My Response To Someone Who Would Not Listen

I was compared to a follower of Hitler yesterday, by a person I barely know. The person who made this asinine assumption did so because I got tired of his endless non-sense. He said that I blindly follow the president and the Republican Party. That is untrue – even if it was, he wouldn’t know because he’s never listened to my stance. While it’s not hard to tell I’m conservative, one shouldn’t assume I am in agreement with the President or the party just because I think people should be responsible for themselves; or because I think people who work hard to make money should be able to put it into funds for themselves and their families.
When asked my opinion on the war, people like the guy assume they know my stance before they ask.
Our conversation started yesterday when he said “the day the indictments are handed down (in reference to Karl Rove, etc) , will be the happiest day of my life.”
To that I said “Wow, your life is full” or something close in sarcasm meaning “get a life.” If it was my best day to see someone I don’t like fall (not that it will happen like that) then I’d be pretty sad about my life. That’s the truth.
Let me say this before I go any further; my friend, “E”, is extremely liberal. We don’t always agree. In fact, it’s a rarity. But just a few days ago we agreed in regards to the new bankruptcy law. It happens. On the flip side, we disagree on taxes, abortion and a myriad of other issues. He’s smart. And he’s accomplished. But he has never been at all condescending when talking to me about politics or anything else.
This guy was condescending yesterday. He thinks because he grew up living in poor places, around the world, that he has insight into our government that no one else can obtain. Good for him, right? He seems to view his party in the same way he views his football team. He’s a “homer” even when he knows it’s wrong.
I’m friendly. If someone wants to be my friend then I’ll be their friend. I don’t consider myself to be a snob. I have friends who don’t have the same goals as me, but we’re still friends. Jenny and I are as different as night and day, but we don’t look down on each other. You get my point – I don’t act like I’m too good for people. I am who I am.
With that said, I like being smart. I set a high standard for myself. I’m far from perfect. Let me say that again. I’m far from perfect. But here’s the thing – I hate being talked down to. I can’t stand it. Yeah, I’ve done it. But I don’t make it a habit, and I can’t stand people who do.
This guy yesterday said, “I lost a lot of respect for you today” and “I thought you were smarter than that.”
Those kinds of comments don’t lead to me defending my stance or even explaining it. It makes me mad. I can’t explain things to people like that. No one can.
Instead, I’ll say here what I would have said if he hadn’t pissed me off.

On Harriet Mier: She is an incredibly accomplished woman; but a good Supreme Court nomination? She doesn’t seem to be, no. I don’t understand why Bush has nominated her. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t agree with his nomination based on what I know about her. I do hold a great deal of respect for her. She is a role model for women in law.

On Rove-Cheney: Indictments have not been handed down. But now I have to say, it wasn’t the best day of my life when Clinton was impeached. It wasn’t even a better day for my life. In fact, it was a sad day for me and my country and for the most powerful office in the world. The whole argument yesterday originated with his statement that the indictment would be the best day of his life. I need to read more about it, see more information. When I do, I’m sure I’ll have more to say. I guess I’ve been too busy liking purses lately.

On War:
Saddam, who the guy referred to as a “two bit dictator in an insignificant country,” acknowledged WMD’s. He even used these kinds of weapons to cause genocide on his own people. Did he have a nuclear bomb? It doesn’t appear that he did, no. But you can’t limit the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction to that question. And realistically speaking, it would have been just a matter of time.
For being such a “two bit dictator”, he did a good job making sure countries didn’t know what he had. He ignored a multitude of UN sanctions. That is all the reason the United States needed.
And the war was won when Saddam was removed from power. No one could have predicted the “foreign fighters” would come in and cause so much trouble. Soldiers are reopening hospitals, schools…rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq. It has been horrific, and it’s taken a long time. Obviously, no one has a quick fix. And instead of chaining myself to the white house like Cindy Sheehan, I’ll continue to show respect to our troops.

I predict that someone will disagree with me. And when they do, maybe this guy can take lessons from people who can disagree and still be civil.

Prado, Anyone?

If you read this, chances are you’re a friend of mine. And you know I have a moderate + love for handbags. Prada has been my favorite though lately I’ve found myself immersed in other brands like Coach or Lacoste- daring only to dream of Marc Jacobs. These bags are not super expensive, but they’re not like the tote I bought last week at Old Navy either. Note: It doesn’t have to be expensive to be nice. Anyone who thinks otherwise is too snobby to hang around me.

In various cities and malls, I always see bags for sale that bear the designer name, but lack the craftsmanship and the signature linings.

My question is: Isn’t it pointless to buy a “faux-designer” bag? Who wants a pink purse with a black Prada emblem? That’s foolish. One can feel free to buy one if they wish, but it seems pointless.

As we learned from last week’s episode of Gilmore Girls, right or wrong – designer bags are a statement of status. If you can’t afford to buy the purse, then don’t buy the fake one.

I don’t have a problem with someone buying a knock-off. I wouldn’t do it because, in my estimation, it is a waste of money. We’re not talking pocket change people. To buy a fake Louis Vuitton (ewe) bag, a person would have to pay anywhere from $110-$150 and up. That seems ridiculous for a “fake” that the fashion police will know is fake anyway.

If you want a nice bag, you can accomplish that without designer labels, saving yourself cash and pride. Buying a fake makes one look like they’re trying too hard. Instead, just buy a cute bag and let it stand on its’ own merit.

Ah, life is good – or boring, when this is the issue on my mind.

Guns

I can only imagine how angry and lost someone must feel when their child or spouse or sibling is shot by a worthless criminal. I can understand the desire for justice, revenge even. But a huge cash settlement or verdict from the gun company doesn’t accomplish that. I can only hope I never have to face something like this; but in the event I did, there wouldn’t be enough cash in the world to ease the devastation.

Congress has passed legislation called the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” which would end law suits based on crimes committed by criminals using the weapons.

It makes sense, as the gun manufacturers play no part in a criminal stealing a gun or buying one before committing his first crime. The company who manufactured the gun should be no more liable than a car manufacturer is for someone who misuses the vehicle by drinking, speeding or doing drugs while behind the wheel. These law suits are stupid and should not be allowed. And while I’m at it – medical malpractice suits are frivolous and should be stopped as well.

Again, I understand the idea that they deserve to be compensated; but 55 million a case? Excuse me for being cliché, but there isn’t enough money in the world to bring the loved one back. Law suits like this drive up the cost of insurance for doctors thus causing them to raise the price on the healthcare they provide. And we all pay for the mistakes of one.

Back to guns; it is much more cut and dry than medical malpractice. The point is Smith and Wesson should not be the ones who pay if someone comes into my house tonight and uses one of their guns to kill me.

Should they have to follow a standard or safety through regulations, background checks, etc.?  Yes, of course.

But criminals run the streets with all kinds of weapons. It’s not fair, but it is reality. It would be ridiculous to drain a company making guns that are used by our military and law-abiding civilians. We don’t need to give criminals more power. They’ll find a way to make weapons so we need companies that produce working weapons to combat that.

The reason people buy life insurance is because they want their families protected in the event they die.

And the justice, though it’s hard to believe there is any, will be when the criminal is convicted and sent to death row.

Jesusland

I heard Ben Folds sum it up better than I’ve ever been able to. He said if people saw Jesus walking around today, the same people who profit off his name, would likely have nothing to do with Him.

Good point, isn’t it?

I love God, but church is different. They’re not all bad. I learned that when I attended Life Church in Oklahoma City. But for the most part, church-going, professing Christians are the meanest, snobbiest and most self-righteous people I could ever meet.

Again, I know God, and I believe in Him. And I know others who believe in Him and seem to walk the walk though no one ever knows accept them and God.

It took several years for me to get over the judgments I received from professing Christians in my late teens. It stuck with me longer than it should have, but it hurt.

And those are the people described in the song “Jesusland.”

I Am Learning Espanol

Yo estoy feliz por que estoy aprendiendo espanol. Yo quiero hablar y escribir en espanol por que yo quiero aprender.

Voy apracticar mi espanol por que quiero ser mejor que ayer.

Gracias por leer mi mensaje.

Yo amo espanol.

Bankruptcy

The new bankruptcy law went into effect today. Now it will be considerably more expensive for one to file and more time consuming and aggravating for lawyers. The new 15-step formula, “which requires a Ph.D. in mathematics to understand,” will be implemented as the new IRS guideline for approval.

Under the old law, anyone could file chapter 7, which eliminates debt completely. Now, the assumption is someone making less than 30 k or so (depending on the state) will qualify for Chapter 7, but it still doesn’t guarantee you’ll be approved. The new law gives lawyers unreasonable responsibilities to verify the client is leaving nothing out when listing their property from homes to cars to iPods. Before, the client could list items as “household goods” whereas now they must list each individual item.  Lawyers will likely triple their fees because of the time and detail required under the new law.

While I think one shouldn’t spend money they don’t have or accept every credit card offer that they receive, it angers me realize credit card companies will make even more money off people who can’t afford their cards/fees. Credit card fees (including finance charges, late fees and over-the-limit fees) can turn a $200.00 bill into a $900.00 bill in about 6 months. That is insane!

The new law will require the majority of people who file bankruptcy (who would have filed Chapter 7 previously) to file Chapter 13 meaning they’ll have to pay off their debts over 5 years. 85% of people, who file Chapter 13, don’t finish out the payment plans. That isn’t surprising, is it? Let’s think about this. In most cases, people file bankruptcy because they didn’t adhere to payments plans in the first place.

Credit card companies and their lobbyists should be thrilled. And they are. This law helps ensure that after the onslaught of finance charges and unnecessary fees to people they’ve solicited, they won’t lose any money.

I’ve said many times – one should not spend money one does not have. That seems simple enough. I realize that in every situation, there are exceptions (i.e. medical bills, divorced spouses, and other reasons.) But many of the people filing bankruptcy have over-extended themselves at the mall and/or buying cars they can’t afford. Those bills should have to be paid. But the money changes hands from one person who lacks some responsibility and gives it to a company that preys on people such as these.

That is unfair, and while many may be surprised to know I think it, it is disgusting that the law has changed to benefit credit hounds.

I believe people should take responsibility for themselves and this new law is further proof that I’m right. The card companies are winning the game because people keep taking the bait and spending copious amounts of money they can’t repay.

Card companies should be held accountable, as the people are. But that is not going to happen so ultimate responsibility still falls on the people. The people in this situation must remember that a credit card is not free money, especially now. And being accountable to themselves and living within their means, they can stop allowing credit card companies to profit at their expense.

Pretender

"TV is trash. I was raised without it. We don’t have magazines or newspapers in the house either."

This in an interesting quote coming from Madonna isn’t it?

What she seems to have forgotten since acquiring her millions and pseudo-British accent is that she was made rich and famous because of TV she now refers to as trash.

Don’t get me wrong; I agree. Most TV is garbage. I was raised with limited access to TV and music. My parents didn’t want me exposed to the “trash” they saw from stars like Madonna.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out Madonna would not likely be in the situation she is in without good marketing and TV. The reason she can afford her own chef, the same reason she can have homes all over the world is that TV and magazines made her a superstar. It’s not as if her talent is so overwhelming, we were all in awe. She has long been known for shock value, wearing skimpy outfits “singing” about feeling like a virgin touched for the very first time.

Get real. Madonna is nothing more than a self-praising, spurious woman who got lucky.

Advice For The Closed-Minded

Why is it that some people have such a hard time understanding that your parents are the people who raised you?

And why is it when someone finds out you’re adopted, they refer to the biological parents as “your real mom and dad?”

Are people so closed-minded that it’s a difficult concept? I don’t get it.

The definition of mother is a woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child. See the last part where it says “raises and nurtures a child?” No one can discount a family who has raised a child since the child was only months old. The idea that anyone would think otherwise is absurd.

When a child is adopted and full guardianship is given to the adoptive family, there is no reason a child shouldn’t call the parents Mom or Dad. And, if adopted at such a young age, it is absolutely conceivable that the child can grow up feeling fulfilled.

Do I think its right for the parents to hide such details from a child? That is for each of them to decide. All I can say is that growing up in a loving home, with parents who put emphasis on education and family, seems to be all a kid needs.

Biological parents are part of the process, sure. I can’t deny that. But in no way should it affect the esteem in which one holds their parents. There is no separation that I can see.

So if you find out a friend is adopted, don’t let it bother you. I feel silly even lending advice like that, but apparently there are people who need to hear it.

Hook’em Horns!!!!!

What a beautiful day it has been!

Hook’em Horns!

Sorry, But I Have To…

Wow, what a catch!

Thanks for that Brian.