November 11, 2009
Always looking for the next best thing? That’s the “American Dream?”
My good friend S.Logan has a great piece up that she posted, yesterday. It’s unfortunate I only had the opportunity to meet her in person, once, and that we missed each other down in Hotlanta, but she is a great girl and often makes me sit back and think. Her most recent post is no different:
A few days ago, I was telling HotMES (who has a great piece up about the sniper death sentence) that my idea of “success” has been destroyed in the last couple of weeks. I used to want to live in the spotlight: have my name on a masthead under “Editor-in-Chief,” live in a pretty high-rise apartment, and see and be seen at fancy cocktail parties. I wanted to be somebody, and that’s what I thought signified you had arrived. Since, however, I’ve realized that scenario involves years of chasing the wind or climbing one rung after the next on a never-ending ladder.
And, then, you die.
Sounds depressing, but isn’t that the American dream without the spitshine and white picket fence? Reaching a new level of success, in whatever form that is to you, in order to be satisfied for .3 seconds before feeling the pressure to begin striving again for that next level. In this process, true satisfaction always alludes, tempting its followers farther on until the end when their years have been spent and it is permanently beyond their reach.
I guess this spoke to me because I was just saying to a friend the other day that I probably won’t spend much more than another year or two in my current job. There are many reasons for this, but the reason I was telling her about that day was that within the next six months I will have hit the highest pay grade for the position I’m currently in. Why would I want to stay if I can’t keep moving up? If I can’t move up, I move out.
This is unsettling for many different reasons. One is that I will never be happy this way, personally and professionally. I’ll always be looking for the next best thing. And, looking at my past, this has been my pattern since college, at least. I’m not sure if this realization will change anything for me. In a way, this is how I have always been. I never really thought of it as the American Dream, but I guess it really is. No matter what your most recent accomplishment is the next question is always, “What are you going to do next?”
When you graduate from high school everyone wants to know if your going to college. That’s great you finished high school, but what are you doing next? Just started dating someone, when are you getting engaged? Engaged, then when are you getting married? Married, when will you start having kids? It’s the, “what have you done for me, lately?” question. Everything you do is just a passing memory, slipping away as you’re doing it.
I admire Suzanna for having the courage to walk away from it all to fulfill a higher purpose with her life. It’s a shame that she posts so infrequently because I always look forward to hear what she has to say. Either way, go read the whole thing and maybe it will give you something to think about.
Comments (0)
Happy Veteran’s Day to our troops!
I couldn’t have said this better myself:
On Wednesday, 11 November, we will take a solemn moment to celebrate Veteran’s Day. This annual holiday started as Armistice Day to acknowledge the end of World War I at the 11th hour, of the 11th day of the 11th month, 1918. In 1926, the Congress formally established 11 November as Armistice Day in honor of World War I veterans. In 1954, President Eisenhower signed a law changing the name from Armistice Day to Veteran’s Day to recognize all those who have served in the armed forces.
This year, we honor the men and women who fought to preserve the freedoms we still enjoy to this day. They sacrificed to ensure we inherited a better world and we bear that responsibility for our children. This enduring commitment continues as our current soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians protect our liberties, defend our country, and save those in need. From Iraq and Afghanistan to our own coastline, the members of our armed forces reflect the greates qualities our nation has to offer.
The loss of the crews from Coast Guard 1705 and the Marine Corps helicopter, as well as the tragic victims on Fort Hood, remind us that our military members accept personal rish on a daily basis to safeguard our nation. Whle we mourn them along with all of our veterans who have sacrificed in past conflicts, we understand our resolve must stay firm.
In short, thank you for your sacrifice. I couldn’t be me without all of you.
Comments (0)
Abortion issue FINALLY heating up health care debate
Wait, I can solve this issue. Let’s abort the current health care “reform” being offered and then we won’t have to worry about using taxpayer dollars to kill our potential future taxpayers:
The sudden spasm of intense debate over abortion on Capitol Hill this week threatens not only to stall the passage of health care legislation, but also to shatter the delicate cease-fire that has governed the abortion issue during the Obama era.
After months of dodging high-profile confrontations over abortion, Democrats — including President Barack Obama — find themselves faced with a stark set of alternatives: Support a bill that imposes limits on access to abortion or demand one that might, however indirectly, fund the procedure with taxpayer money.
It’s the kind of decision point the White House and Democratic leaders have consistently attempted to avoid. By playing down divisions over abortion and emphasizing shared goals — such as reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in the United States — members of the president’s party have sought to blur the lines of one of the country’s most furious and enduring debates.
“They’re looking for an easy way out. And there is no easy way out when it comes to right or wrong or true or false,” said former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, an abortion opponent who served as ambassador to the Vatican during the Clinton administration. “On some of these issues, there’s just no compromise.”
Well, I’ve only been warning about the lack of any provision prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds to finance abortions since we first starting see drafts of all the different bills. I don’t know why it is just now heating up. I realize our elected officials are worthless, but did it really just dawn on them that without explicit language prohibiting the use of public funding to finance abortions that abortionists would use that loophole to perform abortions at taxpayer expense?
There is nothing in this health care reform that the government actually has the constitutional right to do, but it especially doesn’t have the right to take from my paycheck to pay for some woman to slaughter her child because she was too cheap to buy a box of condoms, too dumb to pop a pill, and too loose to keep her legs closed.
Look, if Meghan McCain can continue to slut it up without getting knocked up, then every other retarded woman out there should be able to handle it. And, if they can’t handle it, congratulations! Your about to be a proud parent. You want to take a life at this point, do us a favor and take your own.
Listen whores of the world, there are too many different ways to prevent pregnancy for any woman to end up pregnant accidentally at this point. I don’t care what form you choose, but abortion is not birth control. And, I’m not paying for it.
I don’t know how warped our society has become that anyone can honestly believe that they have a right to murder their unborn child and that the government has the right to force their fellow citizen to pay for it. Is this what they are teaching in those sex ed classes in our public schools? Fail.
Comments (0)
Term Limits? I can get behind that.
I think term limits for politicians are a fabulous idea:
A handful of Republican senators have proposed a Constitutional amendment to limit the amount of time a person may serve in Congress.
Currently, there are no term limits for federal lawmakers, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and several of his colleagues are advocating that service in the Senate be limited to 12 years, while lawmakers would only be allowed to serve 6 years in the House.
“Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians,” DeMint said in a statement released by his office. “As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power.”
Two-thirds of the House and Senate would need to approve the amendment – a stumbling block that short-circuited the idea 14 years ago. The new proposal echoes the Citizen Legislature Act, part of the original Contract with America proposed by Republicans before they won control of Congress in 1994. That measure, which would have allowed both senators and members of the House to serve just 12 years, won a majority in the Republican-controlled House in 1995, but failed because it did not meet the constitutionally-required two-thirds threshold.
My first reaction concerned the constitutionality of imposing term limits, but if they want to do this right and amend the Constitution, I’m very supportive of the whole idea.
Part of the problem with out political system is career politicians. When our country was first being founded we didn’t have career politicians like we do today. People it as a duty to serve one’s country and so most served, in some shape or form, at one point or another. Then they returned to their normal lives.
Today, this simply isn’t the case. Even some of the politicians who self-impose their own term limits go back on their word once they get used to the life. The life being power, money, and fame. What more could a person want? Not much, I suppose.
There is something wrong with the system if being a politician is such an attractive job people want to stay in it until the day they die. Think about it. Politicians never want to retire. They’re always looking to the future. Winning the next election. Gaining that higher seat of power. It’s disgusting. I think term limits could limit them and the damage the can do.
Comments (0)November 10, 2009
John Muhammad, burn in hell!
Two weeks ago, on a Friday night, I came to my apartment, put on some comfy clothes, took out the contacts, and put on the glasses to read a book as part of my thesis research. Over the next four hours I read a book that at moments made me want to cry and at others made me want to puke. The author was Carol Everett, the book was Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman’s Right to Choose.
I read the book. This is my job, at this point. I have been researching abortion for the past three years, on and off. I have read, seen, and heard every possible thing you can on the subject. Other than almost getting sick a couple of times, it never got to me like this.
When I was done reading for the night, my mind was lost. I got up and fell back into the wall…and started crying (damn emotional, unstable women!). And, I cried. And, cried some more. I cried for what I just read. I cried for the children that were never born, the children that were accidentally born and put to rest shortly after, the women who had been butchered by greedy abortion doctors, and the women who had died. The women who had all been told it would all be OK; that it was just a routine surgical procedure. The women who came to realize, too late, that was a lie.
Now, I’m not a soft-hearted, heart on my sleave, easily brought to tears kind of girl. I’m a guy’s girl. I grew up with three older brothers. Not only was crying unacceptable, I was taught to fight. And, if I lost a fight, I was getting my a** kicked twice: once in the fight and again when I got home for losing the fight. But, suddenly, there I was sitting in the corner crying.
I realized that I had taken in so much over the past three years that I have been researching abortion. So much of what I have learned will never make it into my thesis. It sits in my head. It weighs on my brain. It eats away at my heart. Finally, it had broken me, momentarily.
Living in DC, all I have heard about for the past week has been about John Muhammad and his impending death. John Muhammad, some of you might recall, is the DC Sniper. Yes, there were two. The other guy was a 17-year-old, who is currently serving a life sentence, due to his age at the time of the crime.
My heart strings have been pulled so hard for this man, they’ve been plucked. Poor John, he’s mentally ill. Poor John, he suffered abuse as a child. Poor John, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I assume that you are getting the point.
I must have almost blocked it out, preoccupied with my approaching thesis deadline, but this morning I caught a news report about one of the jurors in the case. If only she had known about poor Johns tragic upbringing. If only someone would have shared with her his supposed mental illness. She would have never voted for that awful death penalty then. No, not her, not ever. Blah, blah, blah.
I’m OK with the death penalty and I’m OK with this guy dying. I know, shock!, gasp!, but I’m against abortion? How contradictory of me! I’m such a hypocrite. But, not so much. And, here is why. No matter when you believe life begins, we all know that if a terminated pregnancy were in fact brought to term we don’t know what that person could have offered the world. That “fetus” is an innocent life.
John Muhammad is not innocent and, therefore, the taking of his life is not the taking of an innocent life. He is responsible for the deaths of many people. And, this isn’t based on religion so resist the temptation to raise the strawman argument that this is very un-Christian of me, because I’m sure I have a Christian friend who could explain why it is not.
I firmly believe that if you take someone’s life, unless it was justifiable like in cases of self-defense, then your life should be taken. We shouldn’t show you mercy because you didn’t show the person(s) you murdered mercy. In fact, I am willing to go eye-for-an-eye on this. A murderer should die the same way their victim died.
I am proud of our society in so many ways. Like, I’m proud that we have these discussions and that we take death seriously enough to continue debating it. But, it sickens me when I see more support and the urgency to show caution when we are dealing with a murderer, rapist, child molester, or terrorists, rather than for the more than one million innocent lives we extinguish every year.
I don’t care if John Muhammad was abused as a child. We all have our own crap to deal with and yet most of us don’t go around killing people, terrorizing them in the places they feel safe. This man doesn’t deserve a second chance and I’m glad we are not giving him one.
I feel terrible. I feel terrible for all of those family members who lost someone because this man decided to go out and kill. I feel bad for those who lost their own lives because of John Muhammad, and I feel bad for all of those whose lives were impacted by it. If you believe in God, then this man has worse to deal with it than being put to death in our legal system. If you don’t believe in God, then it’s a good thing we punished him because there is clearly no other being that could.
Comments (2)November 9, 2009
More emotion based rantings from that genius Meghan McCain
After missing the Sunday Rule 5 opportunity, yesterday, I knew today I had to get right back in the saddle and start writing. I’m a little pressed for time, with my thesis due on Wednesday, but I always have time for Miss Meghan McCain. And, what is Miss McCain upset about today? Oh, it’s our male-dominated, anti-woman media and society, of course:
I myself straddle the line between political commentator and a member of the political universe (in the sense that I have campaigned and know what it’s like to be in the trenches when you’re under fire) and it’s not easy being a woman. But it’s a dilemma that I and every woman of my generation face. We want to be involved in politics—perhaps even run for office—but it’s a steep price to pay. One day there will be a woman president, we are all told as little girls. You too can be a congresswoman or senator. But the reality of today is that to do so, you have to give up so much, in a way that is never asked of a man, and I believe running for office has become less and less appealing for women.
In fact, it’s gotten so ugly out there that two of the most prominent women in politics—Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin—have become verbs: Candidates now regularly get “Hillary Clintoned” or “Sarah Palined” in the media. Misogyny works on both sides of the aisle.
The brutal criticism of Sarah Palin—which will only increase when her memoir comes out—is yet another example of the double standard and cruel treatment of women in politics. Sarah has been attacked for everything from her hair to her clothes to the number of children she gave birth to. Maureen Dowd even nicknamed her “Caribou Barbie.” I can’t even begin to think of what that kind of judgment—criticizing parts of your life that have nothing to do with what you stand for or want to accomplish politically—feels like.Through it all, the example both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin set is so admirable. I respect any woman who will go out there and run for office. Maybe it’s a cliché, but no matter how many differences I may have with a woman politically, there is still a sense of kinship I feel for a woman in politics.
But having seen female candidates attacked on the right and the left, why would any woman my age ever feel inspired to run for office? What kind of example has the media set for my generation of women? I struggle with this. I don’t have ambitions to run for office—I have already done enough campaigning for one lifetime—but I already have a pretty good idea of what it would feel like. I have often wondered how the media would react if it were my brother writing these columns and speaking out on behalf of moderate Republicans. I can pretty much bet that his weight wouldn’t have been an issue.
So yes, Sarah Palin is a woman with five children and her physical appearance is deemed “too beautiful for politics.” And on the other end, Hillary Clinton is criticized for not being beautiful enough, for being “too tough” in the man’s world that she resides.
It seems to me the male-dominated media suffers from a Goldilocks Syndrome that keeps women from shattering the glass ceiling. Worse, I fear it will prevent tomorrow’s female leaders from even seeking office.
This one is too hard. This one is too soft. Who will ever be just right?
Meghan says that she has admired Hillary Clinton for years, even though they “disagree on nearly everything politically.” Come on, now. That’s simply not true. Meghan McCain has more in common with Hillary Clinton, politically, than any female member of the Republican Party, other than Dede Scozzafava. But, minus her politics, what exactly does Meghan admire about Hillary?
Hillary Clinton isn’t an independent woman who has made her own way in politics. Her career is completely dependent upon her husband, which is nothing to be admired. But, I guess when your career is owed to your father, of course you would identify with another woman who owes her whole career to a man.
What barriers has Hillary Clinton broken as a woman in American politics and what has she had to go through to get there? Let’s be honest, Hillary Clinton has been riding Bill’s coattails since they met. He publicly humiliated her, over and over again (most notably with the Lewinsky affair) and Hillary stood by him knowing that to leave him would be to leave all of her political ambitions behind.
Nothing Meghan credits Hillary with accomplishing was actually Hillary’s accomplishment. Hillary overstepped her bounds as first lady, acting as if she was elected president, rather than her husband and the policy agenda most closely related to her was health care, which failed miserably. She bought her senate seat in New York, still riding the wave of fame and adoration the public had for her husband. And, she was only appointed to Obama’s Cabinet in order to shut her up and move her out of the way, rather than having to battle her on Capitol Hill and possibly face her in a primary challenge in 2012. Hillary Clinton got the job because politically it was a smart move for Obama, not because Hillary has done anything to qualify her for the position.
Meghan speculates that the most famous incident in Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, so far, was when she yelled at the poor student in the Congo after his question was translated incorrectly. Meghan had one of those, “I am woman. Hear me roar!” moments when she first watched the video, but later came to realize that this emotional outburst by Clinton fed misogynists a prime example of why women shouldn’t be holding positions of power: because they are emotional and unstable. And, with this Meghan gives a perfect example of why you should identify as an individual, rather than part of a larger group.
Meghan admits that she straddles “the line between political commentator and a member of the political universe.” And, as we all know, that’s not all Meghan is famous for straddling. But, this isn’t about her sexual proclivities, so I’ll leave that for another day.
Meghan feels that women are treated very differently than men in politics and that this double standard is unfair. Her fear is that the harsh treatment faced by women running for political office will deter women from running. She attempts to support this argument by claiming “that two of the most prominent women in politics–Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin–have become verbs: Candidates now regularly get “Hillary Clintoned” or “Sarah Palined” in the media. Misogyny works on both sides of the aisle.”
I guess I’m just confused because I’ve never heard of a candidate being “Hillary Clintoned.” What does that mean? Now, if someone said a person had been Sarah Palined, I would venture to guess that they were portrayed as mentally inept and incapable of leading because they were from some small state, went to a state school, and didn’t fit in with the DC in-crowd. But, what does it mean to have been Hillary Clintoned?
Sarah Palin has been brutally criticized, though, for just about everything. And, although I think she has faced questions and challenges no man, possibly, would have ever faced, I don’t think that Sarah was treated this way because she is a woman. It’s because she’s a conservative. But, considering Meghan doesn’t know what a Republican is, it would be foolish to assume that she knows what a conservative is.
The double standard isn’t between men and women in politics, the double standard is between those of one party and those of the other. For example, the press loves Meghan because she is liberal, even though she claims to be a Republican. If she went out there and actually stood for the principles Republicans are supposed to stand for, she would be getting much harsher criticism than she did for posting her now infamous little picture a couple of weeks back. If you are Republican you are judged by one standard and if you are Democrat by another. That goes for both men and women.
And, we’re going to add her next paragraph to my (growing) list of reasons I don’t like her. She wrote, “Through it all, the example both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin set is so admirable. I respect any woman who will go out there and run for office. Maybe it’s a cliché, but no matter how many differences I may have with a woman politically, there is still a sense of kinship I feel for a woman in politics.” Oh brother! That’s not a cliché, sweetheart, that’s just retarded.
Don’t worry about your generation and the women of your generation not entering politics based on fear of retribution from the MSM. Women will continue to run for office because women are just as strong as men and can take any criticism thrown at them just as well as any man.
It’s not about what happens in the press or how you are portrayed. People who run for office hear a calling and they answer the call. Everyone running for office knows what is to be expected. Everything you have ever done, said, written, or joked about comes into play as fair game. The higher the office, the more dirt to expect. None of us are clean.
I don’t want to run for office, but I hear the call. The demand that tells me at some point I will not be able to sit on the sidelines any longer and just add my political comments of the day. I know that there is plenty that will come out. I will be humiliated, I’m sure. Nothing will be secret; nothing will be sacred. And, I don’t expect this because I am a women. I expect this because I am a conservative and that’s the way things go. I know that if I ever decide the time has come for me to answer the call, all bets are off and everything I have ever done in my life is on the table to be exposed for the world to see and judge. That’s the sacrifice one makes when entering politics, whether they pee sitting down or standing up.
And, now to Meghan’s conclusion about the “Goldilocks Syndrome” that is supposedly keeping women from shattering that glass ceiling and her fear that it will prevent tomorrow’s female leaders from seeking office. Let me put her fears to rest. Leaders are leaders. They know what it takes and they enter whatever field it is they desire to enter knowing that life’s not easy or fair and they’re going to have to work their butts off to make it, whether they are a woman or a man.
There isn’t some global male conspiracy trying to hold women down and the fact that Meghan subscribes to such victimology and class identification is saddening because if she really is as representative of her generation as she claims to be, we’re all in trouble. Fortunately, I know plenty of up and coming female leaders who are going to face the criticisms launched by both left and right and they are going to face it with grace and dignity and beat it back because women aren’t all delicate little flowers waiting to be crushed, as Meghan seems to believe. Strong women will not be deterred by a little bit of name calling, and the two women she uses to prove her point actually lend themselves more easily to mine.
Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have both faced some harsh criticism and yet they still keep coming back. They aren’t spoiled brats like Meghan who freak out at any hint of criticism. They stand up tall, take it and then they give it back. For that, I will give Hillary some credit. Hillary didn’t act like some crybaby and run away and hide from the world when the press turned on her during the primaries. She came back, drank a beer, and took a shot of Crown. That’s a strong woman.
See, Meghan is not a leader and doesn’t get it because she runs away and cries about criticism. She gets called fat or slutty and spends the next four months proclaiming to the world how she doesn’t care that she was called fat and tells everyone not to call her slutty. The only problem is, she obviously does care or she would just ignore these insults and move forward. It is women like Meghan who make women look emotional and unstable with her “I’m closing my Twitter account, now!” temper tantrums, her nonsensical blog rantings based on feelings rather than rational arguments, and her career that is based completely on her father’s accomplishments rather than anything she has done in her own life.
And, that pretty much sums it up. Meghan can’t handle the public criticism she has faced and so she assumes that other women will avoid entering politics because they are weak like her and won’t be able to handle the criticism, either. Weak people can’t recognize strength in others and so they assume everyone is as weak as them. It would seem to me that Meghan McCain is the misogynist, here, and she is projecting it onto everyone else because it is Meghan with this very column who is telling the world that women are too sensitive and weak to be able to take what the press has to say and so would bow out of politics all together rather than stand tall and fight.
Comments (4)November 6, 2009
A terrorist and a criminal aren’t the same thing and shouldn’t be tried in the same courts.
We have tried terrorists as criminals before and we have seen how well that worked out. Unfortunately for us, it appears that Congress doesn’t understand this and so, here we are, back to prosecuting terrorists as if they are common criminals:
The Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday turned back a GOP-led effort to bar Sept. 11 terrorists from being prosecuted in civilian federal courts.
Instead, senators voted 54-45 to support a request by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder to have the option of prosecuting Sept. 11 terrorists such as accused mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in either federal courts or by military commission.
The vote capped an impassioned – and substantive – Senate debate between those who believe the Sept. 11 terrorists simply don’t belong in civilian courtrooms and those who say deciding where to prosecute them should be left to the best judgment of the Pentagon and the Justice Department.
Suspected terrorists should not be afforded the same rights as American citizens, which they will be if tried in a criminal court. This is so ridiculous. Do they care at all about the safety of our citizens? Our legal system is a joke and, apparently, so is Congress. I can’t believe that it’s only taken us eight years to return to a September 10 state of mind…until our next wake-up call, that is. The fact that we need another wake-up call is disheartening enough.
Patrick Leahy is quoted later in the article as saying that the courts and justice system can handle this. Are we talking about the same system that let OJ Simpson walk? And, the same system that allowed JC Duggards rapist to keep her hidden for 18 years, even with police stopping by and checking the property she was hidden on? Is that the justice system I’m supposed to have faith in? The one that releases child molesters to let them molest again?
And, if they are found guilty, will they be sentenced to rot in American prisons? Will they be eligible for parole? By treating them like we would the common crook, aren’t we just ensuring more terrorist attacks on our soil? Probably, but what do politicians care? They’ll be protected so they don’t have to worry about being inside the next building that falls.
Comments (0)November 5, 2009
Republican health care plan would SAVE money; Democrat plan will cost money. What to do?
So much for the narrative that Republicans don’t have a health care plan. Not only do they have a plan, but they have a plan that will save money rather than cost money:
The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.
The Republican plan does not call for a government insurance plan but rather attempts to reform the system by creating high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms.
“Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it also increases access to quality care, including for those with pre-existing conditions, at a price our country can afford,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.
Too bad the Democrats will never even acknowledge this bill exists. They don’t care about lowering costs and increasing access to health care. All they care about is expanding government further into the private sector and into our private lives. But, let the people believe what they want.
(H/T: Memeorandum)
Comments (3)