?

Log in

Wow, I hope they figure out where she got that bag of candy. Then again, it sounds like they're close to giving up and maybe just writing it off as something untraceable, like a random person or she just picked it up somewhere. ;_;

Good thing she's okay, though, at least.

4-Year-Old Hospitalized After Eating Tainted Candy - News Story - WEWS Cleveland

Posted using ShareThis

Politicians Who Cheat

Now, I am the very first person to say that cheating is never right. I think that, at least where cheating on one's spouse or significant other, it shows great lack of character and lack of moral standing. I don't buy the, "it was a moment of weakness" or "my wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband doesn't understand me" or the "he/she doesn't treat me the way I want to be treated" bit.

Why? Well, because if you are that unhappy...leave. I don't buy the, "well I don't want to hurt her/him" thing either. Because I seriously doubt that if it was ever found out by that person that their husband/wife/significant other found out that they were being cheated on it would definitely hurt a lot more than being broken up with or divorced. Because, at least you showed the moral standing to wait until you had resolved things in one relationship before daring to have the audacity to start a second one.

Now, let me also say I have no sympathy for cheaters. That isn't to say that I would not be friends with a person who I later found out cheated on, or willingly cheated WITH someone as the "other man" or "other woman" their spouse/significant other...that is not to say I would stop being friends with them or spend even one moment lecturing them.

Why not? Well, it's already done. But, also, it's none of my damn business what people do in the bedroom if I am not involved. And knowing about it does not involve me. If I am not one of the people in the triangle, then it is none of my business. So, I usually just don't say anything. And, I have to admit nobody is a saint. And cheating doesn't make you a totally bad person, or even a mostly bad person. It just means that you have a pretty obvious moral weakness in one area.

Although, I do twitch at the "but we just couldn't stand it any longer" excuse. I won't even get into why that is the most annoying cop-out I've ever heard as an excuse for ANYthing.

But, back to the actual topic of my rant. :p I've noticed that in recent times, especially since former President Clinton was found to have had an affair with a White House intern, people get all up-in-arms over politicians who cheat. Far more than regular people. And yes, I suppose I have to concede the fact that politicians, especially the ones that are in the limelight quite often and hold important seats, are the representatives of our states and our entire nation. And therefore should hold themselves to a higher standard than the rest of the US people, simply because they are always looked at and scrutinized and often the American people ARE judged by our most important politicians.

However...I don't think whether or not someone had an extra-marital affair has any baring on someone's ability to lead a nation or even just lead or help govern a nation or just a state! Yes, it does show a flaw in one's decision-making skills, and it does show a moral weakness. And it's not the most impressive thing to have done in your life. But, it has nothing to do with politics.

And the fact is, quite a lot of the American people DO cheat. Not everyone, but a good damn majority. So, judging the American people by a politician who cheats...well it's not that far from the truth. That does not make it right, of course. Cheating is never right, as far as I'm concerned.

But, it's not the American people's BUSINESS when a politician cheats on his wife, or cheats on her husband. It is between him/her, their spouse, and the "other person" and nobody else, except perhaps the children IF they are old enough to understand what the hell is going on. But, ultimately, while it is more the children's business than it is the rest of the American people's business, it is not as much their business as it is the people ACTUALLY involved.

And it seems to me that we had quite a lot of politicians, including quite a lot of presidents, long before former President Clinton, who carried on affairs with women. In fact, JFK was known to have had MANY affairs, the most famous being the suspected affair between himself and Marilyn Monroe. But, yet, JFK was one of our most beloved presidents, and he wasn't ALL that long ago, either.

I really don't think an affair has any bearing on whether a person is a good or a bad politician or leader. Their actions while in office count, yes, but their actions involving the state or nation itself, and not their own personal actions.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVGOp2bl5_prbLYsoPOvD96f55bgD99H9L800

This is just one example. Governor Sanford of South Carolina may or may not be a good governor. Reading the article, it is up to each person to judge for themselves. And especially the South Carolinians, since he is their governor and not any other state's. However, the affair he had is not the American people's, or even the state of South Carolina's, business. At least he came clean about it, I suppose, but it's ridiculous that these days a politician has to tell an entire state or nation about the goings on in his own, or a lover's, bedroom.

Provided it turns out he did NOT use state money to go visit this woman, and that nothing he did was illegal that involved the way he carried out the affair, then it is not the people's problem and it is not their business. Mine, either, really. It should not be a factor in anything the people judge him on politically. What should be a factor, however, is his actions and decisions he's made that really DO effect the state in ways such as politics and laws.

Yes, cheating on your spouse is unpopular, but it has nothing to do with politics or law. And it shouldn't. Because, they are completely separate issues. Unless, that is, someone makes and enforces a federal law making it illegal to commit adultery. Until then, it's just a moral weakness and flaw that, while never good and should never be condoned, has nothing to do with politics, government or law.

At least, that's my opinion. And what prompted this rant is simply that...I'm sick of hearing about it! >_

Zoo Closing

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/money/20021259/detail.html

For one thing, I would like to start by saying that I can't blame the funding being cut. If you have to cut back money somewhere, I have to agree that a zoo would be one of the first places on my own list. Not because I don't like animals, but because zoos are not necessary in the amount of towns and cities that they are in. I know that they're safe havens for animals that, in many cases, would not survive in the wild even if they were not domesticated to the extent that they are in zoos, who are near extinction.

However, as much as I love animals and value them and their safety and well-being, if I'm in a position of responsibility to a town or city, my first priority would be to provide for the people. If it comes to the well-being of people versus the well-being of animals, I would always choose to provide for the people first. That doesn't mean that I would totally forsake the animals, but if I had to cut funding for things, the less necessary would get the cuts first.

But! I would not condone euthenizing animals if it wasn't necessary. If a zoo had to close down due to funding cuts, I think what needs to happen is that the city needs to HELP the zoo find other zoos or reserves or like facilities that will take the animals. There are alternatives, after all, to euthenizing these animals. I wonder if maybe they are using it as a threat of some kind, to get more funding or just to be spiteful.

I would hope not, though, of course. After all, these people are supposed to love animals and want the best for them. Unfortunately, I do realize that, like many businesses, those running it don't necessarily have to like what they do or what their business deals with. So, who knows?

In my opinion, everything should be done to make sure these animals don't have to be euthenized if they don't have to be. I hope that that is what will happen, that everything will be done as an alternative first. By the zoo and by the city of Boston. But...just because Patrick says they planned to help out doesn't mean they will.

*sigh*

Hackers

You know, I really don't understand why some people have to hack into another person's account just to be little bitches, then be very obvious about who did the hacking, only to deny they ever did it. I suppose that it is because they think they're too slick to get caught.

Professional hackers, and hackers that do it for fun to random people, are bad enough. Now we have to look out for former friends, or for people who are supposed to be our friends but are not very nice people in reality, who might decide to hack our accounts or computers. Just because those people can't control themselves when they get angry or otherwise upset and just HAVE to exact their revenge in one of the most childish ways possible. These people have very little moral fiber, but also very little strength of character if you ask me.

But, aside from that, I think that a lot of people don't think about the consequences of doing something like hacking these days. Now, I'm sure the professional hackers know what they're getting into. But, I'm talking about the people who act out stupidly just to get some kind of revenge or one-up on someone else. Here are just a few links, because there ARE laws against this, and I think that people should be informed about these things. Especially if they're some of the people stupid enough to consider doing something like this themselves.

IF someone does hack into another person's website, say for instance LiveJournal itself, that person could be (and most likely is) legally liable. Which means, that if you do that to someone's LJ (for instance), then you could have charges brought against you and you could find yourself in court. Possibly paying a fine, possibly even doing jail time. It would depend upon your age and what state you live in. There are probably federal laws, as well, but I have to look more into that before I can say precisely what the federal laws ARE and what their consequences are for being broken.

Now, if you are under 18...that does not make you immune to punishment. If you are a minor in the US and you hack into someone's account, or someone's website you can STILL be punished. It just depends on how you are tried, how much of a minor you are, and how bad the offense is. A lot of kids think that because they are kids they are safe, they can't be sent to jail or anything like that.

Not true. Any minor can be brought to trial in a juvenile court system, which is quite a lot like adult court. Just with different standards and different kinds of punishments. But, even younger kids can be sentenced to time in Juvenile Hall. As to whether or not that would happen, yes it depends on age to a large extent, but again it also depends on the severity of the crime in the eyes of the law. And judges are the ones that determine the severity of the crime. And hacking IS a crime, even if you are just doing it to make things a little harder for a former friend who you are mad at.

So, don't think that you won't be able to get into trouble just because you might be under 18. And don't think that if you're good enough at covering your tracks that, no matter how old you are, if you are not a professional hacker that it will be very difficult for you to get caught. Professional hackers even get caught. The fact is, that it is VERY easy to track a person who has hacked into someone's account or website. VERY.

The reason I make this post is because I think hacking for any reason, but especially just to get even, is childish and ridiculous. But, also so that anybody who might be thinking about doing that to someone who has for some reason upset them in some way, might see it and think twice about doing it.

Here is a link from The National Conference of State Legislatures website: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13494

It goes by state, so if you want to know what your laws are in your state for this sort of thing, just scroll down until you find your state and click on the links provided.

Also, I wouldn't count on not getting into trouble just because you might be in one state, while your victim (the person you hack) might be in another state. In fact, that might even put it on the federal level, since in a while the transgression has crossed state lines (in many cases that would be several state lines) and when a crime does that it's always federal. So, if its considered to have one that just because you're in different states, that makes the crime and its punishment WORSE.

Don't think that just because you are stupid enough to hack someone only for a petty reason is going to be considered less important in front of the courts. Especially if the judge you come up against wants to make an example out of you. That DOES happen at times, you know.

Now, that doesn't mean that everybody who hacks into someone's account to be mean and petty is going to get into trouble even if its brought to the attention fo the proper authorities. But, I wouldn't chance it if I were you.

So, in closing, it's just better to act as if you have a brain in your head and to exercise a little bit of maturity (which I know for many people can be a stretch, especially if they'd do something like this in the first place) and find something more interesting and more constructive to do with your time than cause trouble for other people. It just really makes YOU look like an idiot, anyway, despite the fact that you think you're getting some kind of funny or cool revenge or that you're getting one-up on someone else.

Oh. My. God.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/08-7

I can't say I like this woman's downright rudeness, but in a way it does bring some things to light. Now, I see why people think Sarah Palin had no geographical sense. If she can see those places on a clear day, then I want to know who her eye doctor is, because those glasses must be fantastic. Although, I'm sure (I hope) that she meant phrases like that as jokes...

I still hope she doesn't run in 2012. I wouldn't want her to win because of a fluke. And then be stuck with her.

But, aside from that, it does make me blink to think she doesn't understand the difference between pro-life and pro-choice. So, I'm thinking perhaps her decision to have that baby was a strategic move, rather than anything else. You can't be considered very conservative in the Republican circle if you are pro-choice. Not that all Republicans are pro-life, just that the conservative ones balk at the very mention of the phrase "pro-choice." That's all. Which makes me think that she was either thinking of it due to at the time considering another governor's term in Alaska, or maybe she always had aspirations to run for president one day. Or, maybe she knew for a lot longer than any of us realize that she might be chosen to run for VP. Since the ladder is unlikely, considering when she would've had to make her choice (since a legit doctor who knows what he or she is doing will not abort a pregnancy, at least in the US, if the pregnancy progresses past a certain stage, making the mother have only a certain amount of time to make her final decision) before she anyone knew that the Republicans would need a woman as their nominee's running mate.

I don't think it became necessary to choose a woman until Hillary was a failure for the Democrats and then Obama chose not to select her as his running mate. Choosing Sarah Palin was actually a strategic move that backfired for the Republicans. I actually was going to vote for McCain, until he chose her and I listened to her talk and what she had to say, and I looked into her background, thanks to a seigakussiren and her mother who provided me with many good links and a lot of good information from good sources of information.

Now, the article above is really just opinion and all, but she supports her opinion with facts. Though she does state those facts in a rather rude and...colorful way.

Either way, if Palin really is this confused about so many things, or just downright unknowledgable, then I really DO think she made the right decision to step down as Alaska's governor. And if she is this way, it makes me blink and shake my head and feel very sorry for my relatives in Alaska who had to put up with her for so long. Then again, I can't feel TOO sorry for Alaska. The citizens did elect her, after all.

It just goes to show that just because you have a good deal of experience in politics and in political offices, it doesn't make you a good leader. Experience doesn't really always denote understanding or knowledge.

I'm all for women in politics and political offices, but I think that when we elect women into office it should never JUST be about gender. We should always choose the best candidate. So, if a woman is not competant to be put into the office, we should never vote for her. Not because she is a woman, but because we want to make sure that we PROVE women ARE competant and CAN do the very same jobs men can do. We need to put our BEST women up there. And if there is only one woman running, and she probably won't be able to cut the mustard, then we should just wait until the next election to try again to elect a woman.

We don't want our one chance to prove we can handle a high political office (especially our highest one!) to be blown by putting a woman who can't hack it in there instead, just to make sure that we get a woman there.

And I think the majority of women must've agreed with thinking along those lines, because she didn't pull in the female vote like they thought she would during the 2008 election.

I don't say these things as a feminist, really. I say them as a woman, myself. I look out for myself, and if I want to do something I don't want to be told, "ha, yeah right, since when did you grow a dick??"

It isn't women in general that I really look out for, it's really myself. I'm a woman, therefore it's in my best interest to care what happens to most other women. Because, if it happens to them because they are women, it can happen to me because I'm a woman. Of course, I also pick and choose my battles, as well.

Anyway, I just wanted to share that article and a few brief thoughts on its contents. Although, a few brief thoughts have turned into a few not-so-brief thoughts. :p I can't help it, when I get on my soap box it's sometimes hard to step back down again.
Well, I can see why so many people are coming to think that we are living in the End Times. Aside from the fact that so many people insist that Obama is the antichrist, which...if you actually read the area in which the antichrist is written about in the Bible you can see for yourself that there is no mention of the popular "man in his forties, blah blah blah" but instead a monster that people end up worshipping. If someone knows of a copy of a Bible where they can find this alternate antichrist description where this is a person rather than a monster, I would like a copy with the area marked and the passage highlighted, please.

But, aside from that, I think that with all the new super illnesses starting to break out, it's no wonder that pretty soon I bet we're going to have mass hysteria over the End Times thing with at least Christians.

Of course, they attribute this new one I've just heard about, Dengue Fever, mostly to global warming (which goes to show that climate itself is not the only thing that's going to pose a threat as our planet warms up faster and further than it should be, and people either ignore it or expect everyone ELSE to do something about it, or deny it completely), but there have been others. Bird flu and swine flu just to name a couple of others.

I will say that swine flu is a mixture of several different times of animal influenza types and that due to close housing of these animals before slaughter and horrible housing conditions on top of that, conditions that NEVER met the safe standard but are apparently also not something anyone wants to punish anyone for, these many different types of influenzas mutated enough so that they could be contracted by species that would ordinarily NOT be effected by them, became one big super flu and was able to carry over to humans.

Now, I do remember my biology from school and I don't think it's normally possible for animal illnesses to carry over to humans. However, that's where the mutation steps in. Anytime you have an illness that has mutated itself, it means trouble, because it usually means it's worse. That's why HUMANS can get bird flu. That's why humans can now get this other super flu we call swine flu can get swine flu. Under normal circumstances, there would be no possible way. But, because of the mutation of the diseases, we can now contract them.

Just wait, in a few days, we'll probably have canine flu or feline flu to add to it.

But, I don't think its because we are living in the End Times. And if that is what ends up happening, I don't think it's some wrathful or vengeful god, or because of any four horsemen. The horseman for plagues, as far as I am concerned, has not be set loose upon us yet. People have been harping about living in the End Times, and how the world is going to end, since 1666, and probably since before that in the years they could see that year coming within their own lifetimes. But, as you can all see, we are STILL here.

Why am I so sure of this? Well, because all of these are our own damn fault. God, or some other vengeful deity, didn't MAKE us house so many animals in deplorable, unsafe conditions. That was all our own doing. And when speaking about the United States alone, God didn't make our manufacturers and packing plants get materials from OUTside of the US or employ people who do, or accept goods from businesses that do. That was our own doing. We did that to ourselves. As hard as it is to admit, we humans, and we Americans, did that all by ourselves to ourselves. It's not something to be proud of, but just because we are not proud of it does not mean we have to defend it or that we have to deny it.

I know why it was done. Cost. It's more cost-effective to go outside of the US for goods (especially food) or for labor. It's very cheap, after all. But, you know what? I guess that the old saying is true. You get what you pay for in cases like that. Cheap doesn't equal better. Although, often times cheap does equal faster. So, there we go. Time effectiveness and cost effectiveness has been the major contributors to the animal flu outbreaks, especially swine flu.

Now that we know, however, we need to take steps and measures to make sure that it doesn't happen again. To make sure that we fix the problems that occured within our own country that contributed to swine flu and other illnesses that occured not from animals but from contaminated food products. Stop going outside of the country just because regulations in other countries aren't as strict, or because labor is cheaper. Stop accepting goods, especially food-based products, from companies that do that. Stores don't HAVE to accept products from those kinds of companies, nor do consumers have to buy those products.

Also, laws are great, but are nothing but words on paper if nobody enforces them. So stiffer and stricter laws for these things, and also for the way we keep our animals that are being born and raised for slaughter, need to be implemented because the older ones obviously had their own issues. But, we also need to make sure that those laws are always enforced. For the plain and simple reason that we all want to make sure that when we eat a salad, or a sandwich or any meal we don't want to have to worry about getting severely sick and dying because someone fell asleep at the switch.

And as for global warming, I think it is just plain ridiculous to think that human beings do not effect their own ecosystems. We build, we clear away things in our way, we pollute, we endanger animals...and any number of other things. But, yet, some people...many people in fact...like to insisted, not just think but insist, that we have had nothing to do with global warming. Some of these same people even say that global warming does not exist because our winters are still cold.

Well, global warming does not happen over night. Of course our winters are still cold. Eventually though, they won't be. Missouri winters being like Florida summers, however, are likely not going to happen for quite a very long time. Does that mean global warming doesn't exist? Nope. It doesn't mean that at all. Does that mean humans aren't contributing? Nope, it doesn't mean that at all.

Humans, like every other species of being, be it plant or animal, effect the earth. It's just that plain and simple. The fact that we walk upright, and can use tools, and think for ourselves does not mean we are exempt from effecting our planet with everything we do. And frankly, I can't imagine how otherwise intelligent people can think that we don't have a hand in this.

And, as far as I am concerned, its a major hand. I don't see wolves out there causing fumes from vehicle exhaust go up into the atmosphere. I don't see them launching rockets. I don't see them dumping toxic waste. I don't see them causing smoke stacks to pump black smoke into the atmosphere. Of course, there's more, but I will stop there.

I do agree that all of this cannot be fixed overnight, either. But, I think that fighting any solutions to fix these problems is rather stupid. Not everything can be done overnight, but we can fix things. Countries that have implemented wind and solar energy are doing just fine. I know the reason that we're fighting against it, though. If we use wind and solar energy, and find alternatives to coal and fossil fuels, then we're causing big problems many major industries. Not to mention that a lot of our foreign neighbors are only our friends at all because of oil.

If we stop mining coal, that pretty much kills the coal companies, from the largest company to the teeniest. And if we stop using oil, well that means that local and foreign oil companies are also out of business. That could also severely irritate Middle Eastern countries who really only seem to have much to do with us at all in the friendly sense at the moment because they are shipping oil over here by record numbers.

And I certainly don't want to say that we should stop space exploration, since there really is only ONE way to get any kind of space ship (and yes, a rocket is a space ship) into space. It might be nice to see if NASA could find solutions to some of the problems that might contribute to global warming that might be fixable, though. Like the fuel. But, I'm not a rocket scientist and I don't know how much of any kind of fuel it takes to launch a rocket. I'm pretty sure rocket fuel must play havoc with the atmosphere, but...for all know there might not be any alternative fuel that they have a way of making so far that will ever be able to reach the same kind of power they need to get a rocket to space.

And we could stop fighting the adding of animal species to endangered lists just because they are in the way of, oh, say, a pipeline. If an animal reaches below a certain number, that means that they are endangered of becoming extinct. Polar bears, for instance, are endangered but not on the list. Because it's inconvenient to put them there. Inconvenient to humans, that is.

Maybe not everybody really likes polar bears. Maybe some people don't like and don't hate polar bears, but also really don't give a damn about polar bears because they don't have anything to DO with polar bears. But, every animal that becomes extinct leaves a hole in the food chain, and every time that happens it effects a lot more than JUST that one animal. If I really need to continue explaining WHY it does that, I feel very sorry for the human race. If you couldn't even pay that much attention in biology class, I'm sure it won't take more than a few minutes to look things up online to figure out why its such a big deal when an animal goes extinct. I am not a tree-hugger, I just like my earth the way it is, thank you very much, and I don't want to make things any harder for myself in the long run than they need to be, or any of my descendants.

Mine, mind you. I don't care too particularly much about descendants from anyone else's family. I can be in it for myself, and still realize the necessity of keeping other things and other people safe and healthy, you know.

Sarah Palin again

I'm sorry, but...dude, if she really is thinking about running for president in 2012, she's shooting herself in the foot and fucking herself over this way. Really! I mean, look at this article I found on the CNN website recently.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/07/palin.resignation/index.html

Does she really think that she's helping herself this way? For one thing, I don't trust her lawyer that's saying there's no "bombshell" that's going to come to light involving why she is leaving office. How often do people in the spotlight say that, or have a spokesperson or lawyer say that, and then a little while later something happens to contradict that?

For another thing, let us assume that everything said in this article is true, and the reasons that are given for her leaving office are true as per this article. Let's also assume she is AT LEAST thinking about running for president in the 2012 election. Let's just assume these things for argument's sake. It's still a bad move. Why?

Well, she's saying that finishing out her governorship term in Alaska is too stressful. So, she thinks running a nation is going to be less stressful? Saying that something of lesser responsibility is too much work and/or is too much stress, or is in some way GENERATING too much stress for you is not going to help you get a job at something that is just on a general basis more stressful. Let's remember that to become the Republican candidate, she has to win the Republican nomination. They might not even consider her because of this. I wouldn't! Not even because I don't like her politics, but just because she can't even handle being a governor, how is she going to handle something like a the presidency of an entire nation, if she can't even run one state?

The fact that a joke made by David Letterman contributed to her decision to step down...that is ridiculous! I know the joke that he told was in bad taste, as I think all jokes of that nature are. And I, for one, NEVER thought her family should've been attacked in the media the way it was. Her family has NOTHING to do with her political career or her ability to lead. But, if she can't take criticism, and if she can't handle people making jokes about her, or the people around her, then its further evidence that she can't handle being in politics in this way.

If she thinks that she is going to just drop out of sight in the media and that they will forget about her, and that if she comes back to run for election in 2012 that it won't reoccur all over again, she's got another thing coming! It's going to start up again just as if it had never stopped, if it ever does stop!

I agree with Les Gara, she's just making excuses. And if she isn't telling the people everything about her decision to quit, then she's hurting herself worse. Maybe she just doesn't want to commit to anything too specific in case she changes her mind or something, but it's stupid of her to think she is helping herself with that.

As for the money she had to pay back because of ethics probes...Well, she shouldn't have taken that money and used it for her own and her family's own personal use. If she hadn't done that, she wouldn't have had to pay back so much money. She signed the law into being, so she should have known that it could've been used against her that way. I'm not saying she should've looked into the future, but if you are going to have anything to do with laws, you need to know how they might be used even if that isn't how YOU intended them to be used, or how the creator of those laws intended them to be used. You need to look at the law at all angles. And I don't know why ANYONE would think using money garnered in those ways for your own personal use and for your family's own personal use is an okay thing to do. That was a stupid thing. Everyone makes mistakes, but when they catch up with you then you can't make excuses. You just have to stand up like an adult and take the consequences. Like we teach all of our children when they are young. Apparently, though, we just teach our children that, but they aren't supposed to make use of the lessons and knowledge when they grow up, I guess.

Things might have slowed down for her in the media if she'd given it long enough. But the first year, no way! By the end of this year, and into next, though, she probably would've showed up less and less in the media, except perhaps in Alaska itself.

Now, don't get the wrong idea. I am NOT trying to say she made the WRONG decision to step down. If that is what she wanted or needed to do for ANY reason, then that's her business. Personally, I'm not complaining that she's stepping down, I think its a good idea. If she can't handle it for any reason, or if her family can't handle it for any reason, she needs to step down. Anyone, man or woman, who is faced with something like that should know when to cash in their chips.

And, personally, I don't think she needs to have a seat in a government office, anyway, for reasons I won't harp on here.

It is her way of doing it that I am ranting about. Not that she did it. I think that she has made many mistakes, and if she does intend to seek another office at any time, including but not only a presidential office, then she's going to have to deal with the fact that the problems she is leaving because of are going to come back full force, if not worse, and that the way she stepped down from her governorship of Alaska is going to come back to bite her in the ass.

She has her right to privacy, like anybody else, I agree. She has the right to make her own decisions as she sees fit, like anyone else. Of course, I agree completely. However, if she intends to continue in politics, and especially if she wants another political seat (especially a high one), she is right now making a huge mistake in the way she's going about things. That is ALL I am saying.

But, like everybody else except herself and her family, and perhaps a few select others who are not talking (and even that I don't know, and am only speculating on), nobody is going to know what is really on her mind right now for certain.

I don't HATE her, I just think she's not fit for politics. And, to me, this more or less proves it all over again. But, I DO wish her all the luck in the world with the next leg of her journey through life. I just HOPE that she doesn't seek another political office.

But, we will all see what unfolds as it happens. :p

Casey Anthony & Sarah Palin

I've been following this case in the news and online off and on, and I just went to CNN today and noticed something. A bit late, probably. :p But, her attorneys are trying to get her trial moved to Miami, Florida because they think (or are at least trying to persuade the judge) that she can't get a fair trial where it originally was going to be tried due to excessive media coverage of the case tainting the potential jury pool.

I'm sorry, but if I were that judge I would stare at them for a full minute before laughing in their faces. Why? Because this has generated national coverage on a very high level already. I live in Missouri, when all this started in a pretty small town surrounded by other rural small towns even smaller, and EVERYBODY knew about the Casey Anthony case the moment it hit Nancy Grace. Since then, I don't think I've met many people, online or offline, who live in the United States who do NOT know about this case and have formed their own opinions already.

The fact is laughable that her attorneys are trying to say that it was unreasonable of the media to cast negative light on Casey Anthony, because...well she didn't exactly make herself look sympathetic to the media or the viewers/readers, nor did she make herself look the least bit innocent. Every time she said something, it was proven to be a lie rather quickly.

The only reason that I think that the prosecutors did not originally seek the death penalty is that they didn't have a body for Caylee Anthony and it was such a circus because Casey didn't want to tell the truth and kept apparently making things up, that nobody could even be sure she was dead! Now that they have the remains of the poor little girl, I'm not at all surprised that they have changed their minds and decided to seek the death penalty.

I know that while they were announcing their decision not to seek it in the first place, they were trying to say that it was due to the fact that the grandparents of Caylee had already lost their granddaughter, let's not make them face losing their daughter at the same time, but apparently that goes out the window now, eh?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning the prosecutors for changing their minds, whatever their reasons and despite my speculations. One thing about me is that I am a very blunt person. I will say it as I see it without sugar coatings, because I've found out that when I sugarcoat things people tend to get the wrong idea about what I'm trying to say. So, its usually to avoid confusion.

I will say that I am against the capital punishment. I don't think an eye for an eye really has any place in a civilized society, at least not of that kind of magnitude. I think its ridiculous. Regardless of the reason, murder is murder and when you take a person's life you are murdering someone (self defense not really counting as condemnable as far as I'm concerned). It doesn't matter if the government says its okay.

And it REALLY disturbs me when I hear people say, "Well, it's really just because we don't have enough prisons." Okay. Do you know what that is? You are killing of people just because you don't have enough room for them. That is...disturbing to me. And the fact that these people are bad people, wicked people, or evil people makes no real difference to me. They're still people, even if they're the worst out of our society. We can always make more prisons. And if our justice system is such a joke that people aren't afraid of it anyway, even with the death penalty possibilities, then maybe we should re-examine that. England gets along just fine without the death penalty.

Besides, a mantra of "If you kill someone we love, we're gonna kill you back!" sounds kind of...ridiculous to me. Childish and laughable, yet disturbing at the same time.

And, I also don't think that those who are executed, and then LATER found to be NOT GUILTY of that crime should not just be overlooked with a shrug and a, "Well, we thought he/she was guilty at the time. Sorry, so unfortunate. Nothing we can do now..." 

Exactly. Nothing they can do about it now. Why? Well, that person is dead. He didn't commit the crime, the person who did is probably laughing his or her ass off about it and got away scot free, but hey. We just didn't want to build anymore prisons, nobody wants to live next to one. Well, nobody wants to live next to an airport either, and I don't see anybody NOT building airports JUST because of that, or campaigning against their usage or building.

Although, I do acknowledge that an airport is useful, whereas a convicted criminal who has committed a crime (or crimes) so heinous that he or she would be sentenced to death will NEVER be a productive member of society again, I still think its plausible. Because, it has been implemented that criminals serving time, even lifers without parole possibilities, can still find ways to be productive members of society if the right prison programs are in place.

But, I'm getting way off track. That really isn't why I decided to post about Casey Anthony. I just seriously think it's ridiculous the way that her attorneys are trying to handle this. In my opinion, I think that they are doing what they can to delay things, because they know that their case is either non-existant, in that there isn't enough adequate evidence of any kind to defend her with, or that it is so weak that they are grasping at straws.

I hope that she is found guilty, because I do believe that if she did not kill Caylee (her own daughter, her own flesh-and-blood) herself then she knew about what was going on and what had happened to her daughter and was in support of it. There is usually something VERY wrong with a woman who will kill her own child, especially while that child is still so very young. But, at this point I don't even think if she confessed and pled guilty by reason of insanity that they could give her a good defense. I don't think it's possible. I don't care where in the US they go, the jury pool is likely to be just as tainted anywhere else. This is just a stalling measure.

I have less to say about Sarah Palin, but I did want to touch on it. It strikes me as curious, too, that she would suddenly decide to step down with 18 months still left in her governorship of Alaska. Not that I think Alaska won't benefit from having someone else in office. I don't like how she runs things. I may not be an Alaskan but I have relatives there.

I think that she probably got in over her head with something and stepped down early just to avoid it. I don't know if it will come to light, if its bad enough to make her realize she's gone too far then I can't see how it won't hit the fan sooner or later. But, who knows?

I know there is a lot of talk about how it could be her deciding to run for president in 2012 and giving herself time to prepare. But, I think that if that is what she's doing it's a very stupid mistake. She just showed she can't even handle the governorship of one state. Then she wants to run for president of the entire United States of America? I don't know if she'll have the same support even that she had when she was running for VP alongside presidential candidate John McCain. 

It really isn't simply that she quit that is the problem with such an idea. Its that she is showing she is not ONLY a quitter with this, that she not ONLY let down the voters, but she couldn't even handle that much responsibility. So, if this IS part of her effort to run for president in 2012, she's being rather naive about it. And that's the nicest way I could possibly put it.

I have no great love for Sarah Palin, I really don't think she needs to be even the manager of a Wal-Mart store, but what I think has no bearing on what she is going to do. :p I really do, at the moment until more things come to light, think that she is getting out while the getting's good. Something happened that she doesn't want to be around for when it really hits the fan, and I am very curious to see what it is.

Then again, maybe all this talk of hers about a higher calling just means she's joined a cult and they've convinced her to quit politics. Who knows? One way or another, we'll all find out.

I hoped she would reconsider running for president in the next election, and I hope that that is part of this decision she's made. But, we'll all find out eventually. I just don't see how showing she can't be trusted to even last out her term in a state office is going to help her get the highest office in the US...whatever her reasons might be for possibly thinking something like that.