Friday, July 30, 2010

Get Over It. Please!

Did you know that Chelsea Clinton’s wedding cake cost $11,000?

That she’s looking rather tired?

That she’s reportedly calling her mother up in an absolute panic because she’s terrified that her husband-to-be will end up cheating on her?

Yeah, I didn’t know that either. Or at least I didn’t know until the media was considerate enough to butt into her already hectic and complicated life in order to tell everybody every single, intimate detail of her upcoming nuptials.

America’s obsession with Beyonce’s latest twitch and the color of Brad Pitt’s boxers is bad enough. But I could argue that those celebrities make their living off of making the news. Or at least, many of them milk it for all they’re worth through interviews and bring much of the attention on themselves in the first place by:

• Driving drunk (Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan

• Shaving off all their hair and wearing no underwear when they really, really,
really should have something on downstairs (Britney Spears on both counts)

• Switching out their wives for women young enough to be their daughters (Harrison
Ford, Mel Gibson)

But somebody like Chelsea Clinton never asked for that kind of media attention. OK, yes, she went to campaign for her mother back in 2008, but other than that, she never asked for media attention. And she certainly received it well before she ever hit the campaign trail as an adult.

So media, please lay off and leave the poor girl alone. Let her have her wedding in peace, or as much peace as is possible when her father is a lying pervert and her mother is power mad and completely disingenuous.

Because the truth is, knowing how many buttons are on Chelsea Clinton’s dress or the exact wording of the best man’s speech really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. In fact, it really doesn’t matter at all… except to the bride, groom and their loved ones.

I don’t think that the media – or any of us – fall into any of those three categories.

So media, please do us all a favor and actually cover something worth covering.

For once.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

The Long-Term View On President Obama

Hmmm… What to write about today? The Arizona ruling? PBS’s decision to portray Paul McCartney as a classy guy instead of the tactless prat (British insult intentionally included) that he went out of his way to portray last month? How about the apparently inevitable acceptance of an entirely activist-minded judge with no real experience onto the Supreme Court?

Then again, there’s always the fact that the oil from BP’s destroyed Deepwater Horizon well seems to be disappearing – after we vilified its CEO as an unfeeling monster who probably blew the whole kit and caboodle up on purpose just to kill innocent baby sea turtles – just like “obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh” predicted?

Personally, I see no good reason to be concerned about any of those topics when our beloved president is descending from on high to mingle with the masses via ABC’s The View.

And that makes all of America’s problems go away, right?

I actually do think that some people might be swayed by his sweet words about family life at the White House, and how his daughters have to work for their allowance. For a little while, at least.

(Incidentally and with no disrespect meant to either Sasha or Malia, who seem to be perfectly normal and likeable children from the little I know about them, but I somehow doubt that they really will babysit for extra cash, as the President proposed recently. I mean, come on. This is the family that had their own personal chef back in Chicago, much less at the White House.)

Regardless, trolling daytime, housewife-oriented shows seems a bit desperate, even for somebody accustomed to Chicago-style politics. And while he might experience a temporary bump from this appearance, how long do you think that euphoria will last? My guess is that it’ll flee much quicker than promises of “ that Hopey Changey stuff” has been.

After all, unemployment will still range somewhere between 9.5% and 17.5% depending on what indicator you’re looking at. That’s despite today’s news that the “Labor Department said new claims for unemployment benefits fell to 457,000 last week... slightly better than the 459,000 forecast by economists polled by Thomson Reuters.” The article goes on to admit: “Economic reports the past few months have pointed to a slowdown in growth despite companies' optimistic outlooks. The Federal Reserve said Wednesday in its assessment of the economy known as the ‘beige book’ that the recovery is weakening in some parts of the country.”

That all means that small businesses will continue to struggle for loans. Consumer confidence will continue to falter. The housing market will continue to decline and the U.S. will continue to struggle.

Until Obama starts to address those problems with more than just pretty talk, his approval ratings will continue to decline in the long run.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

The Liberal Mentality

What’s wrong with the liberal mentality?

No, that isn’t a trick question, nor am I trying to abuse those who align themselves with leftist ways of thinking. And I’m not going to answer the question right away either. Instead, let me share a snippet of a conversation I just had with one of my co-workers.

As evidenced by the smiley face, this was over IM. And I have edited it in order to remove any mention of third parties, as well as just to clean up the sloppy grammar some of us resort to in electronic conversations.

(Incidentally, this conversation came about because of the oh-so-annoying song violating the airwaves right now called “I Want to be a Billionaire.” Also, please in no way take this post as an indication that I think Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan are valuable members of society. I don’t.)

Me: I’m not begrudging people who do have a billion or two; I just think it’s a bit excessive is all.

Her: I think that people like Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan don’t deserve their money because they don’t contribute to society at all. I feel like people who have that kind of money are in the position to actually make quite a difference and they eschew it all for just fame. Give me your money! :-p

Let’s say that she’s joking about that last comment, though I have heard her say something quite similar – and with a much more serious attitude – about people in the “adult” entertainment industry.

And while it’s important to note that she spent three weeks in the Philippines on vacation last year, and enjoys a good shopping spree as well as eating out every week or so – all self-driven usage of her money – let’s focus mainly on her larger argument.

She in essence is arguing that people have no right to their property based on ownership alone. Instead, they should only be able to control an amount that is deemed appropriate. The rest should be passed along to somebody considered to be in need.

There are numerous ways to attack this argument, including the question of who gets to decide any of the particulars involved. Who or what can be classified as needy? How much should a person have before they should start giving away? How much should a person give away before they can make a decent claim on the rest of their money to use as they see fit?

If the power that decides any of those questions is the government, well, we all know how they says one thing and do another. Such a corrupt group of people should never have control over our wallets, even if some higher moral authority is needed to regulate everybody’s spending.

Yet similarly, who are we to say what people should and should not be doing with their own funds? Do we know their exact circumstances? Did we work to get where they are? Go to school as long as they did? Spend time talking to the right people? Work every weekend to pay our way to the position and salary we achieved?

For that matter, do we want people dictating what we can and can’t do with our money? I mean, really, when it comes down to it, we don’t really need that latte in the morning, that dinner out with friends, that vacation once a year that costs $1,000 over a week’s time. We could be giving that money to charities instead.

Maybe we should. But in the end, don’t you think you have the right to do with the money you earned as you see fit?

After all, you went out of your way to work for it. You got up out of bed when you’d much rather have lain there for a few more hours. You spent money on transportation to get to your place of employment. You logged the hours of mentally, emotionally, physically or psychologically taxing work to earn Your paycheck. Nobody else did any of that. You did. So why should anybody else have a cut of that unless you decide they do?

To the liberal mind, none of that makes a difference though because it doesn’t believe in:

· Personal wealth – unless it’s their own, such as Senator Kerry’s pretty new yacht that he made sure to dock far away from his home state where they tax such trinkets very, very heavily… even while he expresses ardent support for letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year
· Personal thinking – unless it’s their own, such as Hillary Clinton’s cry during the 2008 Democratic primaries that dissenting opinions are patriotic… a sentiment she certainly didn’t espouse when she was First Lady
· Personal responsibility – unless it’s somebody else’s, such as all the times that liberals are willing to ignore and even excuse infidelity on the part of their candidates… but are quick to come down on conservative cretins

Instead, it’s all about the group. The collective whole. The good of society, and not the individuals that make it up. So wealth should go to politically and emotionally appointed venues that allegedly benefit society, thinking should remain in a box formed by those political and emotional boundaries that allegedly benefit society…

And it’s always, always somebody’s else’s fault.

That’s what’s wrong with the liberal mentality.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Treason She Wrote

I unfortunately realize that I haven't written anything in quite a long time. Let's not discuss exactly how long, since it's rather depressing. I'll admit that part of the reason was sheer, unadulterated laziness. After all, wouldn't you rather watch the latest episode of Burn Notice or White Collar instead of trying to coherently dissect the latest idiotic thing our dear politicians have done?

But there-in lies the other reason why I haven't blogged in a while. Because President Obama, Harry Reid and Satan Incarnate (a.k.a. Nancy Pelosi) have been having a veritable field day with our Constitution lately. There's been the bailouts, Health Care Reform, Wall Street Reform, immigration issues with Arizona, and of course, the left's consistent and monotonously predictable blaming of Bush.

I was actually thinking about that earlier today. If everything is still Bush's fault after nearly two years of Obama being in office, then what can we blame on Clinton? The 9/11 attacks for giving our enemies the impression (somehow) that our commander-in-chief would rather spend time with ridiculously naive interns than actually pay attention to matters of national security?

Oh wait, that actually might make sense. Never mind.

Regardless, it would take far too long and repeat way too much already known information to delve into the Constitution maiming acts mentioned above. So instead, I'm not even going to target any of the normal brats, twits, liars, cheats and otherwise immature, selfish and corrupt people in our crime ridden capitol. Instead, let's turn to Angelina Jolie.

Yes, she's largely the typical Hollywood elitist at first glance, extremely attractive with too much money and guilt on her hands, but she's so much more than your normal intentionally uneducated leftist actress. To explain, let me quote the Denver Post, which, incidentally, quoted the New York Post:

"Angelina Jolie has personally requested that Russian spy Anna Chapman be invited to the Moscow premier of her movie 'Salt...'"

Really? She personally invited somebody who was getting paid to learn America's weaknesses? She personally invited a woman who had devoted her life to arming our enemy - and make no mistake of it: Russia is not a friend - with intimate knowledge of our daily and political going ons? She personally invited a charged enemy of the state?

To me, that seems like borderline treason or at the very least, intentionally offering to harbor an enemy of the state.

Then again, I'm not sure why I'm surprised. Apparently this is the country we live in now. Those set on destroying this country are lifted into favorable positions - whether politician or actress or international spy - while the people who care are lambasted as every negative possibility on the books.