Those too old to remember what it feels like to believe in that which has not yet been achieved, to picture what isn’t yet there, to ponder the unthinkable may find it hard to grasp onto Barack Obama’s message of hope and change. His message, as he travels around the country is infused with youthful and optimistic rhetoric which is then combined with insightful pragmatic positions that speak to the most daunting problems of our time, and it’s no surprise that this refreshing style of politicking and campaigning has sparked a nation wide movement spurred by our countries youth.
We young people have a special ability, a rare commodity that hasn’t yet succumbed to the plight of cynicism – we have the ability, which ironically is fueled by our desire for change, to maintain hopefulness and search out inspiration. We haven’t been lulled into conformity, apathetically living through the discolored motions of our day to day lives. Barack Obama and his encouraging oratory demand the attention of our countries youth – those with the ability to rise above the fray and experiment with optimism are called to be this countries next generation, dared to break up the monotony of status quo.
Obama recently gave a speech in Iowa where he identified the possibility of change through the gumption and organization of small groups of people. He spoke of how those who choose to act can eventually with hard work and determination fight and effect positive change in the uneven and evolving fight between the powerless and the powerful. He spoke of how we can all in fact change the world. To some that may not mean a lot but to an optimistic youth those words can change lives, and inspire great things. This message may be the ticket for what Obama needs to get him into the White House, but recently I’ve been thinking that this could also be the start of a much larger movement.
This movement of change and hopefulness inspiring young people to get involved in the governmental process could take off in ways that transcend the ballot box. November 2008 will be marked off in the history books as being the year where the young people (18-27) decide the election, where the youth make their voices heard, and if Barack wins the nomination it could cement this countries youth in obligation for service, commitment and philanthropy sparked not by mandate or statute, but by our countries most jaded generation. As in 1961 when President Kennedy initiated the countries first broad based, multinational volunteer program (the Peace core) and asked all of to ask ourselves what we could do for our country, perhaps an Obama presidency would mark the beginning of the end for my generation’s apathy and “why me” mentality and instead begin to foster an urgency of engagement an a “why not me” attitude”.
Iown townhall meeting - December, 2007
"One voice can change a room, and if it can change a room it can change a town, and if it can change a town it can change a state, and if it can change a state it can change a nation and if it can change a nation it can change the world, your choice can change the world, your choice can change American."
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Right to Bear Arms - Not an Absolute
Recently Governor Ed Rendell did an unprecedented thing, he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in Harrisburg and gave a direct testimony in advocacy for several important pieces of gun legislation; one gun per month law, mandatory reporting of stolen firearms, increased background checking and a number of others. Unfortunately to the Governor’s dismay all but one were shot down (no pun intended) without debate and in front of a democratically held committee.
The bills were tabled because regardless of political affiliations democrat or republican the NRA has more control over the General Assembly than any other lobbying entity in the state. Whenever a legislator from Philly introduces a bill to stifle violent crimes in their gun laden city or whenever a common sense Governor advocates for realistic gun regulation that would quell illegal gun trafficking, the NRA swoops in with its skewed, distorted message of fear and intimidation – “there out to take your guns away” they cry, “this will infringe on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms” they howl. And before you know it the debate is over and any legislator who dared to stand up for logic and safety are strong armed and silenced, fearful of loosing their job amidst certain political retribution.
The fact of the matter is that these gun regulations and others like it don’t infringe upon one’s right to keep and bear arms nor would these bills take away one single gun. The truth is we regulate the second amendment all the time; a law is currently on the books in over 20 states that allow only one gun to be purchased per person, per month. That means that a two person household sill has the capacity to purchase 24 firearms in a 1 year period, no court in the country has decided on that law being unconstitutional; as infringing on a person’s right to bear arms.
Again bills like this get passed all the time without constitutional scrutiny, it’s called the balance test, a court will look at how much a bill infringes on a person’s particular right and balance that against the state’s own interest in the existence and implementation of that law. Only permitting a household to bear 24 firearms within a 12 month period could be grounds for constitutional scrutiny but it’s logical to legislate that this law does not infringe on a person’s right to bear (or to acquire) firearms it only regulates the amount within a specific time frame to which that person can bear those arms. And that law justifiability lends to the further safety of the state.
It is the courts job to look at a specific law and measure it’s prohibition as practical and acting in the best interest of our society within the scope of that societies’ evolution – that’s my guess anyhow. Look, we regulate our constitution all the time, case in point the 1st amendment; we all know the classic example of yelling “fire in a crowded theater that is in fact not on fire, you can’t do it. Just like you can’t convene a peaceful Iraq war protest standing in the middle of the PA turnpike. We regulate those amendments because it’s not 1776 and because we realize that for the bettering of the state we must be willing to redefine our actions and personal rights to fit the scope of our society.
My point is two fold; one, certain gun regulations are not 2nd amendment infringements aimed at destroying the integrity and sacredness of the amendment they are there to protect the state and its citizens and two, we need to stop being beholden to the gun lobby, stop being afraid of them, stop letting them turn an honest debate into a demagoguery. Lets tone down the drastic rhetoric and be honest, these types of gun regulations do work and they don’t prohibit anyone from keeping or bearing arms, let’s stop speaking to the illogical, impatience of man’s inner instinct and rather breakthrough to the rational, unnatural side of compromise and statesmanship
The bills were tabled because regardless of political affiliations democrat or republican the NRA has more control over the General Assembly than any other lobbying entity in the state. Whenever a legislator from Philly introduces a bill to stifle violent crimes in their gun laden city or whenever a common sense Governor advocates for realistic gun regulation that would quell illegal gun trafficking, the NRA swoops in with its skewed, distorted message of fear and intimidation – “there out to take your guns away” they cry, “this will infringe on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms” they howl. And before you know it the debate is over and any legislator who dared to stand up for logic and safety are strong armed and silenced, fearful of loosing their job amidst certain political retribution.
The fact of the matter is that these gun regulations and others like it don’t infringe upon one’s right to keep and bear arms nor would these bills take away one single gun. The truth is we regulate the second amendment all the time; a law is currently on the books in over 20 states that allow only one gun to be purchased per person, per month. That means that a two person household sill has the capacity to purchase 24 firearms in a 1 year period, no court in the country has decided on that law being unconstitutional; as infringing on a person’s right to bear arms.
Again bills like this get passed all the time without constitutional scrutiny, it’s called the balance test, a court will look at how much a bill infringes on a person’s particular right and balance that against the state’s own interest in the existence and implementation of that law. Only permitting a household to bear 24 firearms within a 12 month period could be grounds for constitutional scrutiny but it’s logical to legislate that this law does not infringe on a person’s right to bear (or to acquire) firearms it only regulates the amount within a specific time frame to which that person can bear those arms. And that law justifiability lends to the further safety of the state.
It is the courts job to look at a specific law and measure it’s prohibition as practical and acting in the best interest of our society within the scope of that societies’ evolution – that’s my guess anyhow. Look, we regulate our constitution all the time, case in point the 1st amendment; we all know the classic example of yelling “fire in a crowded theater that is in fact not on fire, you can’t do it. Just like you can’t convene a peaceful Iraq war protest standing in the middle of the PA turnpike. We regulate those amendments because it’s not 1776 and because we realize that for the bettering of the state we must be willing to redefine our actions and personal rights to fit the scope of our society.
My point is two fold; one, certain gun regulations are not 2nd amendment infringements aimed at destroying the integrity and sacredness of the amendment they are there to protect the state and its citizens and two, we need to stop being beholden to the gun lobby, stop being afraid of them, stop letting them turn an honest debate into a demagoguery. Lets tone down the drastic rhetoric and be honest, these types of gun regulations do work and they don’t prohibit anyone from keeping or bearing arms, let’s stop speaking to the illogical, impatience of man’s inner instinct and rather breakthrough to the rational, unnatural side of compromise and statesmanship
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
What does it mean to be an American Citizen?
With the immigration debate simmering down (minus Lou Dobbs nightly rants) as the real campaign season heats up I decided it would be fun to take the current U.S. naturalization test as administered through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, just to see according to the U.S. government whether or not I belong in this country. Without bragging if I were an immigrant from Mexico or Eastern Europe taking the test today with my current understanding of U.S. History and Government I would safely pass and assure my place in the U.S. as a full fledged American citizen. But how would you do? Below are some of the trickier questions, see if you would have the understanding and knowhow to be accepted into the most prestigious, exclusive club in world history.
1. Who Elects the President?
2. How Many Amendments comprise our constitution?
3. Name the 3 branches of government?
4. How many representatives are in Congress?
5. What is the Bill of Rights?
6. Who becomes president if the president and vice-president die?
7. Who has power to declare war?
8. What is the introduction of the Constitution called?
How did you do? Check below to see if you’re in or if you’re out.
My point is this, what does it really mean to be an American citizen? I think our congress and our country often losses site amidst political backlash and tempestuous ideology. Does it mean having a broad, basic and inconsequential understanding of our countries history? Does it mean knowing how many stripes there are on our flag and what those stripes stand for? Is it knowing the three branches of government and answering only simplistic questions pertaining to the purpose of those branches? Are aggregated questions like these a fair and accurate barometer in determining American citizenship?
My bet is that there are more than a generous handful of American citizens who would answer more than an embarrassing number of these questions incorrectly if forced to.
Or does being a member of this country mean paying your taxes, working hard and contributing to the evolution of our economy and culture? Does it mean raising a family the best way you know how, with the resources you have? Does it mean pursuing an education in the quest for self-improvement, or living the true American dream? I think it means all of these things, citizenship shouldn’t be boiled down to simply knowing the answers to questions such as, who is the current president and how many justices sit on the supreme court, to say nothing of the fact of knowing what the supreme court does, no more than the study of Hisotry should be boiled down merely to dates and names.
We have laws in this country I know, and the resolute adherence to the rule of law is what makes this country the strongest democracy in the world but lets not call those here illegally names while Johnny Q sitting in Mr. Smith’s history class can’t name the 13 original colonies.
Check the answers below with your answers and see how you did, are you an American citizen?
Answers:
1. the electoral college
2. 27
3. judicial, executive, legislative
4. 435
5. first 10 amendments to the constitution
6. Nancy Pelosi (scary) – speaker of the house
7. Congress
8. the Preamble
1. Who Elects the President?
2. How Many Amendments comprise our constitution?
3. Name the 3 branches of government?
4. How many representatives are in Congress?
5. What is the Bill of Rights?
6. Who becomes president if the president and vice-president die?
7. Who has power to declare war?
8. What is the introduction of the Constitution called?
How did you do? Check below to see if you’re in or if you’re out.
My point is this, what does it really mean to be an American citizen? I think our congress and our country often losses site amidst political backlash and tempestuous ideology. Does it mean having a broad, basic and inconsequential understanding of our countries history? Does it mean knowing how many stripes there are on our flag and what those stripes stand for? Is it knowing the three branches of government and answering only simplistic questions pertaining to the purpose of those branches? Are aggregated questions like these a fair and accurate barometer in determining American citizenship?
My bet is that there are more than a generous handful of American citizens who would answer more than an embarrassing number of these questions incorrectly if forced to.
Or does being a member of this country mean paying your taxes, working hard and contributing to the evolution of our economy and culture? Does it mean raising a family the best way you know how, with the resources you have? Does it mean pursuing an education in the quest for self-improvement, or living the true American dream? I think it means all of these things, citizenship shouldn’t be boiled down to simply knowing the answers to questions such as, who is the current president and how many justices sit on the supreme court, to say nothing of the fact of knowing what the supreme court does, no more than the study of Hisotry should be boiled down merely to dates and names.
We have laws in this country I know, and the resolute adherence to the rule of law is what makes this country the strongest democracy in the world but lets not call those here illegally names while Johnny Q sitting in Mr. Smith’s history class can’t name the 13 original colonies.
Check the answers below with your answers and see how you did, are you an American citizen?
Answers:
1. the electoral college
2. 27
3. judicial, executive, legislative
4. 435
5. first 10 amendments to the constitution
6. Nancy Pelosi (scary) – speaker of the house
7. Congress
8. the Preamble
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Why Obama Might Lose in 08' - and Why he Might Not
Barack Obama can’t help himself – he has perpetrated the cardinal sin in presidential campaign politics; he has thoughtfully spoken about policy instead of ambiguously speaking in packaged sound bites. There are several reasons why Obama might not win the Democratic nomination come 2008. For starters his message is all wrong, here is a guy who is speaking about hope, change and unifying the disenfranchised while this country stews in its own divisive partisanship, this is not what we need! His leading opponent, Hillary Clinton has got the right idea, for when the roads of opportunity and dilemma dissect she wastes no time in evoking President Bush, every democrat’s favorite punching bag. So instead of talking about policy and how she will salvage our countries last hope she trashes the other guy – Politics 101 when in doubt trash the guy your ideological base despises, it makes for a quick and rousing applause.
Secondly Barack really needs to get back to speaking in sound bites, nice, neat arbitrarily constructed 30 second, made for TV. sound bites. Like a cold shower, it will wake you up in the morning but the effects quickly ware off. Hillary is great at sound bites; she has perfected the 45 second debate answer, easily converted to sound bites. These days people don't have the time nor do they want a thoughtful, insightful answer. They don't want to be offended or be told something that they may need to spend more than 60 seconds thinking about. That's why Hillary has got the golden ticket, she turns these debates into packaged sound bites easily consumed by the cable pundits and American people. Word to the wise Barack, candidates aren't supposed to be onions, people don't like layers - thinking that hard makes most of them cry. Electable candidates are supposed to be layer less vegetable like, um...broccoli (bad analogy)
Thirdly Barack will lose, inevitably because of name recognition. He won’t lose because his name is Barack Obama, well he may lose in Kentucky because his name is Barack Obama, but overall he’ll lose because his opponents name is Clinton. A lot of people out there still adore Bill Clinton and a lot of people out there still support Bill Clinton, and Hillary has tapped into those resources like OPEC in Saudi Arabia (another bad analogy). Bill Clinton still enjoys an approval rating in the 50’s, women and African Americans will poor out in droves for Hillary because the idea of Bill back in the White House is too titillating to pass up.
There ya have it, message, sound bites and name – the downfall of Obama’s campaign
But who knows with Barack, after a strong showing in Wednesday’s debate, tons of money in the bank, close races both in Iowa and New Hampshire and a slew of young and independent supporters from Demoine to Concord maybe he can go the distance – maybe his message of hope and change and togetherness can resonate in a culture of 24 hour news shows and instant gratification. Maybe were not so cynical, we democrats have a tendency to latch on to the candidate who can best win in November, and most of the time out of spite for the other side instead of backing the candidate who is most able to lead this country. Maybe the idealist sect of the Democratic Party will win this time, where the McGovern and Bradley campaigns couldn't get the job done, the Barack campaign will, inspiring our youth like Bobby Kennedy, constantly thinking and searching for new solutions, like FDR.
Barack may just be the president we need, a president who has the audacity and humility to mend the wounds of polarizing politics that is suffocating our culture; a president who can once again speak to this country, inviting the people back into the arena of participation with honesty and heartfelt rhetoric, a president who will not wane from asking us to make the tough sacrifices or join in the just causes of our time.
Secondly Barack really needs to get back to speaking in sound bites, nice, neat arbitrarily constructed 30 second, made for TV. sound bites. Like a cold shower, it will wake you up in the morning but the effects quickly ware off. Hillary is great at sound bites; she has perfected the 45 second debate answer, easily converted to sound bites. These days people don't have the time nor do they want a thoughtful, insightful answer. They don't want to be offended or be told something that they may need to spend more than 60 seconds thinking about. That's why Hillary has got the golden ticket, she turns these debates into packaged sound bites easily consumed by the cable pundits and American people. Word to the wise Barack, candidates aren't supposed to be onions, people don't like layers - thinking that hard makes most of them cry. Electable candidates are supposed to be layer less vegetable like, um...broccoli (bad analogy)
Thirdly Barack will lose, inevitably because of name recognition. He won’t lose because his name is Barack Obama, well he may lose in Kentucky because his name is Barack Obama, but overall he’ll lose because his opponents name is Clinton. A lot of people out there still adore Bill Clinton and a lot of people out there still support Bill Clinton, and Hillary has tapped into those resources like OPEC in Saudi Arabia (another bad analogy). Bill Clinton still enjoys an approval rating in the 50’s, women and African Americans will poor out in droves for Hillary because the idea of Bill back in the White House is too titillating to pass up.
There ya have it, message, sound bites and name – the downfall of Obama’s campaign
But who knows with Barack, after a strong showing in Wednesday’s debate, tons of money in the bank, close races both in Iowa and New Hampshire and a slew of young and independent supporters from Demoine to Concord maybe he can go the distance – maybe his message of hope and change and togetherness can resonate in a culture of 24 hour news shows and instant gratification. Maybe were not so cynical, we democrats have a tendency to latch on to the candidate who can best win in November, and most of the time out of spite for the other side instead of backing the candidate who is most able to lead this country. Maybe the idealist sect of the Democratic Party will win this time, where the McGovern and Bradley campaigns couldn't get the job done, the Barack campaign will, inspiring our youth like Bobby Kennedy, constantly thinking and searching for new solutions, like FDR.
Barack may just be the president we need, a president who has the audacity and humility to mend the wounds of polarizing politics that is suffocating our culture; a president who can once again speak to this country, inviting the people back into the arena of participation with honesty and heartfelt rhetoric, a president who will not wane from asking us to make the tough sacrifices or join in the just causes of our time.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Letter to the Editor
Below is my first letter to any editor of any news publication, ever. I recently read a post in the "letters to the editor" section of the York Daily Record which made my blood boil. Not because this individual was gay bashing - which annoys me to no end but I usually tolerate because I know in the end these people are more than likely going to hell anyway (joking). But because this particular gay basher was lying, and presented a deplorable misinterpretation of HB1400. Lying about legislation really gets my heart rate going. Ms. Gramley who is the president of the American Family Association of PA a.k.a the PA citizens for the White Preservation of Xenophobic and Intolerant Behavior stated that 1. homosexuality is a choice which was the basis for why she felt gender identity and sexual orientation should not be included in prohibiting discrimination in the workforce and 2. Interpreted the amending of the Human Relations Act of 1955, which is HB1400's purpose as creating a new law that would force businesses to hire homosexuals and bisexuals - One word - unbelievable and here are some more words.
"In regards to Ms. Gramley’s letter to the editor published on October 23rd, 2007 entitled “Not a civil rights issue for gays”. It should be noted that her interpretation of the Human Relations Act of 1955 is erroneous and misleading for two obvious reasons. One, HB1400 which will amend the Human Relations Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity with regards to employment, housing and public accommodations will not force businesses to hire homosexuals, like Ms. Gramley so ineptly claims, no more than the current Human Relations Act forces businesses to hire minorities, Christians or females. What it does do, if Ms. Gramley chose to actually read the bill rather than baking kitten pies all day, is that the bill makes sure that an employee, government entity or landlord cannot refuse hiring, fire, and refuse business or accommodation based on sexual orientation and gender ID. Section 1(b) clearly states that it is the intent of the state to foster (meaning to promote, not force) the employment of all individuals in accordance with their fullest capacities regardless of…you get the picture. There is no earthly way that this bill could be interpreted in a way that would establish a legal mandated mechanism that would force businesses to hire known homosexuals.
Two, Ms. Gramley reinforces her argument against sexual orientation and gender ID being added to the list of innate rights in this bill based on the fact that in her opinion, homosexuality is not innate. Of course that way of thinking is her prerogative, but she is irresponsible in her contradiction of the facts. Ms. Gramley has a problem with homosexuality being added yet she has no problem with "religious creed" being protected. Ms. Gramley I was not born a Catholic, nor was anyone else, most individuals choose their religious affiliations. You said homosexuality is a choice, well in many cases so is religion and by your twisted logic religious creed should not warrant protection under the current definition of the Human Relations Act since it is not a choice. This would then open myself and millions of other faith abiding people to the very same acts of discrimination and ignorance that my gay and transgender friends are forced to bare witness to every single day.
Your right Ms. Gramley sexual orientation is not comparable to skin color but we in Pennsylvania do not hand out rights base on degrees of discrimination, being prevented from renting an apartment or keeping a job based on sexual orientation when no laws or protocol have been violated is wrong, innately wrong"
"In regards to Ms. Gramley’s letter to the editor published on October 23rd, 2007 entitled “Not a civil rights issue for gays”. It should be noted that her interpretation of the Human Relations Act of 1955 is erroneous and misleading for two obvious reasons. One, HB1400 which will amend the Human Relations Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity with regards to employment, housing and public accommodations will not force businesses to hire homosexuals, like Ms. Gramley so ineptly claims, no more than the current Human Relations Act forces businesses to hire minorities, Christians or females. What it does do, if Ms. Gramley chose to actually read the bill rather than baking kitten pies all day, is that the bill makes sure that an employee, government entity or landlord cannot refuse hiring, fire, and refuse business or accommodation based on sexual orientation and gender ID. Section 1(b) clearly states that it is the intent of the state to foster (meaning to promote, not force) the employment of all individuals in accordance with their fullest capacities regardless of…you get the picture. There is no earthly way that this bill could be interpreted in a way that would establish a legal mandated mechanism that would force businesses to hire known homosexuals.
Two, Ms. Gramley reinforces her argument against sexual orientation and gender ID being added to the list of innate rights in this bill based on the fact that in her opinion, homosexuality is not innate. Of course that way of thinking is her prerogative, but she is irresponsible in her contradiction of the facts. Ms. Gramley has a problem with homosexuality being added yet she has no problem with "religious creed" being protected. Ms. Gramley I was not born a Catholic, nor was anyone else, most individuals choose their religious affiliations. You said homosexuality is a choice, well in many cases so is religion and by your twisted logic religious creed should not warrant protection under the current definition of the Human Relations Act since it is not a choice. This would then open myself and millions of other faith abiding people to the very same acts of discrimination and ignorance that my gay and transgender friends are forced to bare witness to every single day.
Your right Ms. Gramley sexual orientation is not comparable to skin color but we in Pennsylvania do not hand out rights base on degrees of discrimination, being prevented from renting an apartment or keeping a job based on sexual orientation when no laws or protocol have been violated is wrong, innately wrong"
Monday, October 15, 2007
No Child Left Behind - Except When It Comes to Health Care
This Thursday the United States Congress will hold a vote to override President Bush’s veto of the ever popular and ever effective children’s health insurance program, otherwise known as SCHIP. Recently President Bush seems to of found his sense of fiscal responsibility amidst of the Democrats reclaiming control of both houses of Congress. And he has deemed it his executive responsibility to preserve this countries prudent, conservative spending practices by vetoing a 35 billion dollar bill spread over 5 years that would help to insure some 9 million children. He instead demanded from congress more than 180 billion dollars in supplemental war funding for his botched war in Iraq, without a plan to pay for it, and they say we Democrats don’t know how to spend money wisely.
The democrats also had a plan to help pay for the 35 billions dollars, for shame on them. First they wanted to help revive this countries failing health care system by expanding coverage to poor minority children (I guess Kanye West was right, George Bush does hate black people), then they wanted to actually pay for it with a tax increase on tobacco, double for shame, what is the world coming to? The democrats had a plan to fix a problem and a way to pay for it – that’s not how we run our country, not in America! No we let a problem fester and frustrate, but if we do decide to challenge the status quo we don’t pay for it, no we merely barrow more money from the Chinese and pass on that insurmountable debt to our children and grand children in the form of a 9 trillion dollar national black hole we comically call a debt.
Political and policy contradiction abound makes my face cringe to the point of discomfort when this President invokes fiscal responsibility to score political points for his side of the isle. He has no problem signing into law a transportation bill in 2006 that was comprised of 2,000 plus earmarks for bridges and civic centers, firehouses and memorial statues. But with the Democrats in control suddenly 8 out of the 12 appropriation bills for this fiscal year have too much pork to even consider signing into law, 22 billion dollars worth of pork to be exact. Twenty Two billion dollars is what separates the democrat’s plan from the republican’s plan, 22 billion, if the map of the United States was this years fiscal budget the portion that separates the R’s from the D’s would comfortably fit inside Rhode Island.
This president refuses to leave any child behind when it comes to their education, but when providing subsidized health insurance (through private insurers) apparently 9 million is quite all right. The professionals all say this vote is going to come up short on its attempt to override, but let’s hope that in this case the persuasion of politics does win and enough Republicans and Democrats choose to do what is right out of fear for the coming November elections in 2008.
The democrats also had a plan to help pay for the 35 billions dollars, for shame on them. First they wanted to help revive this countries failing health care system by expanding coverage to poor minority children (I guess Kanye West was right, George Bush does hate black people), then they wanted to actually pay for it with a tax increase on tobacco, double for shame, what is the world coming to? The democrats had a plan to fix a problem and a way to pay for it – that’s not how we run our country, not in America! No we let a problem fester and frustrate, but if we do decide to challenge the status quo we don’t pay for it, no we merely barrow more money from the Chinese and pass on that insurmountable debt to our children and grand children in the form of a 9 trillion dollar national black hole we comically call a debt.
Political and policy contradiction abound makes my face cringe to the point of discomfort when this President invokes fiscal responsibility to score political points for his side of the isle. He has no problem signing into law a transportation bill in 2006 that was comprised of 2,000 plus earmarks for bridges and civic centers, firehouses and memorial statues. But with the Democrats in control suddenly 8 out of the 12 appropriation bills for this fiscal year have too much pork to even consider signing into law, 22 billion dollars worth of pork to be exact. Twenty Two billion dollars is what separates the democrat’s plan from the republican’s plan, 22 billion, if the map of the United States was this years fiscal budget the portion that separates the R’s from the D’s would comfortably fit inside Rhode Island.
This president refuses to leave any child behind when it comes to their education, but when providing subsidized health insurance (through private insurers) apparently 9 million is quite all right. The professionals all say this vote is going to come up short on its attempt to override, but let’s hope that in this case the persuasion of politics does win and enough Republicans and Democrats choose to do what is right out of fear for the coming November elections in 2008.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Baby's Can Do It Better
Here we go again, it seems the media cannot help themselves from squandering the public’s air waves by ga gaing over Britney Spears and the ship wreck she calls a life, while simultaneously exploiting her misfortunes as a dreadful parent. It’s everywhere CNN, MSNBC, even FOX news has been reporting for the past week over the ever revolving Britney Spears child custody dispute. This post merely adds to perpetuate the absurd, and for that I am deeply ashamed of myself, and I apologize.
The story: Who will gain custody and screw up their child’s life more, K-fed or Britney? I don’t know, and I don’t care! I know, it’s a market economy based on supply and demand, these news outlets wouldn’t be reporting on frivolous stories unless we as a consumption society craved them. Still can’t we at least acknowledge that 7 days of coverage is just a bit too much when the United States has herself engaged in the most significant international conflict since WWII? A battle with which in the balance holds the future security of our country and America’s ability to effectively engage on the world stage.
Here is my solution all be it insensitive and oddly blithe. First force Princess Britney to work as a social worker in a child welfare office. Wait, or better yet have her live on the corner of Princess and Pershing in center city York, make her obtain a job, give her a physical handicap, instill a fear of crime, drugs and throw in a societal stigma of apathy, and make her do it without the father. Let her see how difficult it is to raise a child the right way, the hardest way in the real world (it can be done, I’ve seen it).
Take K-Fed and force him to legally change his name to something that is less annoying and less likely to be ridiculed in nickname format, if I have to hear the media acknowledge him as K-Fed one more time I’m going to puke. Then force him to dance for his livelihood in Times Square, which will put his fancy dancing skills to the test
Finally we take the two harmless children, so full of hope and potential, who have been unfairly subjected to this mess and we create a new baby reality show, put it on VH1 or MTv, those stations have no scruples they’ll do it for the doe, we’ll call it “Baby’s Can Do It Better” – kind of catchy right? We team them with other celebrity babies whose parents are screw ups and put them through a series of social experiments and humiliating challenges, sort of like CBS’s Kid Nation but more retarded and on crack. The winner gets to be adopted by a gay couple living in Greenwich Village or the Valley – hey at least the kids will have a fighting chance at normalcy. The poor children that lose…well, who cares they’ll most likely end up on the next episode of E True Hollywood story – Rupert Murdoch, I’ll give Fox the first offer.
The story: Who will gain custody and screw up their child’s life more, K-fed or Britney? I don’t know, and I don’t care! I know, it’s a market economy based on supply and demand, these news outlets wouldn’t be reporting on frivolous stories unless we as a consumption society craved them. Still can’t we at least acknowledge that 7 days of coverage is just a bit too much when the United States has herself engaged in the most significant international conflict since WWII? A battle with which in the balance holds the future security of our country and America’s ability to effectively engage on the world stage.
Here is my solution all be it insensitive and oddly blithe. First force Princess Britney to work as a social worker in a child welfare office. Wait, or better yet have her live on the corner of Princess and Pershing in center city York, make her obtain a job, give her a physical handicap, instill a fear of crime, drugs and throw in a societal stigma of apathy, and make her do it without the father. Let her see how difficult it is to raise a child the right way, the hardest way in the real world (it can be done, I’ve seen it).
Take K-Fed and force him to legally change his name to something that is less annoying and less likely to be ridiculed in nickname format, if I have to hear the media acknowledge him as K-Fed one more time I’m going to puke. Then force him to dance for his livelihood in Times Square, which will put his fancy dancing skills to the test
Finally we take the two harmless children, so full of hope and potential, who have been unfairly subjected to this mess and we create a new baby reality show, put it on VH1 or MTv, those stations have no scruples they’ll do it for the doe, we’ll call it “Baby’s Can Do It Better” – kind of catchy right? We team them with other celebrity babies whose parents are screw ups and put them through a series of social experiments and humiliating challenges, sort of like CBS’s Kid Nation but more retarded and on crack. The winner gets to be adopted by a gay couple living in Greenwich Village or the Valley – hey at least the kids will have a fighting chance at normalcy. The poor children that lose…well, who cares they’ll most likely end up on the next episode of E True Hollywood story – Rupert Murdoch, I’ll give Fox the first offer.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Strike Baby, Strike!
Time to read about my dirty little secret, my single thwarting political indulgence, it isn’t sexy or provocative, it doesn’t have the raw emotional impact of abortion or that stinging social divide that immigration does. However this issue is vastly important, with this issue the necessity to our countries economic stability is trumped only by its possibility for success in reemerging a once healthy and vibrant American middle class. I’m talking about outsourcing and labor relations. Do I have you hot yet?
If you’ve been paying any attention to the news as of late, you would have obviously noticed that GM’s work force, one of Detroit’s “big 3” has gone on strike, for the first time in 37 years, and I might add at a time when it is much more popular to purchase a Toyota Prius over a Saturn Ion. I’m not completely blaming GM, cheep markets, low tariffs, increase safety and fuel efficiency around the world all add up to take a heavy toll on American made automobile manufacturer’s ability to compete. Yet with that, I find myself mentally chanting...Strike Baby, Strike!
Don't feel so bad for these C.E.O.'s are making 250 to 300 times that of their average worker compared to in 1975 when that figure was more inside the ball park of 65-70 times, it is difficult to look at modern day men of business and feel sympathy for their ruin. Our real troubles should be focused on today’s middle class manufacturing jobs, out meat packing industries, our airplane industries, our textile industries and especially our automobile industries, the last true competitor of industry within the United States.
My dark blue, protectionist blood boils every time our government signs another “free” trade deal with some underdeveloped, disenfranchised nation. Don’t get me wrong I am in favor of extending the mighty economic arm of this country to all those whom can stand to benefit, but not without strict promises that are accompanied by the most sincere of human rights and workers rights regulations. To those who say, no country with a McDonalds or Wal-Mart has every attacked the United States…I say you’re an idiot, your right Cambodia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Samoa, they’ve never attacked us, inadvertently anyways, to say nothing of the fact that those countries also, don’t have the ability or resources to attack us. And if your argument for U.S. national security strategy is to spread the smell of burnt chicken nuggets and greezy french fries as far and as much as we possibly can, well then you’re also an idiot. We cannot continue to ship American jobs to Central America, the Middle East and East Asia without an iron firm declaration of assurance, that those countries will treat their workers right, pay them a decent living wage, and provide some sort of health benefits while monitoring the safety of the products they produce.
We need to help protect those workers who now bravely picket at GM locations across the country by ensuring that our American Corporations are not only looking out for the piggy banks of their shareholders but are ensuring the safety of its employee’s pensions, providing adequate health care and providing a decent living wage. We need to change our policies and protect our middle class workers, I’m hate to be a realist here but not every American wants to go to college, nor should they, nor could they and we as an economy needs to make sure that through responsible policies jobs in the manufacturing sector still exist for future generations – decrease free trade agreements, increase trade tariffs, increase tax incentives for companies who decide to stay rooted in American soil, do whatever it takes, this is America!
If you’ve been paying any attention to the news as of late, you would have obviously noticed that GM’s work force, one of Detroit’s “big 3” has gone on strike, for the first time in 37 years, and I might add at a time when it is much more popular to purchase a Toyota Prius over a Saturn Ion. I’m not completely blaming GM, cheep markets, low tariffs, increase safety and fuel efficiency around the world all add up to take a heavy toll on American made automobile manufacturer’s ability to compete. Yet with that, I find myself mentally chanting...Strike Baby, Strike!
Don't feel so bad for these C.E.O.'s are making 250 to 300 times that of their average worker compared to in 1975 when that figure was more inside the ball park of 65-70 times, it is difficult to look at modern day men of business and feel sympathy for their ruin. Our real troubles should be focused on today’s middle class manufacturing jobs, out meat packing industries, our airplane industries, our textile industries and especially our automobile industries, the last true competitor of industry within the United States.
My dark blue, protectionist blood boils every time our government signs another “free” trade deal with some underdeveloped, disenfranchised nation. Don’t get me wrong I am in favor of extending the mighty economic arm of this country to all those whom can stand to benefit, but not without strict promises that are accompanied by the most sincere of human rights and workers rights regulations. To those who say, no country with a McDonalds or Wal-Mart has every attacked the United States…I say you’re an idiot, your right Cambodia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Samoa, they’ve never attacked us, inadvertently anyways, to say nothing of the fact that those countries also, don’t have the ability or resources to attack us. And if your argument for U.S. national security strategy is to spread the smell of burnt chicken nuggets and greezy french fries as far and as much as we possibly can, well then you’re also an idiot. We cannot continue to ship American jobs to Central America, the Middle East and East Asia without an iron firm declaration of assurance, that those countries will treat their workers right, pay them a decent living wage, and provide some sort of health benefits while monitoring the safety of the products they produce.
We need to help protect those workers who now bravely picket at GM locations across the country by ensuring that our American Corporations are not only looking out for the piggy banks of their shareholders but are ensuring the safety of its employee’s pensions, providing adequate health care and providing a decent living wage. We need to change our policies and protect our middle class workers, I’m hate to be a realist here but not every American wants to go to college, nor should they, nor could they and we as an economy needs to make sure that through responsible policies jobs in the manufacturing sector still exist for future generations – decrease free trade agreements, increase trade tariffs, increase tax incentives for companies who decide to stay rooted in American soil, do whatever it takes, this is America!
Friday, September 14, 2007
Competency vs. Experience
Everyone is scrutinizing Barack Obama; presidential candidate and Democratic senator from land of Lincoln for being incapable of performing as president due to the fact that in their opinion, he lacks “experience”. Now, the untrained unequipped eye he may look like a mere first term (2 year) member of the U.S. Senate, but on the contrary if we look deeper into Obama’s past and even deeper into the halls of history we may find a differing view point.
Too often in today’s political arena we look for administrative and executive experience, looking to our nation’s governors to lead the way, and although great presidents like FDR, Wilson, Regan and Clinton were all former governors it takes more than being used to signing a bill in law and nominating cabinet officials to master the reigns of presidency. I believe, sound judgment, life skills and the ability to make a clear decision based on all available information is crucial in leading the United States into the 21st century.
Barack, I feel has those qualities, and many more needed to do the job the right way. He is seriously intelligent, worldly, a mastermind of engaging a problem with a keen analytical mindset, the likes of which I have not seen adopted in quite some time, he is forthright and from what I’ve seen, steadfast in his resolve. His message of hope is not a campaign slogan; it’s a call for change to a system that is sick and in need of respiration. He has traveled the world and in a time where our leaders need to have the skills necessary to understand the world from outside the confines of our own self perceptions, Barack is the candidate that can bring forth a objective viewpoint and restore the United State’s global reputation as a philanthropic nation of peacemakers and healers, and not a country of global imperialism.
Yes experience is necessary, a president needs to know what players to put in what position, they need to know how to develop fast relationships with Congress to get their agenda off the ground, and they need to be familiar with all aspect of the executive branch so that quick, efficient decisions can be made. But I ask, what is experience with out judgment? What is seniority without humility? I believe that those things are the direct result of what we now experience every day with our current administration.
Too often in today’s political arena we look for administrative and executive experience, looking to our nation’s governors to lead the way, and although great presidents like FDR, Wilson, Regan and Clinton were all former governors it takes more than being used to signing a bill in law and nominating cabinet officials to master the reigns of presidency. I believe, sound judgment, life skills and the ability to make a clear decision based on all available information is crucial in leading the United States into the 21st century.
Barack, I feel has those qualities, and many more needed to do the job the right way. He is seriously intelligent, worldly, a mastermind of engaging a problem with a keen analytical mindset, the likes of which I have not seen adopted in quite some time, he is forthright and from what I’ve seen, steadfast in his resolve. His message of hope is not a campaign slogan; it’s a call for change to a system that is sick and in need of respiration. He has traveled the world and in a time where our leaders need to have the skills necessary to understand the world from outside the confines of our own self perceptions, Barack is the candidate that can bring forth a objective viewpoint and restore the United State’s global reputation as a philanthropic nation of peacemakers and healers, and not a country of global imperialism.
Yes experience is necessary, a president needs to know what players to put in what position, they need to know how to develop fast relationships with Congress to get their agenda off the ground, and they need to be familiar with all aspect of the executive branch so that quick, efficient decisions can be made. But I ask, what is experience with out judgment? What is seniority without humility? I believe that those things are the direct result of what we now experience every day with our current administration.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Playin Politics with War Is Not a Game
I really don’t like the republican ideology, if you know me it’s really no secret that I fervently with an earnest temperament disagree with those who; believe in amending the constitution to take away civil rights, hand out tax cuts to big business like candy on Christmas, spend more money on national defense than 10 of the worlds leading westernized democracy’s combined and I certainly do not approve of the idea of Mike Brown being “the guy” for FEMA. However I do have friends that are republicans, I have family members as well who voted for George Bush, some did it twice and although I disagree with them, respectfully of course I am a big enough man to separate ideological ineptitude from general good hearted character, which most of my republican family members and friends possess.
So as you can imagine I enjoy when Democrats on the hill and in the media get it right when criticizing this administration who has taken hostage true conservatism. Yet I read something in the paper today that disturbed me to my very core. Senator Joe Biden, a Democratic Senator for over 3 decades, highly respected presidential nominee who has served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee (currently as chairman) for over 2 decades – a post which comes with it a certain level of needed integrity made an unusual comment. Senator Biden accused President Bush of politicizing the conflict in Iraq. Biden suggested that by Bush implementing his latest plan – the surge – he is somehow trying to, extend the United State’s occupancy of Iraq long enough so that the Democrats and possible future democratic president will be forced into a position where by they will inherit an extremely unpopular war, and thus crippling their chances of any true ideological progress.
Call me an optimist, call me young and foolishly naive but something tells me that no American President, especially not one who has been so passionately bull headed about his reasons for occupying/staying in Iraq would ever, ever use military soldiers and American tax capitol as pawns in their own political world chess match. We speak about division in this country, we speak about polarization as if their necessities to how we run our political television show, but these words are not characteristics, they are infections. Diseases killing the discourse in this country and I for one am not for Democrat or Republican who feed this monster with their poisoned rhetoric.
George Bush is no doubt one of the worst Presidents in the United State’s history. He has deflated our national surplus, increase our foreign trade debt, ballooned our now 9 trillion plus dollar debt, tarnished our international imagine, undermined our constitution and worse yet has politicized some of our most sacred of institutions; the Justice Department, Supreme Court and the Surgeon General’s office to name a few. However I will not believe that he is playing politics with the Iraq conflict, and those who choose to accuse him of such better be able to produce some very hard and very tangible evidence. Shame on you Senator Biden, first you plagiarize my hero, Bobby Kennedy and now this. Democrats are supposed to better than that.
George Bush has fucked this whole thing up no doubt about that, but he did it through his own self righteous convictions, and not at the hands of some perfidious pollster. Hey at least I’ve said something sort of nice about President Bush, right?
So as you can imagine I enjoy when Democrats on the hill and in the media get it right when criticizing this administration who has taken hostage true conservatism. Yet I read something in the paper today that disturbed me to my very core. Senator Joe Biden, a Democratic Senator for over 3 decades, highly respected presidential nominee who has served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee (currently as chairman) for over 2 decades – a post which comes with it a certain level of needed integrity made an unusual comment. Senator Biden accused President Bush of politicizing the conflict in Iraq. Biden suggested that by Bush implementing his latest plan – the surge – he is somehow trying to, extend the United State’s occupancy of Iraq long enough so that the Democrats and possible future democratic president will be forced into a position where by they will inherit an extremely unpopular war, and thus crippling their chances of any true ideological progress.
Call me an optimist, call me young and foolishly naive but something tells me that no American President, especially not one who has been so passionately bull headed about his reasons for occupying/staying in Iraq would ever, ever use military soldiers and American tax capitol as pawns in their own political world chess match. We speak about division in this country, we speak about polarization as if their necessities to how we run our political television show, but these words are not characteristics, they are infections. Diseases killing the discourse in this country and I for one am not for Democrat or Republican who feed this monster with their poisoned rhetoric.
George Bush is no doubt one of the worst Presidents in the United State’s history. He has deflated our national surplus, increase our foreign trade debt, ballooned our now 9 trillion plus dollar debt, tarnished our international imagine, undermined our constitution and worse yet has politicized some of our most sacred of institutions; the Justice Department, Supreme Court and the Surgeon General’s office to name a few. However I will not believe that he is playing politics with the Iraq conflict, and those who choose to accuse him of such better be able to produce some very hard and very tangible evidence. Shame on you Senator Biden, first you plagiarize my hero, Bobby Kennedy and now this. Democrats are supposed to better than that.
George Bush has fucked this whole thing up no doubt about that, but he did it through his own self righteous convictions, and not at the hands of some perfidious pollster. Hey at least I’ve said something sort of nice about President Bush, right?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Senator Caught Fooling Around in the Closet
Recently, Idaho Republican SENATOR Larry Craig was caught in a homosexual scandal which follows a recently string of similar scandal plaguing the Republican Party. According to authorities, in Craig’s spare time when he’s not bashing same sex marriage, gays in the military or gays right to adopt he enjoys wondering around public restrooms, contradicting by commitment, soliciting gay sexual favors from random creepy strangers, (anyone soliciting sex in a park bathroom is creepy in my book, especially in places where kids frequent).
I do not take pleasure in watching Senator Craig’s mistakes as they are advertised and scrutinized almost microscopically on a nightly basis by the national media. I do however find a quite comfort, that feeling you get when you know your right, in watching this event unfold and for several reasons. One, because this incident tears at the heart of one of the Republican Party’s crucial campaign strategies, and reveals it for what it is, a farce a manipulative ruse. For years the Republican Party has campaigned, and campaigned well on the notion that there’s was the party of strong family values, that their party abide by a strict code of moral conduct that the Democratic Party simply did not. Yet in the past 8 months we have seen a pedophile congressman from Florida, an adulterous whore loving Senator from Louisiana and now a creepy, gay Senator from Idaho who gets his jollies from frequenting park bathrooms. All staunch, anti-gay strong family value (supposedly) and in retrospect all extremely creepy Republicans.
Secondly on a more comprehensive level this event again speaks to the audacity that Republicans have when speaking to the American people and daring to opine that they hold a moral monopoly over all other types of political ideology. And more importantly that their so called moral monopoly is fueled and defined by their Christian faiths, again and again with each passing scandal it becomes more evident that it is not the party, nor the faith that delineates morality, it is rather than individual. And I feel sorry for the Republicans because the more they base their superiority on their faith and the more that their actions defined by that faith contradict their self proclaimed moral authority the more damage that occurs. It undermines their credibility; it annoys their base and makes cynics of independent voters while at the same time energizing the Democratic Party.
So to all moral Republicans I say this, come out of the closet and live the light.
I do not take pleasure in watching Senator Craig’s mistakes as they are advertised and scrutinized almost microscopically on a nightly basis by the national media. I do however find a quite comfort, that feeling you get when you know your right, in watching this event unfold and for several reasons. One, because this incident tears at the heart of one of the Republican Party’s crucial campaign strategies, and reveals it for what it is, a farce a manipulative ruse. For years the Republican Party has campaigned, and campaigned well on the notion that there’s was the party of strong family values, that their party abide by a strict code of moral conduct that the Democratic Party simply did not. Yet in the past 8 months we have seen a pedophile congressman from Florida, an adulterous whore loving Senator from Louisiana and now a creepy, gay Senator from Idaho who gets his jollies from frequenting park bathrooms. All staunch, anti-gay strong family value (supposedly) and in retrospect all extremely creepy Republicans.
Secondly on a more comprehensive level this event again speaks to the audacity that Republicans have when speaking to the American people and daring to opine that they hold a moral monopoly over all other types of political ideology. And more importantly that their so called moral monopoly is fueled and defined by their Christian faiths, again and again with each passing scandal it becomes more evident that it is not the party, nor the faith that delineates morality, it is rather than individual. And I feel sorry for the Republicans because the more they base their superiority on their faith and the more that their actions defined by that faith contradict their self proclaimed moral authority the more damage that occurs. It undermines their credibility; it annoys their base and makes cynics of independent voters while at the same time energizing the Democratic Party.
So to all moral Republicans I say this, come out of the closet and live the light.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Alberto back, back, back GONEEEE-Zales, Takes One for Team Bushy
What a bitter sweet feeling that washed over me this morning after finding out Attorney General, oops I mean former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had handed in his official letter of resignation to President Bush Friday evening. Bitter in the sense that his leaving the West Wing extinguished the ability of Capitol Hill Democrats to continue to humiliate, scold, and ridicule the ex-Bushy whenever and however they desired. This partisan practice I loved for obvious reasons; it made the Bush White House look like a 4th grade school kid, you know the one who sits in the back of the class not paying attention and then gets called on to answer a question, foolishly and comically fumbles with their words to manufacture any resemblance of a sound informed answer. Oh how I loved watching the hill Democrats ask question after question to the kid in the back of the room.
The resignation was also a sweet moment in that Alberto Gonzales… will no longer be the U.S. attorney general. It will also be amusing to watch the democratically controlled Senate confirm the next in line to fill the vacancy, a political show stopper sure to please the pundits and cynical disenfranchised. Questions on illegal wire tapping, Guantanamo Bay, professional conduct, moral obligations, and partisanship will all be on the table to attempt to effectively vet the next candidate. I’m sure the Senate will not want to see the Justice Department, the cornerstone of our just law democracy be held hostage again.
Rummy, Rove and Libby are gone, now Alberto is sent packing, the only thing left to do is wait for Cheney’s letter of resignation. January 20th, 2009 can’t come soon enough!
The resignation was also a sweet moment in that Alberto Gonzales… will no longer be the U.S. attorney general. It will also be amusing to watch the democratically controlled Senate confirm the next in line to fill the vacancy, a political show stopper sure to please the pundits and cynical disenfranchised. Questions on illegal wire tapping, Guantanamo Bay, professional conduct, moral obligations, and partisanship will all be on the table to attempt to effectively vet the next candidate. I’m sure the Senate will not want to see the Justice Department, the cornerstone of our just law democracy be held hostage again.
Rummy, Rove and Libby are gone, now Alberto is sent packing, the only thing left to do is wait for Cheney’s letter of resignation. January 20th, 2009 can’t come soon enough!
Friday, August 24, 2007
First Post
This is my first blog entry and I wanted to write in something that was completely ridiculous yet equally frustrating to me. Why do I think like this?
While driving to work today (at 6:30am) desperately trying to focus my mind on the busy day ahead, trying to discard the random thoughts of weekend freedom and why on earth I was up that early I began to slowly, against my better wishes ponder last nights re-run episode of Real World 47; Tehran, where 7 islamo-fascists get picked to live in a cave and find out what it’s like to stop being…oh wait… that’s not a show, I think the new group of drunken, horny, mildly retarded 20 something’s are living in Australia and there haven’t been that many seasons, have there? Some times it just feels that way.
Anyway I began to think why would slutty, fake chested drunk girl # 1 yell at buff, drunken southern guy # 1 for sucking face with limited vocab, drunk horny girl # 2 when clearly egomaniac, drunk southern guy # 2 was sucking face with drunk horny, crying girl # 3 who didn’t even know limited vocab, drunk horny girl # 2 liked buff, drunken southern guy # 1? Right? I mean come on it is just common courtesy to save the name calling and back stabbing until the reunion show.
As I pulled into the parking garage my thoughts quickly subsided, As I walked from the garage to building I passed by a women with one baby on her hip and two in a stroller, a homeless amputee vet resting on a street bench, various scattered pieces of trash, two gentlemen wearing suits, from my guess were worth more than my car and one extremely disgruntled senior citizen (yelling at the birds).
Why do I turn on the television and view the “real world” when all I have to do is go to work in the morning? I just can’t answer that, I guess I’ll tune into MTV next week to find out.
While driving to work today (at 6:30am) desperately trying to focus my mind on the busy day ahead, trying to discard the random thoughts of weekend freedom and why on earth I was up that early I began to slowly, against my better wishes ponder last nights re-run episode of Real World 47; Tehran, where 7 islamo-fascists get picked to live in a cave and find out what it’s like to stop being…oh wait… that’s not a show, I think the new group of drunken, horny, mildly retarded 20 something’s are living in Australia and there haven’t been that many seasons, have there? Some times it just feels that way.
Anyway I began to think why would slutty, fake chested drunk girl # 1 yell at buff, drunken southern guy # 1 for sucking face with limited vocab, drunk horny girl # 2 when clearly egomaniac, drunk southern guy # 2 was sucking face with drunk horny, crying girl # 3 who didn’t even know limited vocab, drunk horny girl # 2 liked buff, drunken southern guy # 1? Right? I mean come on it is just common courtesy to save the name calling and back stabbing until the reunion show.
As I pulled into the parking garage my thoughts quickly subsided, As I walked from the garage to building I passed by a women with one baby on her hip and two in a stroller, a homeless amputee vet resting on a street bench, various scattered pieces of trash, two gentlemen wearing suits, from my guess were worth more than my car and one extremely disgruntled senior citizen (yelling at the birds).
Why do I turn on the television and view the “real world” when all I have to do is go to work in the morning? I just can’t answer that, I guess I’ll tune into MTV next week to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)