We like to think we are "them". The Good Guys. We got used to thinking this way after our beneficial contributions in WWII. We sort of glossed over our prior history of slavery, invasion, land theft, and fratricide after we lent a hand to the Allied powers of Europe, and started to swagger in our status as the Big Stick of Western diplomacy. We forgot that we could just as easily tarnish that white hat and start looking like a nation of thugs, simply by ignoring what we were doing wrong and only focusing on the good things we'd done and continue to do.
Dick Gregory was once challenged in 1971 at Kent University by a lady in the audience who angrily asked him, "Why don't you have anything nice to say about America?". Politely, Gregory informed her (I paraphrase here, not recalling the exact words...) that if he had a brain tumor, and she were his doctor, her diagnosis of his really good teeth and strong heart wouldn't save his life.
We have numerous "tumors" and other "ailments" afflicting us right now. We do indeed have some bits of us that are good and strong.
But the tumors are thick and fast, and I'm not going to tell you it'll be okay if we ignore them. Most Republicans seem to have this "head in the sand" mentality about our problems. I should know; I used to be one. Not entirely clueless, mind you, but having more faith in the system than it apparently deserved. Certainly I could pat us on the back and say "carry on!" but I'm afraid we're going to continue to die as a nation until enough of us wake up and smell the negative diagnosis, then try to repair it.
Most of my family (parents, siblings, nieces, nephews) are fighting to keep those rose-colored glasses on.
I don't try to convert them. It takes too much effort to convince even one person of the danger this country is in, LARGELY BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN APATHY AND COMPLACENCY. (You apparently don't know who you are.)
The rest of us have work to do. We have a country to re-build after their champions and heroes of the Neo-con Republicans have damn near destroyed it. Don't let them distract you with irrational arguments about how "good" we are and were; They are still trying to sail on yesterday's wind, and balance the scales with unrelated good works.
And when someone offers a critical perspective of the US these days, we need to take it under consideration. They may well be pointing out the next outbreak of the cancer that is eating our country alive.
Right now, in the Balance of Good and Evil, we're not really the "Good" guys, anymore. We're the problem the rest of the world is starting to recognize. The "sick-relative-in-denial" that they will have to deal with. We'd better start paying attention when someone points out the strange lumps. And we'd better do something about it.

I'd like to quote an individual from the following AP article; news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080...ia_iraq_war
"Sgt. Candice Gerber joined the Pennsylvania Guard in 2004 because she wanted to help with the war effort. She spent a year in Ramadi, Iraq, as a medic, where she saw young soldiers killed and maimed. Now she's torn about what should happen next.
"I don't really think we should call it a done deal and come home tomorrow morning, but I don't feel we should be there for the next 50 years either. ... We've lost so many, but if we come home now it's we've lost so many for what?" said Gerber, 30, as she sipped coffee in an Allentown cafe."
I used to be angry with people who felt like this, because it seemed logical and apparent to me how flawed that reasoning is. But it is not apparent, and these people really are just trying to hope for the best out of a bad situation. I failed to take into account that most people don't have backgrounds in psychology, philosophy, advertising and propaganda studies. I'm learning a lot about checking my temper, and realizing that these people need education, or a little logic explained, and they eventually, if they are sincere in their concern, see the light. I reserve my disdain now only for the ones who actually prefer the lie. So now, while I sympathize with Gerber, her sentiment is only that: a sentiment. In a realistic view, sometimes people do pointless or wrongheaded things, as individuals and as nations. Continuing to dig that hole does not correct the basic problem.
This is an informal fallacy.. Continuing to fight for the wrong reasons, whether more soldiers are lost or not, will never "correct" the initial problem: Being there on false pretenses. Staying and fighting until "something good comes out of it" is illogical and only exacerbates the losses further while well intentioned people like her hem and haw about pulling out. It was a mistake. Waiting for it not to be one is letting good people die or get maimed to fuel your hope that something good is happening because of the invasion.
It's not, Ms. Gerber. Get that into your head and let's get our kids, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers HOME.
I say this in love, and above all, URGENCY.

Cut and paste, if you like:
news.search.yahoo.com/news/search
The news media likes to call them "teens" or even "just kids", but let's face it; at 17 years old, if you haven't learned by then not to trap and gang-beat another human being for fun, you probably won't know any better 10 years later.
A legal analyst for MSNBC suggested that these "kids" lives would be ruined by this, boo-hoo, we shouldn't ruin their lives, boo-hoo.
As if a switch goes off on their 18th birthday and they magically know better then?
I have known grown men (and women) who think that it is how to resolve an issue with another human being, while they seem unaware what failures they themselves are for having done so.
That's what those precious little snowflakes in Florida are growing up to be. Prison will put them in exactly the same shoes they put their victim into. Justice will be served when they stand trial as adults.
Ain't Ma & Pa proud now?
Yes, I blame the parents. Or grandparents. Whoever raised them to be cowards and thugs and then scratched their heads and wondered aloud to the press " Really, little Jenny is so sweet, Ah rally don' know WHY this happened..."

Or the REAL prize winning parent who actually said the victim INSTIGATED it by, get this, _saying things_.

Yeah, well IF THAT'S HOW IT WORKS, you better not show up around here, because you've got a SERIOUS ass whipping just for saying that. Or maybe I should lure you here under a false pretense like your little snowflake did to her victim? Or maybe we can stretch this rationale a bit and I'll just turn up in your house one night?
How would that tickle your fancy, Mom? One good turn deserves another and all that?

In truth, the 1st amendment protects that victim, and unfortunately, you, Mummy dearest. I would no more sink to your level than you would rise to mine. However, you should not only be ashamed, your community should shun you like the abomination of civilization that you are. And that goes for Susan Whatshername on MSNBC for excusing such obviously sociopathic behaviour as "youthful indiscretion".

Forgiveness for them must come ONLY from the victim. The rest of us have laws and consequences, and regardless of how screwed those kids have become from their lack of parenting, they KNEW the law didn't allow what they have done.
Shouldn't have done the crime if they couldn't do the time.
Banking on skating by as a juvenile isn't working anymore, kids. Get over yourself.
You aren't as well connected as the Bush Administration, even if you were Bushbots yourself. (I'm laying odds your folks were.)

I just watched a Brink's Home Security commercial and was laughing with derisive contempt.
If you're thinking about such a system, only think about it for the following point: If there is a fire in your home while you are on vacation, they will call the fire department for you. Now does it seem worth the money?
The commercial showed a really cheesy home invasion, with the panicked husband retreating into the bedroom and telling the wife "a guy just tried to break in!" while watching the guy run away from the bedroom window.
This situation is so implausible, yet it sells to the weak minded. Not that there might be a home invasion (hell, there was one on the news yesterday) but that the guy in the commercial ran away, and the homeowner was such a sheep, and the idea that the system helped.
Let's put it like this: You plan on breaking into a house. You scouted it out, but somehow missed the alarm system blinking on the wall, or the posted signs. You also forgot to case the driveway or garage or watch the house for awhile to see if anyone was home. You break in making alot of noise and set off the alarm and wake the homeowner.
Now you have a choice: homicide and/or robbery versus burglary of a habitation. Of course you run. No dumbass is so dumb that they want to double or even quadruple the amount of time they'll serve if caught, when all they wanted was goodies for cash. Any amateur who makes this mistake once won't make it again, and they'll case the place next time, and do their homework.
UNLESS: Part of the intent was to harm the owners/inhabitants. Whether for spite, for rape, because the owners were incidentally in the way, or for cruelty's sake, there ARE those who will go the extra mile. In which case, a pathetic expensive electronic alarm system is merely going to call for investigators and the clean up crew. Response times to these idiot boxes are infuriatingly slow, so if you're a criminal, you go in, do your business quickly and get the fuck out. Since you have to assume the owners might put up a fight with any armament, you yourself go in armed, and dispatch any opposition quickly.
Do you see where this is going? If someone is going to break into a home _while the occupants are home_, you can assume the WORST is going to happen unless they are stopped, RIGHT THEN. An annoying noise and the promise of help in 5 to 30 minutes isn't very likely to stop this person. Car alarms are sort of the same thing. Unless you as the actual owner is there to put a stop to the perp, it is an ILLUSION of security you are buying. How many times as an observer/passerby have you ignored a car alarm going off for seemingly no reason?
You want a REALLY effective system? Buy 3 things and learn how to use them: A big dog, a small gun, and a gunsafe.
Now you are responsible for yourself. Now you have more capability to secure your home and person than with an expensive but worthless alarm system. And unlike the alarm system, each of those elements is a multi-tasker in and out of your home. Of course, I draw your attention to the "learn how to use them" part aforementioned. A dog is a useless ego-accessory unless he is an integrated member of the household and not chained up in the back yard. You have to learn what a dog wants and speak its lingo. It will naturally protect its pack and territory, but you can even further its instincts with training. Perks include a fun companion, friend, and family member who helps keep your leftovers from going to waste. In terms of its security performance; Depending on the dogs natural inclinations and degree of training, you may have an early warning system right on up to a bodyguard. At the VERY least, it can alert you to an intruder long before you can sense them, affording you a heightened awareness and opportunity to prepare yourself. I could go on for hours on the additional benefits of having dogs as family members, but we need to move on, so I'll end on this note: If you have had trouble with integrating dogs in the past, the odds are the problem is NOT WITH THE DOG. You have to be trained and adapt too, kiddo.
A gun is a tool with dangerous effects. Learn proper safety procedures, and not just some of them; ALL safety procedures, including how to transport, store, clear jams or misfires, what NOT to do, etc. As a weapon owner, you have MANY responsibilities. Additional perks to having adequate self defense include entertainment at the range, and hunting applications, not to mention some of the shooting sports, depending on what you are shooting, ranging from skeet and trap to cowboy action shooting, to simple target sports.
And lastly, a gun-safe. Any safe will do, if it's large enough to put your firearm into, but for the most bang for your buck, get a mountable model that cannot be moved, with fireproofing. Why? Because you can then place your most important documents, photos, electronics, mementos and whatnot in the safe as well. The firearm goes in the safe too, but only when you aren't home, and you cannot or will not be taking it with you. When you are home, that arm should be as available as a fire extinguisher to any adults who are cleared to use it. It should be in a secure, concealed but accessible location.
Total cost for Brinks: About an 80$ start up cost, with 30$ a month indefinitely thereafter, with minimal, if any, effectiveness.
Total cost for my system: About 300$ - 500$ start up, with about 30$ a month indefinitely thereafter, with maximum effectiveness and multiple perks and functions that no security contract can provide.
Are they (Brinks) cheaper? You bet. Are they as effective? No way. Are you empowered by them? Nope. They thrive on your dependence and fear, and that's why I laughed at their commercial. I'm not afraid, and I'm not dependent on them.
I am a self sufficient, responsible, adult citizen.
Be an adult and take responsibility for your own safety. Quit waiting for Big Brother or some mercenary fear monger to do it for you. They most likely will fail at it anyway. It's a rewarding investment, in my experience.

#1 - Poor judgement. Voted for authorization to Bush for the war. Married a philanderer and stuck with him over and over again. Etc. etc. The lady just doesn't exercise good judgement. We already have that.
#2 - Divisiveness. We need someone who can do damage control for the past 8 years. No matter how many Republicans are left in the House and Senate, they would attempt to stymie her at every turn. Her rival has far less of a problem facing this issue. Not to mention we don't really have time for her to experiment to get it right (See #1.) Hell, she even divides the Democrats.
#3 - Bigger chance of losing. Most polls indicate that McCain has a better chance to beat her in the general election. Frankly, I know of several people who will not vote for her, but would vote for Obama. Personally, I believe she is SO wrong for the job, I'd vote for McCain before I voted for her. Yes, really. Thankfully, Nader says he'll be running and I won't have to vote for McCain and his madness.
#4 - She sets feminism back by about 25 years. Yes, she does. I won't argue the point, but my spouse will, so ask Tara. We are in complete agreement on this issue, although I am less affected by it.
#5 - Dirty pool by her supporters. I've caucused. I'm an alternate delegate. We outnumbered the Hillary camp at the caucuses by approx. 40%, but somehow, the sign in totals were only 16 people off of each other... And the sign in sheets used may have included some sheets that her supporters were circulating OUTSIDE the caucus, before it began, that somehow found their way into the auditorium of over 200 people. Yeah, I know you can whine "Where's your proof? Where's your proof?". It's not a trial or even an attempt to pursue justice. It's an observation and opinion by a security professional who knows dirty pool when he sees it. What you do with it depends on what you want to believe and your trust level in my word. There's more to this story, but I'm not going to relive it. I'm disgusted enough.
#6 - Jack Brooks and Carl Parker back her campaign. These two are the Tom Delays of the Democratic party. I never voted for a Democrat as a young man because of these two. They are as slimy as they come. Some of my East Texas buddies suspect they may still have white sheets hanging in their closets. They wholeheartedly endorse Hillary. Yes, you can judge a person by the company they keep.
#7 - Resuscitation of the Republican party and the Neo-con agenda. Like a defibrillator. Bush has nearly killed the GOP. They'll survive with Hillary as a galvanizing foe.

I'm so disgusted that I have to point out these glaringly obvious reasons. I had the foresight to predict how Bush's administration would fail, for equally obvious reasons. Now let's see if the US is going to be idiots all over again and elect more of the same, albeit a lot smarter.
Clinton would be a huge mistake.