desperedwards

edwards is such a desperate little douche. during the democratic debate the other night (from vegas), i was just watching and waiting for his red little head to pop off his body and its bloody innards splash the stage. always a step behind, begging for attention, edwards looked and sounded bad (and his accent, an accent i've been known to find attractive, bugs the crap out of me). reagan was a crappy president, in terms of leading the country into the red zone. i don't like the man's politics or the footsteps he left in history, but he brought pride and dignity back to the american people. he inspired greatness (and great fucks up, fer sure). but it's ridiculous and lame to take something so insipid and so out of context as obama's comment, "reagan changed the trajectory of america in a way that richard nixon did not and bill clinton did not," and use it to create such an air of scandal. reagan DID change politics and the trajectory of america much more significantly than nixon or clinton. Edwards' cheap shot stinks of desperatation. and this is my new motto for his campaign, "desperdwards".

and while i'm here, i am admitting to my mad crush on msnbc's sexiest talk show host, er television's sexiest talk show host. dan abrams ("live with dan abrams") is as sharp as a tack, funny, hot (damn, that sexy smile...) and i don't believe i've ever met a smart girl who doesn't love a man with piquant tongue. meow.

yep, i'm blue and proud!

please tell me i don't live in a country where a room full of people cheer when a viable presidential candidate says, "what we need to do is amend the constitution so it's in god's standards". don't get me wrong, i'm no strict constitutionalist (i mean, come on, the damn thing was written over two hundred years ago by men who owned slaves and burned witches. really? it's the wisdom of these guys we are using to respond to the challenges of contemporary america? a rant for another time...), but "god's standards"? are you kidding me? and this guy came in 3rd place in michigan. my ability to be shocked by the weakness of the american mind has surpassed itself (and i suspect will continue to do so throughout the campaign).

i am not suggesting that people of faith are weak-minded, as i am a person of some faith (just not one that has a name or comes with a membership card). all i'm saying is that religion is a personal choice and has no place in government. though its prophets and written tales may frame our moral code, it is not a prerequisite for same, and is not only unnecessary but unwelcome in the formation of our laws. especially laws about other personal choices.

this all coming from the party claiming to support less government. you mean, less government funding and support of social and economic programs but more government telling me who i can and can't marry and how and when i get to decide if i'm having an abortion or bringing yet another unwanted child into a harsh and unforgiving world? huh. not that the dems are innocent when it comes to double standards, but i'm hardly unbiased...

"your lungs are clear"

i have been sicker than i have ever been, in my entire life. one of my friends was even so bold as to send me a novella on the dangers of pneumonia to scare me into staying in. it not only scared me into staying in, but also scared me into checking my life insurance beneficiaries, start thinking about which of my nearest and dearest would inherit my chewbacca coat, and most notably, considering my life in general. today was my follow up visit to the doctor (and it wasn't even my doctor) and when he said, "your lungs are clear," i felt a song tinge the deepest caverns of my soul.

...and now i feel free.

free to seek whatever it is i want in this life...

is red the color of dummies?

before i get started on my tangent, i can't help but express my admiration for the simplicity of the human mind and how easy a time the press has at controlling every thought in america. an example, you ask... well, one thing i've long admired about the campaigns of hillary and barack is that they neither play their minority cards. they have simply been two politicians, running for office. in the past two days, i've watched the press (all over the place) talk about nothing but race and gender, some even talking about how it's a non-issue as they make it an issue. the clips that have been pulled from video statements and the speeches manipulated to create impressions of racism and bigotry are incredible. at least we are fortunate enough to live in a world where we can easily access perspectives of a million sorts and some of us make up our own minds. anyway...

i started writing this blog because i'm fascinated with this primary season. from the candidates and their issues, to the party lines, the disaster currently in office, and the incessant but predictable manipulation by the press, i'm hooked. you should know from the outset that i'm liberal and i'm proud to be such. i think it's one of the the greatest privileges of youth and an outlet for the idealism i cling to with every breath i take. i can't help but think republicans are all a little bit crazy (and ones who still support dubya or really believe there were wmd's are choosing denial to the slap in the face the rest of us feel). and i also can't help but think the red party is for the intellectually challenged. let me give just one small example for my opinion.

"war on terror"

the phrase itself would make me laugh if i wasn't so terrified that most of the country believes in and supports a "war on terror". let me ask you something, believers of "war on terror", do you really think terrorists would be alive today if someone with a brain in a big white house, on a nice grassy lawn with rose gardens and such, had sent a team or two (or maybe five or ten) of navy seals into the deserts of afghanistan and assassinated every last "terrorist" running through the hills by 9/13/2001? you can't tell me the cia didn't know exactly where to find the bad guys. but instead of being a little bit sly and a whole lotta smart, we threw on our red coats and yelled out, "hey terrorists, here we come, with a whole bunch of planes and tanks and really big guns and bombs and stuff". a shocking thing happened. the bad guys ran away really fast while our armies slowly marched in. and the good ole boys (i.e. the brainless fucks who made the call), high-fived each other in the big white house on a nice grassy lawn with rose gardens and such, because they finally had a reason they could sell to the american people to go starts some wars, kill some leaders, and take over some countries with a whole lotta access to texas tea. they called it "war on terror". hmmm, does anyone around here ever learn from the lessons of the past? or are we really so greedy we're going to progress a hundred years or two behind our neighbors on the other side of the pond? it's dumb, right? dumb.

i'm not suggesting that the blue side of the line is necessarily smarter (er, maybe i am). i'm just saying that i do not want to live in, support, or pay taxes to a country run by an imperialistic government whose only motivation is greed. is that really so bad?