard for that person's freedom? In my opinion, they shouldn't be allowed.

Free Speech is great, but there comes a time in place when people should just think about what they are saying or writing. The fact (sad but true) is: most people don't give a damn whether they hurt someone's feelings or not. Society (for the most part) is not becoming MEAN, but has become MEAN!

Just my thoughts . . .

Scott

How can you disagree with perfect logic?

When in doubt - copy and paste. If you want the prettier version, click here.

I happen to agree, more than I would like too, with much of what Glenn Beck has to say. He's forthright, direct, and gets straight to the point. I don't agree with 100% of what he has to say, but the below post is brilliance in motion.

NEW YORK (CNN) --

Glenn Beck: Florida and Michigan leaders have only themselves to blame if their delegates aren't seated.

What do these stories all have in common?

• A woman who says she lost more $1 million gambling in Atlantic City sues some casinos for $20 million, claiming they should've stopped her compulsive gambling.
• People who bought houses they couldn't afford with loans they didn't understand want their lenders to change the terms.
• Congress authorizes a war and then tries everything it can think of to get out of it.
• Our country gets addicted to oil and then blames OPEC when it doesn't like the price.
  

These stories prove how personal responsibility has all but vanished in America, and our government is leading the way.

Remember the kid from that interminable 1980s commercial whose father caught him using drugs? The father incredulously asked, "Who taught you how to do this stuff?" and the kid responded, "You, alright? I learned it by watching you."

Well, we are that kid and our government is that drug-using father who doesn't think that anyone notices his bad habits.

Our government is leading us by example, and I don't mean that in a good way. For years, it has spent us into oblivion, mortgaging our future for programs we can't afford, and Americans have happily followed suit, running up credit card bills and home equity loans for things they never should've bought.

Unfortunately, we're also learning something else from our government: how to avoid taking responsibility for our actions.

From Eliot Spitzer's alleged hooker craze to the revelation that Arnold Schwarzenegger commutes to work in a large private jet even as he preaches the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions, there's never been a shortage of "do what I say, not what I do" hypocrites in politics.

But that same attitude has seemingly spread from individual politicians to an entire party.
Democrats aren't happy that delegates from Florida and Michigan won't be seated at the national convention because those states broke clear party rules. Well you know what? Too bad. We don't say that enough anymore. Too bad. You agreed to the rules; you broke them. Now you've got to deal with the consequences.

"But Glenn. ... Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have enough delegates to win the nomination. We don't want this to be decided in some backroom by superdelegates."

Too bad.

"But Glenn. ... You don't understand. If we don't seat delegates from those states now, then we might lose their votes in the general election."

Too bad.

"But Glenn. .... The voters in these states are going to be disenfranchised if we don't let their voices be heard."

Too bad.

If you want to talk about disenfranchised voters, then let's talk about why just 17 percent of Americans have a positive view of Congress. Let's talk about why we still have wide open borders despite most Americans wanting them sealed. Let's talk about why we keep selling out our sovereignty and our security by borrowing billions of dollars from-less-than friendly countries, such as China.

Americans aren't disenfranchised because our leaders won't count votes in a couple of states. They're disenfranchised because our leaders aren't doing their jobs. They're disenfranchised because after working hard to support their families and to raise kids who understand the difference between right and wrong, their leaders do exactly the opposite.

In the cases of Florida and Michigan, I've patiently listened to all the moving arguments about why there should be a "do-over," but quite honestly, they're not arguments at all. They're excuses. If this race wasn't so close, or if these states offered a combined 36 delegates instead of 366, do you really think anyone would care? Of course not.

But no matter what you think should happen, you have to admit that Clinton's idea that we should simply count her "wins" in Florida and Michigan is completely ridiculous.

In fact, if you played a rimshot and a laugh track behind her every time she recited that line, people might actually agree to a two-drink minimum to see her speak. How could you possibly count the results from an election when your main opponent wasn't even on the ballot (at least in Michigan)? You can't -- unless you think the rules are simply there for your own amusement.

Last year, when the punishment against Florida was first approved, Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee rules panel, said she hoped that the harsh consequences would "send a message to everybody in Florida that we are going to follow the rules." And Brazile knows a little something about that ... she ran Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000.

Voters in Florida and Michigan should ask themselves one important question before they blindly follow their party: Why did no one seem to care about "alienating" them last year when the rules were intentionally broken? It's only now, when their vote really matters, that everyone is suddenly so concerned about "enfranchising" them.

Florida and Michigan have a golden opportunity to stand up and say enough is enough, to send a message that it's time to not only take responsibility for their actions but for those of our leaders as well.

After all, what would it say about personal responsibility in this country if we allow the two states that broke all the rules to end up having the biggest say of all?

FL/MI Don't Deserve Revote

Okay, I stole the above title from this story; but I'm glad to see people finally agreeing with me on the whole FL/MI debacle: they knew the rules. Roland Martin, who wrote this article makes a strong point that FL/MI do not deserve a chance to re-vote, and that the people crying fowl now, are the same ones who did nothing when FL/MI were penalized in the first place.

So, at the end of the day, as I've previously mentioned, the votes either shouldn't count at all, or the delegates should be split 50/50. Our country - no matter what the ostriches running our government with their heads buried in the sand say - is in a recession. We're spending billions of dollars on a war that should have ended/never begun years ago. People are cashing out their 401Ks with alarming frequency, and suffering the taxes/penalties, to pay off their mortgages and somehow save their homes. Gas costs more than a Grande Mocha at Starbucks (at least here in TN). With all that, plus more not listed, taken into account, FL/MI want someone to come up with $20 - $30 Million to pay for another election. Boy, sounds like a perfectly logical solution to me. That's sarcasm, folks, just in case you were wondering.

In the end, the votes from FL/MI (much to Hillary's dismay) do not currently count, and should never count. She - along with all the other politicals whining right now - did not oppose the sanctions in the first place. She/they do not get a 'do-over'. We're not in preschool. Sometimes, life is just tough, and people need to learn to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Have a nice day!

S

What the . . .

You have to read this to believe it!

My comments: Get a life!

Enough said!

S

Another Day in Politics

I was hoping for a day off from politics. I refrained from watching politics on television this weekend, and resisted the urge yesterday to view stories on the Internet. I obviously failed in that endeavor.

Two stories from cnn.com - Obama advisors says . . . and Obama camp hammers . . . are the two posts in question.

First Story: Former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 1984, told the (Torrance, California) Daily Breeze that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.

Obama's campaign - justifiably - wants Hillary to repudiate Ms. Ferraro's comments. After all, Obama recently had an advisor resign because of her monster comment about Hillary. The question is: will Hillary comply, when in fact, Ms. Ferraro is one of her topfundraisers? Money talks! Hillary needs money to keep her campaign going. Will another Hillary double standard (i.e., MI/FL delegate debacle) ensue? Will Hillary not expect the same standards of her campaign staff that she allegedly demands of Barack's campaign staff? Only time will tell.

Second Story: Barack Obama's presidential campaign took some of its most pointed jabs to date at Hillary Clinton's claim of experience, circulating a memo to reporters Tuesday morning from former Clinton State Department official Greg Craig that suggests the New York senator uses "false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.

Basically, Hillary believes she has the experience to be President. Obama believes she is exaggerating those claims. Hillary thinks she has passed the 'Commander-in-Chief' test. Obama does not believe she has passed that test. It is a classic case of he/she said without a clear winner in sight. Personally, I don't think anyone is truly qualified/experience enought to be President. It is a job that basically sucks the soul out of a person and ages them quickly. It is not an easy job to do.

Is Obama unjustified in attacking Hillary like this? No. Hillary is basing her campaign on her experience and constantly attacking Barack's alleged lack of experience. If she does not have the experience she claims to have . . . well, I don't think I need to draw a picture to point out what that makes her.

In the end, I count the months until the end of election so sanity can prevail again. I'm not sure what the media will do once all is said and done, I guess go back to making Brittney and Paris the top stories of the day. Gee, something to look forward to . . .

S