Potpourri

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that when an uber-conservative opens his/her mouth, it' s to do nothing except bash "liberals?" I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. It sends my father into fits, but frankly I can identify reasons on both sides that would make someone pick one or the other. There are aspects of each that would - or should - appeal to anyone. But that's neither here nor there right now.

I came to an observation, if you will, the other day when listening to the radio on my way home from work. Now, this may just be my own misguided impression, but when I hear a so-called "liberal" speak, I hear them talk about the Democratic ideals or societal platforms they feel they can support best. When I hear them bash a Republican, it's usually a specific person or body, like President Bush or his administration's policies. But I don't seem to hear a lot of universal "this is all your fault" crap. Some, but not too much.

However, when your ultra-conservatives open their mouths - your Hannitys, O'Reillys, Limbaughs, or Coulters - it's to blame everything from social security to Katrina on this nameless, faceless entity called "Liberals." The books they write and self-proclaim as blockbusters, ad nauseum, are rather short on solutions to society's ills, but looooong on name calling and finger pointing, all directed at "Liberals." They spew hundreds of pages about how Liberals hate America; how Liberals are destroying the American way of life; that Liberals are responsible for all that ails America.

I hear Coulter blame 9-11 on "Liberals." Hannity blames "Liberals" for Katrina's aftermath, even going so far as to say that it was "Liberals" that contributed to the damage. O'Reilly simply makes up "facts" and prevents anyone from calling him to task for it, claiming it's the "Liberal" media trying to silence the truth. Limbaugh claimed for years when I was a loyal listener that it was "Liberal fuzzy thinking" that spawned not only the drug problems in America, but an atmosphere in which no one was responsible for his/her own actions. Of course I had to laugh when he was caught in the felonious act of prescription hunting and claimed he couldn't help himself because he was the victim of an addiction. I remember a specific show in 1994 in which he claimed "addiction" was nothing but "Liberals trying to make society responsible for individual weakness." And wasn't he just caught AGAIN in the last couple weeks for having a pirated script for Viagra? I guess some people will always try to ice skate uphill.

And I'm left wondering: who are these "Liberals" of which they speak? Is it some secret club? Do they mean Democrats? All Democrats? And if it's these evil, self-serving Liberals who are wrecking it for the rest of us, how does that bode for the Conservative's leadership skills considering it has been they who have been in power for the last ten years?

----------------
Don't you find it interesting that states will claim you need to wear seatbelts (or face citation) because it saves lives, blah blah blah, but at the same time will allow motorcycle riders to ride without helmets, stating it's a personal freedom?

----------------
Why do people use "and" when saying something like "try and come to the party?" Is this proper English? Shouldn't it be "to?" "Try to come to the party?" Sure sounds better to me.

----------------
What in God's name happened to all my socks? We moved from one house to another last month. My socks went from closet to box to truck to closet, but somewhere along that 8-mile journey, half of them little cotton suckers jumped ship. I used to have too many pairs to fit into the sock drawer, now I could hide Jimmy Hoffa's body in there with them and still not have to press them down while I slide the drawer closed.

----------------
It really bugs me when people read over my shoulder and correct my diction, typing, or grammar as I'm writing. You know who you are, BuddhaWife.

----------------
I thought up a new invention I think we should get the scientists working on immediately. Men's scratch and sniff scented shirt collars. If I had one of these when visiting a public rest room, I wouldn't be forced to smell whatever that is that crawled up the ass of that guy in the last stall and died. I mean good GOD, what the hell is that?! Oh, you try to avoid the stench by breathing through your mouth, but that only works for a short time. Soon you start to wonder if, by using your mouth, you're bypassing some microbe-filtering system your nose contains, so instead of being stopped at the nose where they can be discretely picked out later, germs are traveling the Audubon right into your blood stream. With the Scratch-n-Sniff Collar (don't worry, those Harvard educated marketing types will think of a catchier name later) you won't be bothered any longer. When you walk into the restroom at work, only to notice the stench is so thick it actually makes it harder to move through the air, just give your collar a quick scratch and suddenly it'll smell like roses, or vanilla, or any number of an array of pleasant aromas. Yes, Business Hall of Fame, here I come!

----------------
One month to the start of NFL pre-season people! One month! But I do wonder why the Cowboys have to hire every single arrogant prick the NFL can produce.

----------------
Why do people think a disrespectful or hurtful comment can be excused by simply saying "hey, at least I'm being honest." Does honesty make up for saying something another would find objectionable?

----------------
Speaking of objectionable things, I saw a sign the other day that offended me. It was one of those large, diamond shaped yellow signs. Printed on it, in big black letters, were the words: "HEAVY PEDESTRIAN CROSSING"

What the hell? Has our society become so base, so discriminate, so... something else bad ...that we have fallen this low? I mean, why only notify people of the heavy pedestrians? Skinny people cross streets too, ya know. Are they warning drivers of the possibility of totaling their $60,000 SUVs by hitting a fat person who's trying to cross the street? Do they single out the "heavy pedestrians" because the skinny ones would be able to leap out of harm's way when necessary? Whereas a fatty would just lumber along behind like that rhino from Jumanji? Maybe this isn't to warn drivers at all. Maybe it's to point it out in the same way a municipality would point out, say, the spot where a civil war battle took place. Maybe it's the city's attempt to attract spectators to the site of a major migration route between all-you-can-eat buffets. Or maybe this isn't for drivers at all. Maybe it's for the so-called "heavy pedestrians" themselves, to let them know where they should cross. Is the concrete thicker at this point, making it less likely the heavies will cause street damage? Or perhaps there are fewer predators at that crossing, thereby making it safer for more lumberous members of society to make their way across the street without being harpooned. Or, perhaps, it's a decoy designed to make it easier for predators to bag a kill. Regardless of the reason, I'm not crossing there even if I do qualify.

----------------
And finally, I was inspired and so wrote TWO blog entries today! (go me, go me, it's my birthday, well, no it's not). So continue reading for the second one.