Random Thoughts

It personally pleases me whenever a public figure actually speaks his or her mind and uses "inappropriate" language. Political Correctness has been the norm for far too long and I am just waiting for the day someone uses a term like "faggot," acknowledges the use of the word, and then does NOT apologize for it or "go to rehab for anger issues." Yes, he or she will have some backlash at first. But when a movie company wants to sell tickets, that person will be hired. When a team wants to win, that person will have a job. And, you know what? They will be successful, the people will mostly forget or forgive, and those who were somewhat offended by the use will realize that life went on. If the person continues on that path and if people are truly offended, they will stop seeking out that person's products, team, or whatever. Why can't we admit that many of these words are simply ways to vent anger and frustration and move on? Why can't we hurt feelings any more?

Realistically, would you rather hire Mel Gibson to be in your movie, knowing that a small contingent of Jews are going to avoid the movie and possibly picket a few locations, or do you want the extra $50 million in box office his name alone brings to the project?

While on the subject, it irritates the hell out of me that women can't be gay. I see the phrase "gay and lesbian" far too often and used by people who are educated enough that they should know that "gay" encompasses female homosexuality. In some ways, I am more offended by men being called "gay" and "homosexual" while women are only ever referred to as "lesbian" -- we don't need yet another term when talking about the group as a whole as "gay" or "homosexual" encompasses both males and females. A "lesbian" is simply a homosexual/gay woman. The word derives from the island of Lesbos and the reputedly homosexual women who followed the female poet and orator Sapphos who lived on that island.

If you keep your penis in your pants and bribes out of your pockets, 95% of all news stories relating to government would cease to exist. How hard is it really to take the attention home to your wife? How difficult is it really to say no to the bribes.

Why not have a system wherein all political donations go into some sort of pot and then is apportioned out based on seat, level, and seniority to those within the political party for campaign use? In this way, an individual cannot be as tempted by large sums of money or feel like they are voting against their best fiscal backer and won't get reelected.

Let's say, for example, that in any given year the total amount of money donated to each person in the Republican party adds up to $100 million a year. Let's say that, rather than a company or person having to donate $5,000 to this senator, and $10,000 to this Representative, and $1,000 to this other person, instead it/he just writes one check for $16,000 to the Republican Party Campaign Fund. The money is then apportioned out by the oversight committee with more money given to people whose seats are more in question and where the fight will be tougher. Maybe $20 million per year is set aside for the Presidential campaign, so each year they have around $80 million to start with. The individuals in question are not swayed by this company or person, as they don't know where or from whom the money for their campaign came from. It is much harder to feel beholden to certain groups or people if you don't know how much they contributed and if "their" money was siphoned back to you for use on your campaign.

While it is uncomfortable to acknowledge and awkward to discuss, the slew of bombings and suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually a good thing. History shows us that bombings and suicide bombers are nearly always the last gasp of an extremist group before they fade off into the sunset. It is just sad the lives they take with them as they fade.

I have absolutely no issue with people having faith and going to church. But I do have an issue with people who stop thinking the moment they (re)discover their faith. They literally blind themselves and only can hear or see that which their religious leaders tell them, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For example, one such person recently posted a link in Facebook to an article about the "evils" of Halloween. This article had no research done on it, for it ignored all the history before certain leaders of the Catholic church got involved with Halloween in the dark ages and corrupted its meaning, ignored that most of what she was talking about concerning the evils of the holiday were lies the church spread in order to take power away from certain groups that challenged the church at the time, and ignored that most religions today feel that Halloween is nothing that should worry anyone -- many, in fact, take it as a time to reinforce the faith of their parishioners by having celebrations and special events. Instead, this writer talked about how covens of witches were going around to stores and cursing the candy so that children's souls would be tainted, among other things. Come on, really? That's the best you can come up with?

If every single site that allowed two-way communication required that you sign up with something that positively identified each person, the internet would be a much happier place. Most of the negatives come from anonymous people anonymously attacking those who have expressed different feelings, opinions, or facts that these people disagree with. How often would YOU post death threats toward, argue with, or verbally abuse another person if all that person had to do was click your name and have your address and phone number? You'd really think twice before calling someone names or issuing death threats if you could actually be held accountable for it, wouldn't you?