I Am A Conspiracy Theorist

~*~

Conspiracy Theorist
  noun

1. A person who explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

I confess, I am one of those people.

Unlike normal Conspiracy Theorists, I actually believe what the government tells me. I'm fairly certain that Obama is an American and that the attack on the World Trade Center was an outside job ... although I will admit to being a bit on the fence about the whole JFK thing.

Anywhoodle, I am not a normal Conspiracy Theorist.

My focus is on relationship conspiracies - specifically with romantic relationships.

My first pie chart - I'm such a proud math geek!

 

I have yet to find that place where I believe that I am loveable, and since I don't believe I'm loveable, if someone says they love me, it must be a conspiracy.

Just ask Mike. He was the recipient of such a theory yesterday.

I had the whole conspiracy theory typed up and ready to post here today. I let Mike read it last night and he asked that I not publish it. I'm still not certain why he made that request, but I have to believe there was a little piece of him that was worried the rest of you would call me out on my crazy.

It was crazy.

Of course, it wasn't like over the top crazy ... well ... if you ask me anyway. And of course there was no need to delete it (it's sitting in my drafts) because it's just not right to try to delete crazy! Besides, some day I can look back at it and proclaim, "Was I really that whacked at that moment?".

I do this as a form of self-protection. I conjure up the most ridiculous and painful scenario that I can. I create gobs of internal drama and anxiety, figuring that if something happens, some how - some way - I will then be better prepared to deal with it.

It won't catch me off-guard like Alan's suicide did.

Yeah ...

Crazy ...

And something I need to work on before my imagination destroys this very real and loving relationship.

~*~

(22/29) 

A Glimpse of the Real Man

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

There is no question regarding my distaste of our President's current and proposed political agenda, but one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about him is his jellyfish-ness. Jellyfish-ness? Yep! No backbone, real squishy and squirmy, yet simply beautiful to watch. Obama spends more time trying to get everyone to like him than he does running the country. His speeches - brilliantly written and orated - never have much substance, but evoke emotions from the masses. It's like attending a Brian Tracy motivational conference - everyone returns to work excited and ready for change, 37 hours and 22 minutes later, they're sitting at their desk, trying to figure out how to surf porn without getting caught again.

I was thrilled - no, make that ecstatic - when at Wednesday night's press conference, after being asked about the Gates incident, Obama scolded the local police for "acting stupidly for arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." Whew! He is capable of speaking spontaneously and having an opinion that isn't "bipartisan!" How wonderfully refreshing!

Do I agree with Obama's opinion? No - the more I learn the more I side with police. There will be some of you who want to interject race and racism into this, but you'd be wrong. This is about someone who is highly successful, attempting to justify his unreasonable reactions (sense of entitlement anyone?) and having that handy race card up his sleeve. We'd all be cheering if this happened to a privileged white woman ... say Paris Hilton. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most would say the spoiled brat deserved it - but let it happen to a privileged black man and it's suddenly racism.

Anyway ... I'm rambling ... back to the point ...

I found it quite admirable that Obama grew a pair found the intestinal fortitude to say something controversial - to let words from his heart escape from his lips. I was actually starting to like respect him. I may not agree with his opinion, but hell yes! Speak your heart. Give me something of substance to chew on. Give me a President who cares less about his popularity and more about what is happening in this country. This isn't high school - we didn't elect a homecoming king - we elected a President.

Then it happened. Yeah ... yeah ... I can hear all of you communist bastards Obama supporters chiming in with ,"It takes a big man to admit when he was wrong." Pffftttt! It was nothing more than damage control. Right back to the wishy-washy, let's make everyone happy, bullshit. I was basking in the joy of hearing Obama, for the FIRST time, speak from his heart, and now he's doing the moonwalk right back to Wonderland.

Simmer down now, simmer down ...

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Who is More Important than the President?

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

A U.S. Supreme Court Justice ... and we are about to get a new one.

For those of you who might not be familiar with the process, Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" (majority vote) of the Senate (currently holding a Democratic majority). Once appointed, Supreme Court Justices effectively have life tenure. Their terms end only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment. These are the people who determine how laws will be interpreted and upheld in the future. Although they may seem like nothing more than a geriatric coffee club, their decisions reach down and grab each and every one of us.

Friday, President Obama described what he would be looking for in David Souter's (set to retire in June) successor. Most of the qualifications Obama listed were those we expect to hear: legal experience or extensive legal training, spotless ethical record and devotion to the rule of law. But then he added another component - one he mentioned during his campaign - empathy.

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation," Obama said. "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

This makes absolutely no sense. Empathy? It sounds great - warm and fuzzy - but empathy has no place in any courtroom, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court.

The American Heritage® Dictionary defines empathy as:

Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.

Yet courts are required to be impartial - not favoring one more than another, treating all alike, unprejudiced, unbiased, disinterested, equitable, fair, just - in other words, empathy and impartiality are NOT synonyms.

It is likely this Justice appointment will not significantly change the "look" of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although David Souter was nominated by President George H. Bush, and initially aligned with the conservative side of the Court, he is now considered part of the liberal wing of the Court as will likely be true of his replacement. But looking for an empathetic replacement? That's just a slap in the face of the U.S. Judicial Branch.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

He Got Under My Skin

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Do you ever read a blog post or a comment that really gets to you? One that gets you thinking and thinking, and the more you think, the more pissed off irritated you get? I had one of those recently and I've not been able to "let it go," so will offer my thoughts instead.

Let me preface this by saying that the post/comment in question is from a blogger that I highly respect and read diligently; Jay over at Cynical Bastard. Jay and I have very different political leanings, although I do think we have some shared positions - no, not those kinds of positions - political positions. His recent I'm a Political Pundit ... post really struck a nerve, and not so much from his perspectives on Vice Presidential considerations, but specifically from a comment he left in response to mine:

Dana said...

Obama?? Who cares *wink* Well, unless socialism appeals to you (which, unfortunately, it seems this country is embracing these days).

I'm bummed that you gave so much attention to your political preference - a good political analyst would do a far better job of addressing each candidate equally.

That deserves a spanking Jay!

Jay said...

Dana: There really is no doubt that Obama is a redistributionist. But, nobody seems to really care. I think that's a testament to how pissed off people are at the last 8 years.

Also, I started to break down each of the top candidates for McCain, but as I said there really was no need to. My description of his choices stands for each and every one of them. Each is an authoritarian and a Christianist. There is no diversity of positions and ideas among his choices.

Among the Dems there is. Some are more moderate, some are long-time Washington insiders, some are left-wing liberals, some are "post-partisan" meaning they were once republicans and are more independent that others.

But, among McCain's choices, all are basically people who are 95% in agreement with Bush. So I didn't bother naming them all.

I almost named Mike Huckabee so I could mention his tendency as governor of Arkansas to let rapists and murderers out of jail, but I thought I would offend somebody with that. God knows I don't want to offend.

So anyway, you were talking about "spanking?" ;-)

There was one word (besides spanking) that resonated in Jay's response - REDISTRIBUTIONIST.

Anyone know who is credited with penning this slogan?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

It sounds like it could be an Obama campaign slogan, doesn't it? In fact, it summarizes redistribution of wealth quite succinctly. This slogan was popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The entire paragraph that contains his slogan reads:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Now, I'm not one who cringes at seeing the word communism - it doesn't make me want to run and hide in a bomb shelter or anything. In reality, it's no different than the word democracy - it's a form of government, nothing more - but it's not the form of government that has been successful (and like it or not, we have been successful) in this country for the past 250 (almost) years.

You may not be happy with your current financial status. You may be highly disappointed with the political administration that has been "in power" the last eight years. You may want more for your own children than you have. I feel the very same way!

Where I differ in thought is that I don't feel it is the government's position to determine who has "too much" and who "deserves" more. This country was founded on the concept of working hard to succeed - a concept many have realized. That concept is being compromised by those who feel that they "deserve" what those who work hard have, even if they don't contribute equally. That is what I find so disturbing about redistributionism. What is the incentive to work hard? To try harder? There isn't one, because the harder you work - the more you earn - the more the government will redistribute to those who work/earn less.

I respect Jay's opinion on politics - it is one based on much research and careful thought - but this idea of redistribution is a slippery slope, and one that I believe this country has no business even considering ... unless we really are embracing what Matt-Man so eloquently calls the "NINNY" state.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Weekly Events That Are Blog-Worthy

Every week I collect many stories that I want to blog about. Some times they are BIG issues, and sometimes they are just big issues in my world. This week there were several things that seemed deserving of a little blog time.

• Geraldine Ferraro was is right when she said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” If this were NOT true, Americans would be voting for a Presidential Candidate rather than for "hope" and "change."
• Researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released study results that found at least one in FOUR teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease. It's quite disturbing to think that 25% of the female population has contracted a sexually transmitted disease before they can legally vote.
• I am thrilled to see "Liberal Fascism," by Jonah Goldberg,"I Am America (And So Can You!)," by Stephen Colbert, "The Age of American Unreason," by Susan Jacoby and "An Inconvenient Book,"by Glenn Beck and Kevin Balfe on the New York Times Best Seller List. It gives me some faith in the people of this country.
• Why was it O.K. to bring Mitt Romney's religious affiliation into the presidential race, but a sign of racism in America to bring Barack Obama's religious affiliation into the presidential race?
• Next week the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a challenge to the Washington D.C. handgun ban, 32 years after it went into effect. The case is likely to produce the most important firearms ruling in generations and could undermine other gun control laws nationwide if the court takes an expansive view of the right to bear arms. It's about time.

Racism or Gender Bias?

Yes, there are a few more issues than that surrounding the Democratic race, but I was quite surprised to learn that Iowa Democrats supported a black candidate above a female candidate, and not by just a smidgen.

I find this interesting, especially when the media bombards me with tales of inequality based on race. Is it because Barack isn't really black? His father is Kenyan (not a descendant of slavery) and his mother is white - maybe that makes him more palatable? His platform isn't all that different than Hillary's - they are both touting a universal health care plan and withdrawal from Iraq. Sure, the details are a bit different, but the outcome is the same.

And what does this say about women in positions of political power? There are women who hold what I would consider to be far more powerful positions than President - two of them are U.S. Supreme Court Justices for goodness sakes. I heard rumblings on the news today of this country wanting ... needing ... an alpha-male for president. Really? Or is this just because Hillary is a bad candidate?

My take on this? I am one of the many people who don't like Hillary, I don't like her politics, bust mostly I don't like her, and I know why I don't like her - she hasn't mastered the art of phony. She still comes across as phony unlike Barack whose phony is refined and looks politically sincere.

If you want to be a successful political candidate, you better figure out how to convince the masses that the lies you speak aren't as bad as they will turn out to be. It isn't about race or gender, but about who is the best liar, and Hillary still looks like a liar.