A Serious Post For Once

Don't worry, I'll post my fat pregnancy pictures just as soon as my camera decides it doesn't need new batteries after all. I'm assuming it just has to choose not to want them rather insisting than it does. Stupid, spoiled camera.

In the mean time I'm going to write about something that's been weighing on my mind for a couple of days. It's a serious topic, it's going to be very long and wordy, and it won't be funny in the least. So if you're looking for amusement today you won't find it here. I can't always be your little entertainment monkey, you ingrates.

Some drama has happened in our family over the past week. My husband's 16-year-old niece went missing on Sunday and still hadn't been heard of four days later. She hadn't taken anything with her except her ipod (very important) and her cell phone, which she never answered. Money, keys, and ID were all left in her room. Obviously, her parents were frantic, but the police labeled it a runaway situation and basically ignored it. It wasn't until she still hadn't resurfaced on Thursday that the police actually sat up and took notice and actually began investigating her disappearance. And 24 hours later, and one ex-convict 19-year-old lousy boyfriend back in prison later, she was safely back at home again. She'd been keeping this idiot boyfriend a secret for over a year. When her parents finally found out about him, they went to all lenghts to keep him away from her, all to no avail. They even had the cops come to their home and tell their daughter just how bad her boyfriend was and illuminate her life about his extensive rapsheet. She refused to believe it of course, because "he's the only one who understands me and we're in love." Got it.

The whole family assumed the worst about our niece and they were naturally worried sick. However, the more I thought about the situation and the evidence available, the more I was convinced that she was perfectly safe, being sheltered by her idiot boyfriend. He felt the same way about her--that she was the only one who truly understood and loved him for the way he was--and as such I didn't believe he would hurt her. But he would definitely hide her. I'm very disturbed that elements of this case reminded me a great deal of one that the husband and I heard about via one of our many crime shows we're addicted to at the moment, and not the fake ones but the real ones. There was a case of a young teen girl who was a bit of an outcast who befriended an older teen hoodlum with serious issues inside and out of prison. Eventually they and his friend began to do drugs together, specifically LSD. When her mother objected to their undying love for each other, they decided to do away with her. And one night, the boyfriend stabbed her mother to death while her daughter and his friend hung out in the other room or watched or helped, depending on whose version of events you believe. The daughter and friend were sentenced to prison and the boyfriend was sentenced to death. Unless it has since been overturned by appeal, he is still on death row for the offense.

Here is my problem. While a heinous act, no doubt, he should not have been sentenced to death for that. All three were unbelievably high on LSD when they not only commited the murder, but also when they discussed doing it a couple of days before. There wasn't any evidence to suggest that they discussed her murder when they were not high. If I had been on the jury that sentenced this lad you would have had to convince me that he was not only capable, but also even willing to take that woman's life while he was stone-cold sober. Drugs impair one's reasoning ability to the degree that most of us are willing to do things under their influence that we would never even dream of doing otherwise; after all, isn't that the point of doing drugs? That would be the same as taking a drunken driver who had committed vehicular homicide and sentencing him to death for it. Surely he (or she) is responsible for the deaths his selfishness and carelessness caused and he should certainly be punished for not thinking ahead to take into account the possible consequences of his actions. But it was not premediated. He did not begin drinking that evening thinking that he would kill someone with his car. It is this same reasoning that makes me believe the boy was unfairly sentenced in his girlfriend's mother's murder. It was never properly proven that took LSD that evening with the intent of using it to aid him in murdering her mother, nor was it ever proven that he took it days prior with the intent of talking about it with his friends. The prosecution argued that because they had discussed her murder prior, that pointed to intent and premeditation. However, is it truly premeditated when it only occurs to them as a viable option when they are not in their right minds? The mention of murder was never brought up in conversation until well after the effects of the drug had worked its way into their systems. So while the boy certainly deserved to be put in jail for killing her, because really this speaks to his suitability as a common citizen in general, I believe handing down a death sentence for it was unnecessarily extreme given the circumstances surrounding the crime.

I was emailing my friend, Trina, back and forth and she was talking about black and white issues in society. I was reminded then that I believe there are very, very few situations that are truly black and white in this world. I believe that there are exceptions to almost every rule and circumstances vary to such a degree that no two situations can ever be truly compared to one another with the intent of laying out a solid, indefensible solution for both. I believe God is the only one who can do so and I believe He takes everything into effect before passing judgement. We are imperfect as humans, but we do our best by usually having juries decide each individual case based upon the unique evidence and circumstances that go with it. Juries aren't perfect, but they're the best we've got in an imperfect situation.

The death penalty. I believe in using the death penalty, but sparingly. Also, not for the same reasons many people believe in it. Often proponents of capital punishment use the "eye for an eye" argument to justify its use. If you kill someone, you deserve to be killed. I don't believe that. I believe if you kill someone or multiple people, or something just as heinous AND you've proven yourself incapable of ever being a capable contributing member of society AND you are just as much a danger in prison as out and if you ever escaped you would immediately resort to your previous heinous activities, then you have forfeited your chance to live and should be put to death. In my opinion, just because a murder has been committed does not mean the person who did it should also die. Here's an example. Say that a man comes home from work, catches his wife in bed with another man, and in a fit of rage and jealousy picks up the first object he sees and chucks it at her head. The blunt-force trama results in excessive internal bleeding and she dies. Should her husband be sentenced do death? Why or why not? I believe not. Not only was there no time for him to develop a plan before his emotions took over, but what are the chances that he will go and murder again after this initial crime? For a man who had previously no former criminal past, it would seem that only such an extreme emotionally charged event was capable of making him irrational enough to forgo his usual non-violent nature and act upon his over stimulated emotions. What are the chances that this same man will be found again in a similarly emotionally charged position that would force him to react in the same way? Therefore, is he a danger to society? Possibly. Some would argue that it's easier to murder the second time than the first. If he's capable of it at all, he's capable of it again. I would argue we're all capable of it if forced into an extreme enough situation. Would I kill someone who was trying to permanately harm one of my children? Yes, I might. The law would likely excuse me for protecting my young, but not necessarily in every situation, even if we at the time feel it is more than warranted.

The husband in my example is not necessarily uncommon. There is a reason lawyers have used "temporary insanity" as a defense in the past. It is an attempt to show the jury that this was an isolated event brought on by the most extreme of circumstances and that the odds of replicating those circumstances to the point of replicating the result as well is nearly non-existent. Does that argument work? Not always. But it still brings the point across that not everyone is a serial killer.

America's prison system was the first of its kind on earth. While other countries reserved prison for people who couldn't pay their debts and handed out death sentences for nearly everything else, America used its prisons as a form of rehabilitation. The U.S. had the idea that if prisoners could be reformed, they would not need to be executed but rather re-taught and then released back into society as productive citizens. Sometimes that works and obviously sometimes it doesn't, evidenced by the number of repeat offenders out there. And some are deemed to be beyond the point of rehabilitation so that they are sentenced to life in prison. They cannot be trusted within society any longer and thus have been stripped of the privilige of living with the rest of us.

So then what specifics separate those with a life sentence from those with a death sentence? Well, that's truly the question, isn't it? This is what citizens and politicians argue about unceasingly. People in favor of the death penalty use several arguments in their favor: the afore-mentioned eye for an eye argument, the argument that it provides closure for the victims' families, the argument that it serves as a deterrent to those who would otherwise commit these crimes, and the argument that what they did is just so bad that they have essentially proven that they are inhuman enough that they cannot be allowed to live. I believe only one of those arguments holds water, and it is the last one. But first, the others. I've already gone over the eye for an eye argument and why I don't believe it's justified to kill everyone who takes a life no matter what. Every situation is different and each needs to be analyzed based upon its own unique circumstances. The closure argument. I have yet to see a family member of a victim say that the death of the murder makes them feel better. In fact, most of the time they express the idea that even though the murderer is dead, they feel just as much pain and that person's execution will never bring their loved ones back. The only positive outcome they ever express is that now the murderer can't hurt anyone else. We will be coming back to that one, guaranteed.

And finally the deterrent argument. This is touted as being the strongest argument in the pro-capital punishment arena, and yet it is the argument that holds the least water. No one has ever provided evidence that I've ever heard of that has polled individuals with the results being "Yeah, I was gonna kill her, but man, then I thought about how our state allows the death penalty and then I thought, oh crap! I better not do it then! So I let her live." Most murders do not lend themselves to enough prior thought that would allow the would-be killer to think far enough in advance of that specific consequence. When humans are presented with enough time to think before they act on something they know they shouldn't do, the farthest their thoughts will carry them is, "I might get caught." It is from there that they exercise the idea of whether or not it's worth the risk of being caught or not. I daresay it would be a rare event for an individual to think about killing someone else for their own reasons that they've concocted as good enough to justify such an act and then pause to think about the consequences through to their complete end: "OK, so I kill this guy. If I don't cover my tracks enough, the cops might get the idea it's me. So I better do a good job of hiding what I did so I don't get caught. If I don't do that well enough, what will happen to me? The cops will come and they'll question me. If I don't lie well enough I'll have to sign my confession and get thrown in jail. Then I'll have to wait for my day in court and I'll have to have a good lawyer. If he can't argue well enough the jury might find me guilty. Oh man, and then I'll go to prison. Oh, but wait! What if they decide that what I'm about to do is so bad, despite my assertions that it had to be done because this dude totally has it coming and/or has something I really, really want that think I'm unfit to breathe another breath! OH MY GOSH I COULD GET THE CHAIR FOR THIS. Maybe this guy doesn't have it coming after all? Yeah, they're totally right. It's just not worth it. Time for Wheel of Fortune!" I guarantee you that that thought process and the type of person capable of carrying out a capital punishment-worthy offense are not compatable. As indicated, most people don't even register that what they're doing is worthy of such a sentence or it wouldn't occur to them to do it in the first place. While they may admit what they're about to do is wrong (if they've even thought about it long enough to come to that conclusion at all), they either do not believe they'll be caught for it, or they don't believe that a jury would think it's so wrong that they should die for it. Very few people on this earth would knowingly and willingly commit a crime so unbelievably horrendous that they believe they would be sentenced to die for it. Of those who know they would, typically serial killer types, those criminals believe themselves to be, and are usually correct to some degree, that they are intelligent enough to get away with it. And for those of us who do think about capital punishment, we are usually also right-thinking enough to not believe in committing the act in the first place if for no other reason than a strong sense of right and wrong. More of us are scared out of ever committing murder and other horrible acts for the consequence of eternal damnation rather than lethal injection. The death penality is not the deterrent people believe it to be.

I believe the death penalty is based in fear. There is a line that has been crossed in such a crime that is so unsettling to us as human beings that we cannot fathom its purpose or possible justification. An angry and jealous husband who murders in the heat of the moment will not be forgiven, but he can be understood to some degree. While most of us would not have reacted in the same way (or so we believe), we are not disgusted with his actions to the point of taking his life. But a man who rapes and murders dozens of teenaged girls on a spree that lasts years and crosses 32 states is unfathomable. It is inexusable. It has crossed a line. It shakes us to our cores. It terrifies us. Such a man cannot only not be trusted in society, he cannot even be trusted in prison. If he escapes he will do the same all over again because his mind is deseased to such a point that he can never be cured of his sadistic urges and he will continue until he is dead. There is little reason to keep him alive, and the risk of doing so far outweighs the guilt of taking his life. And so we execute him. It is the only solution to his personal problem and our problem with him. He will never be rehabilitated, he will never be in his right mind, he will never be forgiven by society, he can never pay his debt. He is hopeless and thus extremely expendable. There is a reason that states are willing to pay the price of killing some people versus the much cheaper option of simply keeping them in prison until they die naturally. Because they feel it's worth the cost. It's worth the peace of mind. It's worth the safety of everyone else in society because until that individual is six feet underground, he will always be a potential danger to us. And not just a danger, but a cancer. A disease that is pulling our society under with it. The criminal must be completely erradicated to cleanse us and more importantly for us to feel safe. Fear is a very powerful motivator in our society, don't ever doubt that. It can decide if you live or die.

And what do you think?

Have I Told You You're Wonderful Lately?

OK, so I was just about to come over here to write my own take on last night's Oscars when I decided to be impulsive and read Gwennifer's comments on the Oscars first. BIG MISTAKE. She wrote exactly what I was about to write, which makes the following post completely pointless. You'll notice that's not stopping me, however. But in case you want to read hers, too (the "original" one--whatever), it's here.

I was enjoying last night's Oscars immensely, including the crappy parts, up until Sean Penn took the stage. At this point I'm fairly certain that the only reason he performs his best in his films is so he can win awards and then use his acceptance speech as yet another opportunity to tell us all what's on his holier-than-thou mind. Let me give it to you straight, Sean. I don't care. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone on this earth who does. It seems to me that the only reason you use your acceptance speeches to torture us with your witless diatribes is because we are a ready and captive audience and you would be unable to get anyone to listen to your mind-numbingly idiot rants during any other opportunity in your life. This should tell you something. It should be telling you you're a moron and need to stop. And I have to ask, is this the first time an event you've attended been picketed by a group that didn't contain you as a fellow demonstrator? Is it so uncomfortable to you that someone disagrees with you or people you know that you have to whine about it on stage? I hate to tell you this, but I've been to TONS of events that were picketed by demonstrators outside and I've never felt the need to turn crybaby and complain to everyone I know. I realize this is all new to you in your little imaginary world and all, but those people who are demonstrating at the Oscars are perfectly legal in what they're doing, despite it not being sanctioned directly by you. Now, I'm not saying I agree with the demonstrators. I don't even know, or care, what they were demonstrating. The fact that you had to complain about it though, shows a lack of maturity on your part. Suck it up and move on with your life if you can. You'll be better for it.

Oh, and the "You should be ashamed of yourselves" and something retarded about their grandchildren being ashamed of themselves too, or of you, or something else, whatever the crap it was? Excuse me? Who told you that your definition of right and wrong was the last word on the subject?

I have no problem with gay people. I have gay friends, and while I would never encourage them to spread their genes around the human population because they are insane beyond measure and, gay or straight, should definitely not be procreating, I believe they should not be descriminated against for how their biological wiring has told them to feel. They're good people and I love them. I hate knowing that there are people out there who would gladly harm them, even kill them, simply because they are gay.

I am not homophobic. I don't live in constant fear that gangs of lesbians will surround me in the cereal isle of the supermarket and rape me and then give me a crew cut and make me wear plaid. I even had a lesbian hit on me once and the only thing I thought was, "Oh my gosh, BOTH sexes find me irresistable! I'm officially the most awesome person I know!" I wasn't disgusted, I was flattered. The fact that she wasn't hideous only made me feel that much more awesome. Because really, I got it goin' on, wedding ring and all. You know you wish you were me.

The issue of Prop 8 in CA was a difficult one for me and one I was glad I didn't have to make. I am at odds with the whole concept. Part of me says yes, and part says no. I imagine it was that way for a lot of people on both sides of the issue. I don't believe homosexual couples are evil; I believe they are doing what they believe to be right and good. As one example, I don't believe in denying homosexual couples the opportunity to welcome foster children into their homes, especially considering those homes possess a lot more love, affection, nutrition, education, and attention than many heterosexual homes where some of the parents only look forward to the monthly check they get and otherwise abuse and/or neglect the children in their care. I would much rather see these children go to a loving home, regardless of their orientation, than an abusive one simply because it there was one man and one woman occupying it. And thus, the same goes for adoption. There are many children who are mentally, physically, or medically handicapped who are unwelcome in many homes. But I've heard of loving homosexual couples who are more than willing to love and care for these children to the point of adopting them, but are unable to because they are gay. And so these children get shuffled around in the system for the rest of their lives because no one else will take them. That isn't fair to the children. And don't tell me that gay homes put out gay children. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The stark majority of gay children/adults come from hetersexual homes and a good, healthy number of heterosexual children come from homosexual homes. They just come out a little more liberal, and I imagine we can fix that with some good therapy. The point is, I believe homosexual people should not be denied these rights based on their orientation. The marriage issue is a sticky one for me because I don't believe their being married affects my own personal marriage in any way. It does not invalidate it, nor make it any less powerful on its own. And yet, I'm hesitant to say it's the one and only answer to the problem. I am divided on several different issues regarding the homosexual community. My heart says one thing and my head says something completely different. It's a difficult decision for me, and for a lot of people.

So for Sean Penn to call people's motives into question because they used their American-given right to vote their consciences and announce that they should be ashamed of themselves is hypocracy to the extreme. How do you know what these people's motives were, or even if they were wrong to decide what they did? And if you're going to chide Americans for voting and/or contributing to a cause as they best see fit, then why aren't you also condemning those who then went to such extreme lengths to hunt these individuals down and attack them? If you want to boycott a certain store because its owner contributed to Prop 8, that's certainly within your right to do so. If you want to write letters to the editor and to your congressmen telling them how unfair Prop 8 was and how it should be overturned by the state supreme court, again, that's your constitutional right to do so. You are allowed to disagree all you like. Protest, congregate, demonstrate, boycott, all to your hearts' content. But when you take your anger to the point of desecrating churches, threatening citizens, and actually harming those who don't agree with you, you are no longer protected by this country. You literally HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DO THIS. So where is your scorn for those who took their hatred and anger to that point, Mr. Penn? Oh, I forgot, you don't care because you are too busy condemning to hell those citizens who don't happen to agree with your political stance. THIS is why I don't respect you, Sean Penn. You fare far better in life when you recite what someone else has written for you rather than what you've come up with on your own, so take the hint.

I had left the room when the Oscars for Best Screenplay(s) were handed out so I missed the "Milk" guy's diatribe on his evil Mormon parents/upbringing. Again, he's allowed to say it/believe it of course, but what is it with turning the Academy Awards into a political rally? And unwanted political rally? I'm quite certain most people were there to watch an entertainment broadcast, not be lectured, or listen to others be lectured, by a bunch of damn peons. Take it elsewhere.

I did love Hugh Jackman though. I especially loved that he sang about being Wolverine.

And a final note. Other than the bits mentioned above, I really did enjoy the Oscars. However, I began to note something along the way and I finally noted to The Husband, "I do believe this is the most self-absorbed Oscars I've ever seen." Honestly, it's bad enough that the entire industry insists on patting itself on the back throughout the entire year with awards show after awards show (do they really need that much validation? I mean, besides the trillions of dollars their industry brings in?), but to hike it up to this level? Doesn't the fact that being nominated for an Oscar tell you that others think you're one of the best in your chosen field? Do they have to then have these people individually singled out and told just how wonderful they are in their own little segment by Hollywood's past award winners in front of a billion people on top of that? Were their little egos so shaky they needed that extra boost ON OSCARS NIGHT, SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW AT THE OSCARS THAT THEY WERE INVITED TO BECAUSE EVERYONE AGREES THEY'RE THE BEST ACTORS THIS YEAR? Oh my goodness, spare me this. Yes, it was different at least, so that was a welcome change, and it was nice to see Hollywood legends out there doing their bit, but the whole "You're a wonderful person because blah, blah, blah, and I just know you'll continue to be a wonderful person because yada, yada, yada, and OH MY GOSH we just love you so fricking much we can hardly stand to be in your presence!" Please stop it. These people are validated enough, they don't need any more reassurances that they're good actors. Trust me, their self-confidence levels and the millions of dollars in their bank accounts tell them they're the best every single day. They're fine. Quit holding their little hands.

Oh, and Sean? In case it needs reiterating, for the love of all that's holy, just shut. Up.

"We Help Daddy Win a Lawsuit Against Big Tobacco"

See, here's the thing, folks. I only have so much free time in a day. I use that time either writing on my blog or reading yours. And when I have many writer-crazy friends that means I spend two hours reading their stuff instead of writing my own. You can't have it both ways, people. So quit writing about your families and other crap you love. Then we'll be getting somewhere here.

I just finished reading Peawhistle her bedtime story. She chose "We Help Daddy," one of the classic Golden Books I had as a child and passed along to her. I am always struck by the shear number of chores these people (Daddy, Benjy, and little Sue) are able to accomplish, particularly given the fact that two of the three contributors are apparently under the age of five and by definition a liability rather than an asset. Any other man in "Daddy's" situation would take upwards of 56 hours to accomplish what this fellow does in just one day. He amazes me. And on top of that, "Daddy" also smokes like a chimney. He's like the Energizer Bunny, but with emphysema.

The book also shows "Mommy" baking cookies in the kitchen--I'm assuming all day long, because really, that's why I don't bother with them. Peawhistle pointed and said, "Look! That Mommy's making cookies! Just like BStephanie!" You'll notice she did not bother to assume I would ever do the same, or was even capable of such. At least her expectations aren't high.

Halfway through their day, the kids help Daddy bathe Zip, their dog, who according to legend hates baths. Zip reminds me of Peanut, who has despised baths since the day he was born. And I don't mean that he fusses or cries a little. He FREAKS THE HELL OUT. He begins to tremble the second you even start to clean the bathtub. You'd think I were pouring acid on him or something (I'm not). This is why I strongly suspect he's a witch.

Today it snowed again. Snow twice in the course of 30 days?? Crazy talk you say! Indeed. I was especially pleased though, that the snow didn't confuse our refuse collection fellows today as it did last week when the dusting of snow on our white trash bags camouflaged them so effectively that ours were the only trashbags left on our entire street after the fellows had come and gone. Nevermind that our trashbags were sitting right there on the sidewalk and thus created unnatural two-foot-high lumps on said sidewalk. Why no, we haven't installed sidewalks two feet higher than everyone else's, although we are trying to discourage visitors! (TAKE THE HINT ALREADY.) But white=snow, so no trash collection for you, jerks!

One last thought. No, two. First I have to click my tongue at Bob Carol on principle. No wonder he wound up in London running a halfway house. And second, it's also no wonder Congress has no trouble handing out cash left and right to any Tom, Dick, or Harry, Inc. since it's not their money they're giving away. PAY YOUR TAXES YOU SPENDTHRIFT HOSERS. We have little enough respect for you as it is without being forced to also give you a completely free ride for the rest of your worthless term in office. There's a place specially reserved for the worst of the worst of society like you, you leeches! It's called Annapolis! NO GPS FOR YOU!!

Help! The DNC is Stalking Me!

HOLY CRAP ALMIGHTY, the Democratic Party DOES read my blog!! Remember when I said the husband and I had been talking about Hillary making a great choice for Secretary of State?

What the crap is this??

I think I need to go change the locks on my doors now (you know what an infestation of Democrats will do to your resale value).

No One Likes an "I Told You So."

But that won't stop me from giving you one. And I'm not talking about yesterday, I'm talking about nearly a year ago when I said if the DNC could get Barack on the ticket, he would win the White House, and not just because Democrats would vote him in, but because Republicans would, too. (Go read it again; it was good. I'll wait.) He won the election nearly as handily as Reagan won the first time around. And I say, he deserved the win. Well done, Obama. Well done on a hard fight won. Now, please don't screw it up.

As for McCain's loss, I blame Bush. Last night I was angry. Not angry with Barack--as I said, he did a good job and he deserved the win. No, I was angry with Bush--to the point of shaking. I have wanted nothing more in the past ten years than to see my boy, McCain, in the Oval Office. And that IDIOT Bush took it from him. He first took it from him back in 2000. And why did he win? How could a man who is the most retarded a human being can be without being on life support win over someone as qualified as McCain? Name recognition. That's it. He had a famous last name. Retarded or not, he took the Primaries (which cost me no small degree of consternation at the time, I can tell you that) and left McCain in the dust.

I waited for eight years for McCain to be able to run again, all the while aging away. And what did Bush do in that time? What? What's that you say? Make everyone who has ever lived or ever will live hate our ever-living guts? Blow trillions of dollars we don't have on a war that "would pay for itself"? Conveniently forget to capture Bin Laden when it no longer served his purposes? DING DING DING DING! And what did that do for us? It made Americans hate Bush and every single thing that he has ever been associated with, especially my political party and MY CANDIDATE. He stole the White House from McCain in 2000 and he stole it from him again in 2008. I can't wait for that idiot to leave.

McCain and I have had our differences, many of which I have voiced on this blog in the past, and I had to have a long heart-to-heart with him before I voted in this election. This entire past month I seriously weighed the pros and cons of Obama and McCain before I cast my vote yesterday. What I finally realized that what I had admired and loved about McCain ten years ago hadn't changed much. Yeah, he's older and he got a little desperate (hard lesson learned from that campaign against Bush), and possibly a little stupid (*coughpalincough*), but the core was still intact. That's what I'd been looking for all along, and that's what I found again before I checked his name. We don't always agree on issues, but we agree on principles, and that's I wanted in my president.

AND NOW HE'LL DIE OF OLD AGE, POSSIBLY NEXT WEEK. THANKS FOR NOTHING, BUSH.

Anyway. What's done is done. And on to much stranger 100th post-worthy news (this is my 100th post, after all), my post yesterday was featured (and by featured, I mean a vaguely worded link was made to my blog) in something called The Mormon Times! What? When did we get this? Apparently it is a website-based subsidiary of the Deseret News and is dedicated to keeping Mormons up to date with whatever it is we need to know or something. They have a section on LDS-oriented blogs and blogrolls ("containing the best of what we've seen from the world of LDS-oriented blog sites"), and for yesterday's Election Day coverage mine was the personal blog linked to. Thanks for the shout-out, Emily Jensen, whoever you are! Pity she hadn't chosen a post that was actually worth linking to, but hey, I'll take what I can get. I'm famous! W00t!

And I know I just included videos yesterday, but today's video is in true honor of McCain. And it's only a minute and a half. It's one of my favorite campaign ads of all time:

Place "I Voted!" Sticker Here

So much to write about, so much time spent reading everybody else's blogs instead.

Yes, I voted today, thank you for asking/questioning my patriotism and dedication to the democratic process. But voted for who?? YOU'LL NEVER KNOW BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU.

Seriously though, it was McCain. I ignored the fact that he had a running mate. Ah, McCain. The only time I'll finally get to vote for you for president and you have to go and do a whole bunch of stupid crap to make me question my loyalty to you. I admired your stance against torture, what with your firsthand knowledge of it and all. I admired your willingness to work with members of both parties just to get the job done. I admired your voting against allowing people with no money to be given large mortgages that they would never have a chance of repaying which would drag the economy and dump it in the toilet. I admired that your tax plan that would save me more money than Obama's. I liked your healthcare reform plan and how it seemed to work best with what we have now.

I did not appreciate the idiot you picked as your VP, however. What were you thinking, my man? Did it have anything to do with your recent crawl towards the extreme right? Did you honestly think your new campaign strategy didn't appeal enough to Conservatives to the point that you would need to drag along an induhvidual like Palin to keep right-wingers from voting for Obama? Seriously? And I think rabid Hillary fans would have voted for you whether you had a woman on the ticket or not--they were voting against Obama, not for you. If nothing else, dumping Palin on the ticket likely turned many of them off to the point where they thought they might be better off with Obama afterall. Some folks believe that once you're elected Palin will get quickly swept back under the rug. I hope to Hannah that they're right. As much as I didn't want him as president, I think Romney would have made a far better VP candidate. Maybe the McCain camp figured he'd already been dragged in the mud and that would have been brought up all over again if he'd picked him. Who knows.

But in all seriousness, I do believe Obama will win. Liberals/Democrats will vote for him, and heaven knows Bush has upped their membership numbers. The poor and disadvantaged will vote for him, and heaven knows the country's numbers of those are growing. Minorities will vote for him, and heaven knows they've waited a long time to feel like they're being represented in the Oval Office. And everyone else who is disillusioned with the government of today will swing left and vote for him just to get a breath of change, and heaven knows I don't blame them for it. So be prepared to witness history, people!

If you all failed to see it on youtube, you are missing out. The Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner is a venue in which each presidential candidate (the two that count, you silly people) roasts the other in front of an audience. I gotta say, their writers did a fabulous job. And McCain did a great job delivering it, too. If only he had humor writers in reality, too....

Yes, each video clip is 6-7 minutes long, so if you have to do it in spurts, do it. It's worth it. The first two are of McCain's bit, and the last two are Obama's. Both did a great job of poking fun at themselves and their opponents.

The Truth and Consequences

You Are Japan

You enjoy being part of a group. Having a good reputation is important to you. You get along well with others. You don't openly criticize or insult anyone. You like to co-operate, and conformity is fairly important to you. You love your culture and country. But when you're by yourself, you may have some very eccentric hobbies or interests!

What Country Are You?

Um...what? And what is with the underwear?

On to different things that won't keep me awake at night now. Or not.

The other night I was watching "The Daily Show." Jon Stewart was, naturally (and not without reason) mocking America's Eye Candy, Sarah Palin. But one thing that he has beaten into the ground for several days in a row is Palin's daughter and that daughter getting herself knocked up and such. Stewart's main horse that he's been beating to death is Palin's phrasing of the situation. Supposedly, Palin said her daughter, Buttons, was given a choice of outcomes for this pregnancy and she "chose" to marry her rednecked boyfriend and keep the baby. It is the issue of choice that has Stewart, et al, up in arms. Palin, the Republican that she is, voted to make abortion illegal (even in cases of rape, if that gives you any indication of her seriousness on the issue) in the state of Alaska. And yet, Stewart rants, her own daughter, Brazil, was given a choice as to what to do with her own pregnancy. What pisses me off here, ladies and gentlemen, is Stewart's assumption of the definition of "choice." Since when is keeping the baby or aborting it the only choice a pregnant woman can possibly have, and by making abortion illegal completely and totally strips that woman's choices from her? Let me tell you Jon Stewart (he's a big fan of the blog), that the choice Buxom was given was that of keeping the baby and marrying its idiot father, or putting the baby up for adoption. Yes, adoption, that old 1950s concept that seems to have died out in the last week or something. What is so wrong with adoption? How many parents out there who can't have children would kill for a baby, or at least fork over $100,000 for one? A lot, I can tell you that. Bratwurst had every right to choose to make the situation right by making her little family complete or giving another couple the same opportunity.

The whole issue of abortion and it being called pro-choice by its proponents gets me in a tizzy every time. Now, I'm not the police. I'm not personally going to stop you from having an abortion. However, quit acting like you should have every right on this earth to destroy your fetus if you so wish and if anyone says you shouldn't that they are attempting to deprive you of your ability to choose. People's ability to confuse "choices" with "consequences" never ceases to amaze me. The choice in this situation came when you chose to have (likely unprotected) sex. You chose to do so, even after knowing full well that pregnancy could be an outcome of that choice. The consequence (not choice) of that decision is the pregnancy. Having an abortion is an attempt to avoid the consequence of your choice. However, there is good news! You get another choice, like what to do with the baby once your pregnancy is over! You can marry your idiot boyfriend and keep the baby, you can not marry your idiot boyfriend and keep the baby, you can marry your idiot boyfriend and put the baby up for adoption, you can not marry your idiot boyfriend and put the baby up for adoption, or you can leave the baby with a bunch of nice looking firefighters at the local fire station and walk away. All of the above are legal choices (the last depending upon which state you live in). Huzzah for you! Look at all the choices you get to have, even after suffering through the obligatory consequence of your inital stupid decisions!

I know there are extenuating circumstances in this world that provide exceptions to every rule, and certainly abortion has its extenuating circumstances. My problem with people starts when every single one of them assumes that they are the exception to that rule every time. I don't care if you think you need an abortion so you won't look too fat in your wedding dress you empty-headed baffoon, that's not a good enough excuse. Abortion is and always will be a horrible option. A likely option nonetheless, yes, but a terrible one. Try to start treating it like that and perhaps people will quit getting angry with you for exceeding your quota of idiotic life-altering choices.

Every Democrat in America Reads My Blog

Or so it would seem, given that they've abandoned Hillary and gone with Obama. Seems they want the White House badly enough. Good for them for thinking before they vote.

An Obama-McCain presidential race will be a good one. I think this will make the first time in years I haven't been plagued with that lesser-of-two-evils thing. I'm actually starting to get excited about November; I dare say, possibly even giddy. And all because Hillary decided to self-destruct when it became obvious to her that she wasn't going to win the bid as easily as she thought. The desperation on her part is getting just plain sad. Everyone knows that anything that could possibly be less than good about Obama that's been picked up by the press was intentionally put there by her campaign. It's now so transparent that everyone just tunes it out. Why, he could be an actual terrorist and we'd never know it because we'd just chalk it up to Hillary freaking out. If he blows up the White House, I'm blaming her. I also loved it when she mocked Obama at a rally for being bi-partisan and optimistic. Really? What are we supposed to be voting for? Stubborn stupidity and an end-of-the-world mentality? Please. Even I think we can give the Democrats a little more credit than that.

By the way, I've solved the whole running-mate quandry every presidential candidate has to deal with. McCain's running mate will be Obama and Obama's running mate will be McCain. It will be kinda like it was over a century ago when the loser became the VP; so I guess it's not so much as solving the problem on my own, but rather bringing back a good idea. They'll still have to debate each other about who would make the better president, but either way they both make it in. That would make people happy, wouldn't you think? And then we can all hold hands, sing "Reunited" together, and cry (mostly because we've been reduced to singing "Reunited." Terrible song.).

I'm such a friggin' genius, it's scary.

A Moderate Proposal

I've been interested in politics since I was five years old. I never watched Sesame Street--I watched C-SPAN. My life through college was already mapped out. Politics gave me direction. In high school, I was the weird one. And I mean weird. In a decidedly Democratic state and seemingly even more Democratic school district, I was the proud iconoclast, a Republican enthusiast like none had ever seen. I went as Rush Limbaugh for Halloween one year, Dan Quayle the next. Senior year I was voted (with no small contribution from my friends) most likely to overthrow the POTUS (who was Bill Clinton at the time it might help you to know). My friend and I crashed Young Republican meetings (and were sent on our way for being too young), I volunteered at Republican Headquarters, and I manned phone banks for Republican candidates. I knew I would major in Political Science in college--it was the only thing for me. I was thrilled to be accepted into Brigham Young University, a hotbed for Republicans just like me. It would be like coming home.

My mother humored me and even encouraged me to a small degree. She drove me to all of my functions. However, she assured me that my fire would diminish one day. Clearly, she was insane. She reminded me that she had been just like me in her day. This was the same woman who as a Boston teenager would sneak over with her friends to Democratic conventions and put Republican candidates' bumper stickers on every car in the parking lot. Not only do I still find this funny, but also highly illegal. She was a firecracker. She has mellowed, but she still has her moments. At the time though, I knew I would be different. I would never mellow and I liked it that way.

And then I went to college. My Freshman year went well enough. Most of my PoliSci classes were 100-level courses and students from all over the university had to take their pick of them as well in order to graduate. As I progressed through to my Sophomore year and closer to my Junior year, I noted that the concentration of hardcore Republicans increased. Made sense. These were the people who were going all the way and not dropping out like 90% of PoliSci Freshmen wind up doing. But the intensity and fervor with which they spoke began to bother me. I remember thinking during one of my classes, "Holy crap, these people are freaks." By Senior year, my opinion of my fellow classmates was solidified. On my best day of high school I could never have held a candle to these people. I found their dogmatic beliefs alarming and bordering on the absurd. Surely no rational person allowed mere political opinions to dictate every single facet of their lives? Apparently they do.

I recall one Junior year class I took (Political Action Committees and Grassroots Campaigns) in which Utah's 3rd Congressional District (Utah County) Representative to the US Congress, Bill Orton, came as a guest speaker. Orton, a Democrat, was a three-term candidate. My class and professor, rabid Republicans all, absolutely hated him. As it turns out, the professor invited Orton as a means to get his class riled and badmouth the representative after he'd left. For those of you who don't remember Orton or never heard of him, he was indeed a Democrat, but in name only. He could give most Republicans a run for their money in a Who's More Conservative contest. He voted the way his mostly Republican constituents wanted him to vote. He was censured on a constant basis by his party for refusing to vote along party lines and he was rejected for a lack of party loyalty. When a student asked why he was a Democrat, he said not only is it nearly impossible to get a spot on the Republican ticket in Utah (the Democratic side being wide-open of course), but his family, whose LDS heritage dated back to before Brigham Young's time, had always been Democrats and that's just how he was raised. [Side note: for those unaware, the LDS Church was originally exclusively Democratic. The new Republican Party at the time had only two platform issues: anti-slavery and anti-polygamy, i.e., anti-Mormon. Needless to say, the second issue didn't appeal to too many Mormons. In fact, Mormons hated the new Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, with a passion, going so far as to call him a baboon face, etc. It was only until a lack of political diversity, combined with polygamy, threatened to prevent Utah from becoming a state that Brigham Young divided the territory down the middle, instructing half to vote Republican and the other half Democrat. Utah finally attained statehood in 1896.]

Orton, despite being a better representative to his constituents than most would think despite not sharing their party, was ripped apart after he left the room. The professor began the "dialogue" by saying, "Doesn't he just make smoke come out of your ears?" They all hated him simply for being a Democrat, despite what he actually practiced in reality. It was then that I hated my classmates for their blindness and stupidity. Orton was defeated in the next election by Republican Chris Cannon, a man who used Mormons' paranoia about the government to his advantage. I still recall his campaign commercials that said (paraphrased), "I feel like the pioneers of old with the US government coming after us. We have to circle the wagons!" And Utah County fell for it. They deserve him.

By Senior year my political outlook on life had changed. I think it changed for the better. Despite, or perhaps because of, the ultra-conservative atmosphere in which I received my education, I had learned never to take anything at face-value. Things are not always as they seem in the political world, and more than anything, a political party doth not the candidate make. I learned that simply because a pundit or National Republican Committee chairperson tells you that you must believe in this or that specific platform issue in order to be a "true" Republican, doesn't make it so. I compare that to a Lutheran or a Baptist telling me I'm not a Christian because I don't believe the same things about a specific piece of doctrine that he does. I don't recall anyone ever copyrighting the terms "Christian" OR "Republican." I am one if I say I am.

I am TIRED of commentators acting as if "moderate" is a bad word. If there's one thing I remember distinctly from college, it is the political bell curve. Pundits would have you believe that there are voters on the right and voters on the left, with very few voters (i.e., "fence-sitting cowards") in the middle. Such is simply not true. The majority of voters in this country register in the middle with very, very few people being truly on the right or on the left (we call those people far right and far left--and for a reason as you can see). The people on the extremeties of the bell curve are just that: extreme. Thus, by definition, they are not the norm, as in, abnormal. They would certainly have you believe otherwise; nobody likes to be out there on a limb by themselves. However, it's just not the reality of the situation. The facts prove that a majority of voters are moderate in their political views by their own definition. That means that despite the extremists telling them that they aren't true Republicans or Democrats because they don't believe absolutely everything their chosen party reportedly subscribes to, they still register with one party or the other. Sometimes they're confused by what the "experts" tell them, wondering if they truly belong to either party at all, but they still maintain some identification with one or the other regardless. I suspect many a voter, wanting to truly identify with their party, believe the talk and automatically agree with many issues without giving it much thought; it's what their party believes in and they want to be a good party member so that's what they believe, too. The Party knows best.

Diana asked me if I had any solid views at all, what with my complaining about everything and everyone under the sun. I do. I am a moderate Republican. I also consider myself a very proud moderate Republican. I refuse to allow any idiot to accuse me of being a bad Republican because I believe in both national security AND the protection of our civil liberties. I am still a Republican even though I care about the environment and believe action needs to be taken on both a national level and an individual level to protect what we have. I recycle more than anyone else on our street, and on several other streets, too. Why does that make me a turncoat? If I believe that something needs to change in the healthcare system to allow each and every American the opportunity to good health care despite his economic circumstances, how does that make me a traitor to my party? Who said that only Democrats are allowed to care about such things? I am a registered Republican because many of the big-ticket issues I believe in still fall within the Republican camp. But not all. That's the beauty of choice.

Pundits like Rush Limbaugh have accused McCain of being a bad Republican because he is moderate. That's nice that he lives in his own personal fantasy world and all, but Rush is not the god of the Republican Party. McCain IS a Republican. Simply because he's different does not make him disloyal. I'll freely admit that I don't agree with everything McCain believes in. But that's to be expected. As moderates, we, along with most of the country, believe in a hodge-podge of issues and how best to deal with them. The chances of agreeing on every single one would be amazing. I dare say that not only is McCain a Republican, but he is a better Republican than Rush. McCain is right there in the middle with the rest of America; one would say almost a perfect representation of just what the average American actually is and how he/she actually thinks. "But if he isn't far right, how are we supposed to know what he stands for?!" Well, you could listen to him. I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you. If you agree with what he says, vote for him. If not, vote for Obama. If he's not on the ticket, move to Canada.

I liked McCain more when he was more moderate. Believe it or not, he has drifted to the right over the course of this campaign in an effort to appeal to Republican voters who may not recognize him as one of their own, especially when political commentators tell them he isn't. I haven't liked him as much since then, but I still like him more than others who are too far right to know what they're doing anymore. I liked Romney when he was a moderate, too. He was a real, average American then (well, minus millions of dollars that is). The fact that he abandoned everything he reportedly subscribed to just to get a spot at the top job is what made me turn on him. The candidates on the far right and the far left have little in common with the average voter. A Democratic voter today has more in common with a moderate Republican than he does with a far left candidate, and the same goes for Republicans. I would like to know just how long it's going to take candidates to figure that out and release the voting public from this strict right-left spell they've put us under.

As I told my brother, the Republican Party is not my religion and the Elephant is not my lord and savior. Politics is not religion. It's OK to change your views on things that don't quite fit what you believe in anymore. Despite what Rush or Glenn Beck assert, you will not find yourself in Hell because you don't believe everything they do. I assure you that there will be both Republicans and Democrats in Heaven, and definitely both Republicans and Democrats in Hell. It's what you choose to do with your political beliefs, and the motivations behind them, that determine your place in history and in God's eyes. I guarantee the Lord doesn't care which political party you align yourself with as long as you are trying your best to do His will. After all, His teachings can be found on both sides of the political spectrum, can't they? Now get back out there, America, and do what you do best: sit in the middle. It's OK; I'm there, too.

Barack W. Reagan

I was going to post something about the presidential race a few days ago, but I got distracted. I'm sure you don't mind. I certainly don't.

So the DC/VA/MD area had their elections this past Tuesday with McCain and Obama winning by a hefty margin. Good for them. I've been giving considerable thought to Obama over the past couple of weeks and this is what I've concluded about him: he could be the Democrats' Reagan. Reagan was a conservative, no question. However, he had the ability to attract voters from both sides of the spectrum and everyone in between, and in record numbers at that. Obama is a liberal, no question. What I'm seeing thus far is that he also has the ability to attract voters from both sides, despite his left-leanings. Compare that with Hillary, who is by her very nature a divisive personality. Many Democrats love her, or at least think she would be effective. On the other hand, Republicans DESPISE her. While she is partly to blame, her husband is in many ways to blame for this as well. Now, he wasn't the worst president we've ever had; that honor still belongs to the Republicans as far as I can tell. At least when Bill was president he had slightly more tact and a diplomatic enough way about him. Lately, he's just turned into a complete hoser. We've all known that he was capable of whopper-sized lies, but he's really outdone himself in his efforts to "help" his wife. The lies aren't even well-veiled anymore, they are out-and-out BALD-FACED LIES. And they are so obvious that he isn't fooling a single person on this earth except himself. All supposedly for the benefit of his spouse. She continues to assert that we are voting for her, not him, but how stupid does she think the voting public is? We are putting Bill back in the White House, period. His presidency had been far enough removed so that most of us remembered that we perhaps weren't fond of him, but we couldn't exactly recall why; it was all kinda hazy and we began to think that perhaps we had judged him too harshly. His coming out for Hillary's campaign has vividly sparked our memories ("Oh yeah, now I remember. He's a douchebag.") and made us hate her by association. If Hillary wins the nomination, Republicans will come out in DROVES to keep her and Bill from being elected. Whether they like McCain or not, they will vote for him just to keep her/them out.

Obama is another story. As liberal as he is, there is something about him that seems to attract conservatives. When I can put a decisive finger on it, I'll let you know. Almost every conservative Republican I've spoken with about this very issue has ranted to the point of frothing at the mouth by the very mention of Hillary. But when a McCain/Obama race is put before them, they indicate that they wouldn't cry themselves to sleep if Obama won over McCain. As in, they'd still be OK with the situation, even though their party's candidate lost. There are exceptions to this naturally (*coughryanncough*), as everyone is different and sees something they like in different candidates. But I still get the feeling that overall, Obama appeals to just about every different kind of group out there. He has a very inclusive personality, possibly leading voters to believe that he will work for them--not just the people who voted for him--even if they don't agree on all the issues. They seem to believe that he will work out issues of difference rather than fight against those who disagree with him. Reagan had that effect on people. Democrats voted for him over their own candidate. And many Republicans, disenchanted or not, will vote for Obama over McCain. If the Democrats really want to win the White House at all costs, they would do well to get Obama in the spot vs. Hillary, because it will ultimately be conservatives who ensure he gets there.

The Husband made a good point about Hillary. She would make a kick-ass Secretary of State. She's nobody's yes-man and no one would be stupid enough to screw with her for fear of losing a vital organ. The president needs people who disagree with him in order to make the best possible decisions--a concept that escaped Bush completely. Hillary would tell the president exactly what he needed to hear, not just what he wanted to hear. She is no pushover. Her powers just need to be guided in the right direction for maximum benefit. Do I think she'd actually take the job? Probably not. I think she'd think it was beneath her. But she'd be excellent, no doubt about that.

Romney's a Gone-Gone

So Romney has dropped out. It's just as well and this way he keeps his dignity and the rest of his cash in tact. Good on him. I'm sure he's a perfectly nice and decent fellow; in fact, I've been told by many that he genuinely is. I just don't want him for my president. Now if only Huck would drop the act and bow out too we could be done with this fiasco altogether and get on with it.

And did I mention that I had a dream about Romney the other night? I dreamt I was the organist at one of his campaign fundraisers. Apparently my subconscience has no idea what goes on at political fundraisers. This, coupled with my Matt Damon dream, leads me to conclude that I'm retarded when I'm asleep. The jury's still out on my intellectual status when I'm awake.

That'll Learn Ya

Well, I hope you've learned a valuable lesson: simply because you check every day doesn't mean I'll actually write anything new for you to read.

As I was sitting here, cursing the owners of various blogs I read for not updating their writings every 5 minutes, it occured to me that perhaps folks are getting bored with me for not updating my blog in at least a week. It passed through my mind that it had been a while, but nothing sprung to mind to write about so I forcefully extracted the thought from my brain. It was nothing I intended to lose sleep over. So now I give you, Random Thoughts.

First off, why is it that when I have Peanut on the changing table and he's looking up at me he is all smiles, talking, and laughing, but when I pick him he looks as if he just emerged from The Volcano ride at King's Dominion? I'm not picking him up by his toes and swinging him around the room, I'm simply picking him up and gently at that. Regardless of how slowly I pick him up, he reacts exactly the same way. I wonder what he'd do if I picked him up at 90mph? Look content? Spin his head around 360 degrees? Utter Shakespeare? Occasionally he'll be happily smiling on his changing table and suddenly he'll become wide-eyed and fling his limbs out in all directions as if he thinks he's falling. This perplexes me. Is the infant sense of balance so askew? Or is he already insane? Hm.

Despite my vague support for the Writers' Strike, I still would like to see the Oscars this year. My favorite part is always the In Memorium review. It informs me of who died and who died that I had forgotten had died. And yes, I still recall that Heath Ledger died. That was a shame.

McCain is the front-runner for the GOP as of now. Those who say Romney is ahead don't understand things like demographics. Do I want to vote for McCain? I've loved McCain since I first heard him speak in 1998. I said, "I like that man's politics. I hope he runs for president because I'll vote for him." And I've voted for him every time he's run. This time though, I dunno. Would I vote for him over Romney? Probably. So I guess that answers that. I liked him more when he was more of a moderate and not some right-wing nutjob just out to get the conservative nod. At least he isn't as blatant about it as Romney, but it's still disturbing. Surely there is a better way to appeal to the GOP masses. And that's all I have to say about that.

Peanut just awoke from a 4 1/2 hour nap in his car seat. This is approximately 4 hours and 20 minutes longer than he normally sleeps in his seat, which incidentally, is the only place he'll sleep aside from in my arms. He's on the Good List today. Peawhistle learned to write her name by herself today for the first time without encouragement from me in any form. This, among other good behavior today despite the odds, puts her on the Good List also. I am in a fine mood, especially compared with Monday when all hell broke loose and I was near the point of selling the children. Among other sinister activities that day, Peawhistle had clogged her toilet for the 50,000th time with her love and devotion to toilet paper, taking her father repeated plungings and a bottle of Drano to rectify. This was the least of her offenses; the others were too great for my feeble mind not to block out entirely. So I'm happy to know that it is possible for both children to be good at the same time. I'll definitely have to remember this moment.

Huckabee No More

I've been a Huckabee semi-supporter for some time now. I've researched his views, his stand on issues, personal life, and I'd come to the conclusion that out of all the candidates in this race, he best suited me and what I was looking for in a president. Unfortunately, this past week the tide has begun to turn for me on ol' Mike. While I've made it no secret that I am not a Romney supporter for the election, it is now more than obvious that despite what he says, Huckabee does indeed have something very personal against Romney and it has nothing to do with Romney's attack ads as he claims. We all know that Baptists think all Mormons are destined for the eternal fires of hell. There is no debate there. But just because you don't agree with someone religiously does not entitle you to use that as ammunition against them in a secular, political race. Has Romney attacked Huckabee because he's Baptist? Of course not. He sticks to the issues. I don't agree with his approach to those issues, but at least he sticks to them.

Mike talks about the other Republican candidates as if they are some of his closest friends. Romney? Quite the opposite. I was watching the NH Republican forum the other evening and Huckabee (who was sitting next to Romney) looked as if he could just barely contain his utter contempt for Mitt. He refused to even answer Mitt directly when he asked him a question. Now, I've seen this before. When someone refuses to even acknowledge a person who is right there, that is pure hatred, and silly, petty hatred at that. That person has shut their mind down completely and focuses on such a narrow train of thought--their own--that reason cannot penetrate. What good is that doing him? Or more than that, America as a whole?

Another thought--if he can't stand Mitt this much because of who he is, how will he feel about the Mormon Belt in the West? Are all those people beneath him as well? Can he be an effective president to people he despises? I say he cannot. This is a charcter flaw that refuses to be undone easily. Character flaws like that are deal breakers. Sorry Mike, but you blew it for me.

Now I'm on the hunt for yet another candidate that suits me. That the hunt is so difficult is what bruises my spirit and will the most.

Oh, and Romney? No one likes the attack ads. Enough.

This is why you shouldn't rely on online quizzes

According to the quiz below, these are the candidates for me:

75% Hillary Clinton
72% Barack Obama
71% John Edwards
66% Joe Biden
65% Chris Dodd
65% Tom Tancredo
62% Bill Richardson
53% Rudy Giuliani
52% Mitt Romney
52% John McCain
51% Mike Huckabee
48% Fred Thompson
42% Mike Gravel
40% Dennis Kucinich
26% Ron Paul
2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

I'm Republican. Honest. Now, I'll admit that I've become less strict about that since becoming an adult. At the most, I think I'm in the middle of the road. On certain topics I most definitely agree more with the Democrats' views (I think anyone who furiously believes in absolutely everything their chosen party supports as its platform is uneducated about the issues and a fool), but I tend to agree with Republican views more often, hence why I consider myself a member of that particular party.

Now look at the numbers up there again and tell me how that is possibly accurate in any way. I don't believe in voting creepy androids into office, particularly those who attempt to faux-cry their way into the White House. Depending on which idiot the Republicans put up, I could possibly see myself voting for Obama if it otherwise meant four more years of Bush-like lunacy (i.e. a Romney administration). But aside from that particular example, I just don't see it. And Guliani? The one-trick pony? No way! I still haven't figured out what he actually did with regard to 9/11. What did he do that would not have occured to absolutely anyone else in the exact same situation? The reason he's even gotten this far is because he happened to be there in NYC on 9/11, but he didn't send our troops to war in Iraq. Big deal. A word to America: stop voting for people who try to make us believe that their luck and their talents are the same thing.

I said this on a friend's blog and I'll say it again. Please don't rely on quizzes like these to do your voting/thinking/education for you. They are wholly inaccurate. They do not measure a person's core beliefs. A man can change his views on an issue over night (again, see Romney), but his character remains the same. Go with your gut, folks. Also, it never hurts to pray.