Whatever dude. I’m done with you.

Why is it better for the planet and all that for him to drive it for the next ten years than for me to be driving it?

But this is one observation I’d like to make:

McCain/Palin attacks on Obama just make them look worse. Not because it’s so obviously desperate mean-spirited and cynical. Even if you believe every word they say about Obama, it makes McCain/Palin look worse. They are running against a liberal, secret Muslim opponent named Barack Hussein Obama who pals around with terrorists and would gladly give a platform to our worst enemies.

And they still can’t beat him.

People must really not want you to be the president if they’d rather have a Muslim terrorist president instead.

The second amendment provides the right of the people to bear arms. People who own and use guns do so thanks to this amendment. People who feel very strongly about often argue that this right is to protect them against the government among other threats. People who make such arguments generally do not think well of the government if they feel the need to defend themselves against it with weapons.

So to suggest such people are bitter about the failure of government and as a response cling to weapons is not elitist, but is perfectly in line with this very same line of reasoning that some gun owners themselves make, none of whom are ever accused of being “elitist”.

This *would* be a cool way to vote for a candidate. Turns out I’m a Kucinich man. Guess thats no surprise.

I know there’s a definition or many definitions, and because of this, some things are and other things are not genocide. But still, it strikes me as weasly, bureaucratic, dismissive. It’s almost always used in the negative. You hardly ever hear anyone say: “Well, how about that? This one *does* rise to the level of genocide. Yep. Sure does. It was just under that level, there’s the level, then it rose above that level.”

No — it’s usually, “that thing is horrible, but does it rise to the level of genocide?” (posed as a question but is really being answered in the negative). Or: “One thing is clear: it doesn’t rise to the level of genocide.” And then the argument hinges on a technicality or selective choosing of an operative definition of genocide. It’s like saying, “I’m indignant, but according to Webster’s dictionary, my indignation does not rise to the level of outrage. I’ll write one letter to my congressman, but I won’t write two, because this atrocity does not meet the two-letter criteria. I’ll send $100 to the relief of the victims, but I won’t send $200, because their suffering just does not quite rise to that level.” One’s suffering must rise to a certain level, after all.

“Ooo, so close! But it just doesn’t rise to the level of genocide. Try again next time!”