Ann Curry on the Cutting Edge

I accidentally caught part of the Today show yesterday and heard Ann Curry praise The Hunger Games because it has a female protagonist.  How avant garde.  Apparently, Ms. Curry lives under a rock and is unaware that there have been countless female protagonists over the years in films, literature, and pretty much all media.  What is with this rah-rah sisterhood, female empowerment thing going on?  Ms. Curry is the host(ess) of a national morning news program and probably pulls in a 7-figure salary -- is she implying that she is oppressed somehow because she's a woman?  It's 2012 -- can we lay the women's rights thing to rest now?  

I would like to point out the obvious by saying that just because we have the same anatomical features, doesn't mean that all women agree about everything -- particularly politics.  I am offended by that notion.  I am offended that someone would think that I am so shallow as to agree with Nancy Pelosi on something (like healthcare or the government paying for my birth control, for example) because we both have a vagina.  It's absurd.

(Suda)Fed-up

My sister went to the pharmacy yesterday to get some over-the-counter medicine to help her deal with the sinus issues that occur when pollen lays siege to your town.  In the course of discussing the different options with the pharmacist, my sister casually mentioned that she had "popped a couple of Sudafed" that morning.  The pharmacist -- apparently taking issue with that turn of phrase -- then told my sister that she couldn't purchase any more Sudafed.  Because obviously, my sister is a meth-head (it must be her perfect, pearly-white teeth that gave her away).  The pharmacist ended up getting an earful (and boy, do I wish I could have been there -- remind me to tell you later about the time the Macy's checkout lady asked my mother for her Social Security number) and my sister got her meds.  But at what point do we revolt?

Is our country really free if every time we enter a drug store, we're suspected of being an illegal drug dealer/manufacturer?  Or every time we enter an airport, we're suspected of being a terrorist?  Or just about every time we're pulled over after dark, we're suspected of driving drunk?  What is our collective breaking point?  Because I'm thisclose to reaching my personal one.

The Republic of Me

I've been thinking lately about people (and candidates for public office) who seem to think that their choices in life should foisted upon every other citizen (see posts on Rick Santorum, among others).  

In the spirit of elaborating on that subject, here's a glimpse of what America would look like if my opinions became the law of the land, in no particular order.

Chick-Fil-A:  open on Sundays.

Drugs and prostitution would be legal.  Cottage, ricotta and pecorino-romano cheeses would be illegal.  

College football would be played year-round and Auburn would be forbidden from participating.

The NBA would be abolished.

The IRS would be abolished.  Income tax would be replaced with a national sales tax (I've got some ideas about alleviated this burden on the poor, but I'm not getting into it here).  

The Department of Education would be abolished.  

Intelligent design would be taught as a concept only in philosophy classes (and believe me, there's a convincing case to be made for it).  If you want your kids to learn about Creationism, then take them to Sunday school -- it's not a good idea to force apathetic teachers to school your children in something you consider so important.  

Sex education -- with the exception of basic anatomy -- would not be taught in public schools (see above).

The following people would be banned from appearing on television and/or film:  William Devane, Brian Dennehy, Richard Thomas, Alex Trebek, Chris Kattan, Rob Schneider and, of course, Oprah.

Lifetime Movie Network (LMN) would show only Meredith Baxter Birney movies with The Betty Broderick Story, Betty Broderick:  Her Final Fury, and Kate's Secret in heavy rotation.  The Tori Spelling movie Mother, May I Sleep With Danger? would be allowed one showing per month.  

The number of federal employees would be cut by at least half.

COEXIST bumper stickers, Jesus fish, Darwin-fish-eating-Jesus-fish, and those stick-figure family stickers would be forbidden.  Same goes for decorating your car at Christmas.

Congress would meet once a month for two (2) days.  Their salaries would be cut accordingly.  

Low-rise and skinny jeans would be illegal.  

I'm sure there are a great many other things I could come up with, but this is just a glimpse.  So, consider yourselves lucky that a) I will never be elected to anything and b) we do still have enough respect for the Constitution (at the moment) that we wouldn't allow ourselves to be ruled in such a manner. 

But do take a moment to think about it every time you hear someone calling for a new law or regulation -- particularly at the federal level.  Making new laws should be our last resort to solving problems.  

Ick, Santorum -- Part Deux

Now Rick Santorum wants to declare war on pornography.  Sounds like a great idea.  We don't have any more pressing problems for a potential president and Commander-in-Chief to be worrying about.  It's not like the economy is still in the crapper or Iran is ever closer to nuclear power or gas is approaching $5 per gallon or Afghanistan is in ever greater turmoil.  Nah, all that stuff is under control.  The federal government should definitely focus on pornography.  Which is legal, by the way, except in cases of child pornography.  

I think Rick Santorum is total doofus.  Nobody wants to elect a scold.  I probably agree with him about 80% of the time in terms of how people should live their lives in a way that's best for them as individuals and for society at large, but there's a world of difference between an opinion of how someone should live and making that opinion the law of the land.  That is not American and that is not what our forefathers fought and died for -- or what our young men and women continue to fight and die for.  

Ick, Santorum

This is (partially) why I don't like Rick Santorum and would have a very difficult time voting for him.  Even if he's just making a joke about criminalizing teleprompter use by presidential candidates, it's troubling for a politician to kid around about making things illegal.  Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that he was kidding.  A lot of times, we jump on candidates too quickly and too much for being loose with their language, and we make mountains out of mole hills.  I don't think this is one of those times.  

Santorum's comment exposes him as an acolyte of the nanny-state, same as his liberal opponents.  His mantra seems to be "that with which I disagree should be criminalized".  It also seems as though he thinks the American electorate is foolish enough to not recognize Obama's reliance on his teleprompter (among his other, more egregious shortcomings) and must be protected from their own ignorance.  If the American people are too stupid to realize that Obama is rhetorically-challenged without his teleprompter, then they get what they deserve.  Actually, that's not even true -- if Americans are too stupid and foolish to vote for or against a candidate based on his or her teleprompter use, then we are stupid and foolish people and we get what we deserve.  

It was troubling and offensive to me when Obama joked about IRS audits -- that kind of rhetoric is chilling and anti-democratic. When you're not in a position of power and are a citizen at the mercy of the IRS (as most of us are),  a joke about getting audited really isn't funny.  To me, that comment of Obama's exposed how he views the presidency and the power that comes with it -- he's no longer a fellow citizen, he's a ruler.  

And while Rick Santorum's values may be different from Obama's, their methods in the form of government-as-savior are much too similar for my taste.  

Wal-Mart Cometh

Wal-Mart is attempting to open a new store in my neighborhood, and unsurprisingly, my left-leaning enclave is vehemently opposed to a Wal-Mart colonization.  There have been protests and meetings and people in Birkenstocks standing on corners handing out fliers and requesting that I honk my horn in support.  The usual.  

In the neighborhood newsletter that I received earlier this week, it seems as though they are making traffic the focus of their concerns (most likely in an attempt to sound sane and practical).  The site of the proposed Wal-Mart is a decrepit, semi-vacant strip mall off one corner of a 5-point (possibly 6-point -- it's a bit of a cluster) intersection.  Using the logic that a new Wal-Mart would increase traffic at an already busy intersection, it seems as though my neighbors don't want any successful business to move into the strip mall and revitalize it.  Although, I can pretty much guarantee you that they wouldn't be protesting a Trader Joe's or a Target or a Whole Foods or a giant tofu market.  Just the Wal-Mart.  Because Wal-Mart is evil ... and fascist, according to some of the literature being dispersed.  My husband saw this and asked me how Wal-Mart is fascist and to define "fascism".  That's easy:  anything opposed by liberals and leftists is fascism. 

I am actually conflicted about the Wal-Mart.  On the one hand, I love to piss off these kinds of people.  And I love me some discounts.  Which brings me to the other hand -- the Wal-Mart would displace my thrift store and as I sit here in my $4 sweater, $1 t-shirt and $3 shoes, that makes me sad.  Such is free enterprise -- which is not fascist, but don't tell my neighbors that because they wouldn't understand the actual definition of fascism.  If only the city/county had seized the strip mall using eminent domain to give it to Wal-Mart, these anti-commerce hippies would have my support.  

Revelation

Much is being made about President Obama's latest self-aggrandizing statement in which he seemingly compares himself to Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.  My problem isn't how Obama views himself in the same league with those gentlemen, it's the revelation of how he views America in the same league as colonial-ruled India and South Africa under apartheid.  The man who presides over our great nation sees his country as plagued by the same kinds of injustice that Gandhi and Mandela fought against in their nations.  That is a truly disgusting notion.   

The irony is that if Obama gets his way, we will live under actual tyranny.

The Contraceptive Debate

What a cluster.  I'm not going to get into the religious liberty aspect of it.  What I want to talk about is the fact that we are debating over whether working women -- meaning women with jobs/salaries/incomes -- should be forced into the hardship of purchasing their own birth control because their employers feel that providing such coverage in their health care plans is against their morals and values.  (A hardship they are no doubt currently experiencing and have experienced for as long as they've worked at their respective institutions.)  

Do you know how much my birth control pills cost per month?  Nine (9!) dollars.  9 f---ing dollars.  And no, that's not with a co-pay.  It's $9 to walk in off the street and buy my birth control without any subsidy from an insurance company.  And we're debating this issue?  This is how we're spending our time?  It's $108 per year that I think a working woman can afford on her own.   

You know my stance that health care is not a right, well birth control certainly isn't a freaking right.  Is a Big Mac a right?  Is a foot massage a right?  Is Botox a right?  Birth control is not a right.  

A Sad Day Indeed

Rest in peace, Andrew Breitbart.  Freedom-loving Americans have lost an important voice -- a force of a nature.  We should all live our lives with the energy, passion, principled convictions and sense of humor with which Mr. Breitbart lived his life.