I've stayed away from political issues for quite awhile because it seems SOME people who comment on blogs tend to attack the author of the entry rather than the content of what's been written. Such behavior shows that the person doing the sniping lacks the thought process to form a meaningful opinion. With that said, let me express my continued disdain for the self-righteousness usually displayed by Elisabeth Hasselbeck.  I can't believe how unrealistic she is regarding comedians and the material they use. 

Somehow, I don't believe explaining to her that most comedians get their material from two sources (their own personal life and the lives of those in the public eye) would make a difference . Perhaps Whoopi Goldberg or Joy Behar did exactly that with no success thus explains the look on their faces when Elisabeth went on a her rant about Davis Letterman. If Sarah Palin wanted her children kept away from everyone’s scrutiny, then she should have kept them protected by not flaunting them in public every chance she has.  Okay, sure David Letterman's joke about A-rod "knocking up" Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter during the 7th inning was tasteless, but what comedian doesn't cross the tasteless line most of the time during their routine. 

Need I tell Elisabeth that there ARE sexually active 14 year olds out in the world...just ask Sarah herself about teenage promiscuity.  Oops, I didn't mean to imply that Sarah was doing the horizontal bop as a teenager, but correct me if I'm wrong...didn't she drag her pregnant unwed teenage daughter, Bristol all over the campaign trail? Pardon me, if I don't feel her children should be exempt as being the brunt of any joke, tasteless or otherwise. 

Elisabeth, I know you're a big Palin supporter, but until Governor Palin grows a brain, no one, not even her own party will ever take her seriously.  I find it humorous how the self-righteous always huddle together making non-issues into something barely newsworthy (mountains out of mole hills).  Palin ought to try to get in the news for something a little more newsworthy than what some scandal sheet might publish. Nice try Elisabeth, but like your co-hosts on The View, I stopped listening to you as soon as you opened your mouth. Perhaps those who care to comment might also leave the name of their favorite tasteless comedian or comedians so we can see how long the list really is. 

The residents of Maine can be divided into two camps.  The first are Mainers.  They epitomize the true heritage and values of Maine.  Then there are the Mainiacs who have incorporated their New England heritage and values into this new millennium.  They realize that few things in life are black or white.  Yes, they know right from wrong, but more importantly they realize that in the real world most people live in the many shades of gray somewhere between black and white (right and wrong). Yes, they know the times they are a changing!

Splashed across the news a few days ago was a story about a middle school in Maine.  The school board voted on giving King Middle School in Portland, Maine the right to distribute oral contraceptives to its female students.  The big issue that sparked many debates seemed to be the age of the females that might benefit from their decision.  No one wants to believe children ages 11 to 13 are having sex because in an ideal world people wait until marriage to engage in sexual activity.  But at this school, some brave girls have stepped forward and have admitted to having sex.  I guess their ugly admission of truth blew the whole ideal world concept to smithereens.  It forced people to think about the unthinkable.  OMG, the world isn’t ideal afterall!!!

I listened to a couple debates and wondered why the people debating this issue kept missing the most important point...11 year old girls are sexually active.  It didn't matter what each side said because right and wrong had already been transcended.  Right and wrong was no longer the issue. The damage couldn’t miraculously be undone.  I think the school board simply was trying to step in and make a responsible decision leaving morals out of the ugly reality they needed to face.  Yes, people were outraged and they should be outraged.  Children should be children, but I'm afraid society entices our children grow up faster now than in times past. As a result, children eleven years old really do have sex.  It’s a scary thought, isn’t it?

Everything a child is exposed to from day one teaches them about life.  Think about what they have learned from television, music, movies, books, magazines, friends and unfortunately many well-meaning adults as they grow up.  Can anyone deny how strong these influences are on our children as they try to emulate their idols?  Yet denial is what we do each time a young girl turns up pregnant or something bad happens.  We shake our heads and talk about what a shame it is.  How she’s ruined her life and how terrible her parents must be.  We want to tar and feather the hooligan who got her pregnant.  We’re all quick to pass judgment and slow to face the real problem.  

I think the part that really got my attention was learning that the old double standard is alive and well in this liberal New England hamlet.  In the year 2000, no one raised an eyebrow when the same school board decided to make condoms available for the male students.  For 7 years, the male students have benefited from their decision.  In a perfect world, parents educate their children about sex so they don't have to learn about it through other means.  So in an imperfect world what do we do?  Do we ignore the fact that too children are sexually active and becoming pregnant?  Do we ignore the fact that children are spreading sexually transmitted diseases?  Do we turn the other way ignoring the problem and criticizing those who aggressively try to address the issue?  Do we blame them for our children having sex or do we thank them for trying to protect all the children who have fallen through the cracks and are products of flawed values, weak role models and dysfunctional families?

Four United States Presidents get caught up in a

tornado ... and off they whirled to the land of OZ.

They finally made it to the Emerald City and

went to find the Great Wizard.

"What brings the 4 of you before the great Wizard of Oz?"

Jimmy Carter stepped forward timidly and said:
"I've come for some courage."

" No Problem! said the Wizard. Who ' s next?"

Richard Nixon stepped forward,
"Well, I think I need a heart."

"Done!" says the Wizard.
"Who comes next before the Great and Powerful Oz?"

Up stepped Dubya and said,
"I'm told by the American people that

I need a brain."

"No problem!" said the Wizard.
"Consider it done."

Then there is a great silence in the hall.
Bill Clinton is just standing there, looking around,
But he doesnt say a word.

Irritated, the Wizard finally asks,

"Well, what do you want?"

Bill Clinton grinned, then asked, "IS DOROTHY HERE?"

Borrowed from Saphire Spirit: 

Subtitled "Another Example of Compassionate Conservatism"

For further examples of compassionate conservatism, please read The Generosity Of Politicians

The United States struggled to gain its independence from what at the time seemed to be a tyrannical monarchy. We persevered and won the opportunity to govern ourselves. During our years of independence, we've engaged in a Civil War and also participated in other battles/wars throughout the world for various reasons. The concept of WAR is something that will always be debated...I tend to give a nod to the saying "fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". Yes, I know all the arguments, but I can't seem to get past the fact that war expedites deaths...many deaths. I can’t help, but feel as I run my hand over all the names imprinted on a wall remembering those who died in Viet Nam that each person listed died in vain. We went to war in Iraq on the premise of waging a war against terrorism and to rid the world of a dictator that harbored weapons of mass destruction and who commit atrocities against mankind. Now, more than 2 years later, and with the death toll rising, I have to question if Iraq has the same type of passion as our country had in its infancy. Freedom was the ideal and the driving force in which we built this country upon. I can't help but wonder if democracy will prevail in the Middle East when democracy seems to be a value that has been imported to that region from a country that is misunderstood by the people who we are trying to help. Freedom and democracy isn't something that can be thrust upon anyone. The motivation and the passion for it have to come from within for freedom to prevail.

What I see on the news is a country reluctant to stand on its on. What I see is a country in which our citizens are bravely giving their lives to plant the seeds of freedom in a place that has never known freedom. My questions is this...how many lives will be given before freedom prevails? My question doesn’t make me unpatriotic, but just a citizen concerned for all those families who have loved ones in the Middle East. I am a citizen concerned about the people in the United States needing help and the many changes that are so desperately needed here at home. I wonder how many wars would occur if the leaders of the nations had to do battle with each other instead of its citizens. I wonder if Iraq would have gotten so much attention if it weren’t an oil-producing nation. I wonder why nations with dictators who do have weapons of mass destruction escape our attention. I wonder why countries like Rwanda who endured genocidal murder are barely scrutinized until movies are made, while we are horrified by the actions of Saddam Hussein? I wonder when the killing stops and the last person dies, if anyone will feel as if it were 1 life too many or ten lives or 100 lives...or maybe that it wasn’t worth the price that has been paid. I wonder when “mission accomplished” is a reality how the rest of the world will view the United States.

I read an very disturbing article today about the people most effected by Hurricane Katrina. What distressed me most was the tone of the article. If I didn't know any better I would have sworn it was written by a white supremacist. I realize in today's world we are surrounded by hatred and prejudice every where we go...even when it comes to a very basic thing like helping people who are in dire need we still tend to look at skin color and not at  the person in need. I suppose it's easier to place blame on the poor who were the true victims of Katrina's wrath than to place the blame/responsibility where it really should go. Yes, people did terrible things as a result of Hurricane Katrina. They raped. They looted. They even murdered. The article I read made it seem like it was the majority who were doing those horrible acts when in reality it was just a few who took advantage of a desperate situation.

Many people have chosen to make this disaster into a racial issue, but I don't believe it has anything to do with race. Poverty seems to be much more indicative of all the wrongs that have surfaced. Unfortunately, the majority of the economically disadvantaged in New Orleans were black, so when in doubt and definitely when a person tends to be a racist, it's much easier to point a finger and accuse the blacks of being their own worst enemy and of bleeding the system for all it's worth. I wonder if the same types of things would have been written if this disaster had occurred in some other city where the majority of poor people were some other race other than black. What sickens me most are the "Christians" who are buzzing about the sinful nature of New Orleans and how the blacks of that area had the same advantages as any other person. It infuriates me to hear people say "they chose to stay, so they sealed their own fate". Do you think anyone who stayed really wanted to die? Do you think anyone who stayed wanted to lose everything they owned? I hate to say this, but if "ignorance is bliss" than it's not the poor blacks who are blissful...it's the self-righteous white Christians and our incompetent leaders who have acquired a quite blissful oblivion to bury themselves within so not to be touched by the ugly reality of what has happened.

People like to criticize black leaders like Jesse Jackson for inciting trouble when all he's trying to do is help the needy.  His methods may be debateable, but at least he's doing something instead of sitting back acting clueless in times of crisis.  Most blacks who have risen to any leadership position use their status as an example of showing others that with education, determination and the ability to think outside the box anyone can change their situation and improve their standard of living. Religious leaders like Pat Robertson are much more dangerous and narrow-minded than Jesse Jackson ever has been or ever will be. Politicians like George Bush continue hurt the United States in times of crisis with "compassionate conservatism".  I wonder if he ever considered what would happen if a actual disaster happened after he appointed one of his unqualified, inexperienced buddies to a position like being head of FEMA. In Katrina's aftermath, he need only look around and see the result of his incompetent decision. 

Let's get realistic about this whole lack of response issue and the break down in emergency management after Katrina! Yes, the first responders in any disaster are always on the local level. Obviously, New Orleans didn't have an effective plan implemented or else the chaos that followed would have never happened. Does the blame stop there? Not hardly! Everyone dropped the ball all the way up the ladder,especially on the federal level.  As a result, people died and a great city lays in ruin. This may not be the time for finger pointing, but it is the time to help those people who need help regardless of skin color or economic status.  It also is the time to realize the whole world is watching and the truth  that has been depicted is that the country we live in cannot handle a large scale disaster efficiently.  That reality scares me more than any hurricane ever will.

©2005 Abnormally Normal People. All rights reserved.

How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb?

TEN

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness;

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner 'Bulb Accomplished';

7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush was literally 'in the dark' the whole time;

8. One to viciously smear No. 7;

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;

10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

Isn't it funny how reality can be so comical and sad at the same time?