I have been mulling over whether I should tell the tale of what happened on a blind date gone wrong versus a serious post regarding the direction of the country. I am not quite sure which one I want to write although I can say that they both deal with slinging shit.
Now the real question is whether I can pull off a merger of the two ideas. That is, can I speak about a date in which my dysfunctional digestive system went hogwild and at the same time offer some thoughts about the country, none of which have to do with foreign policy, just domestic.
Many of you may ask yourself why I would limit my excretions and secretions solely to the domestic front when there is so much that can be said about the foreign policy. That my friends is because I disagree with many of you about the state of affairs and most importantly I want to narrow the focus somewhat.
Unfortunately my reservoir of humor is running low and my idea for merging the two is now working all that well. Just for the heck of it I may try and force it. Which leads me to a thought, where is heck in relationship to hell. Is it a couple of levels above hell, or maybe it is a notch or two below heaven. I am not real sure.
For that matter have you ever considered the possibility that heaven lies below and hell is above. If you want to aggravate someone try pointing up the next time you tell them to go hell. Don’t forget to smile when you say it.
Speaking of hell that leads me to the new nominee for the High Court. I find much of this to be very troubling. As many of you know I have had issues with the evangelicals. I wrote about that recently here and I cannot help but be concerned with some of the language that is being bandied about regarding her.
“Conservative activist Manuel Miranda also voiced disappointment with Bush’s choice of Miers on grounds she lacks a clear record.
“The No. 1 hook that allows us to take a leap of faith, even those who don’t share her faith, is she is an evangelical Christian,” said Miranda, executive director of the Third Branch Conference, a Washington-based advocacy group. “I respect that, but it isn’t quite enough.”
I don’t want a justice who bases their decisions upon religious views. I want it based upon the law of the land, the US Constitution.
“The words the president used in his news conference Tuesday conveyed his deep admiration for the woman he employed as a private attorney, campaign adviser and, most recently, White House counsel. He spoke not only of her intellect but also of her character, of his confidence that she shares his “strict constructionist” judicial philosophy, and of his certainty that she will not change. She will have the “same philosophy 20 years from now,” he said.”
I am not sure that I like that either. In my perfect world we all strive for growth as people and I am not sure that I want someone who is going to be stagnant. Now I realize that the description above is from Dubya, but just the same it bothers me.
More to come on this. Now onto more interesting stories.
Tags: News and politics