Hannity Is Like A Soap Opera

I don't watch soaps anymore but when I did, I could miss a month worth of episodes and return to the same story line in which maybe a day, if that, had passed. Watching Hannity reminds me of the same thing. And Greta comes in a close second. They latch onto a talking point and won't let it go even after the news cycle is long gone.

Right now it's rhetoric and the war references. Hannity cannot get off the topic of cross hairs and targets and the blaming of Conservatives and Sarah Palin for the Tucson shootings. Everyone has agreed that politics and it's language had nothing to do with it. Yet on and on he goes.

Everyone is trying to side step how we talk and it isn't going to work. Remember "Freedom Fries"?

Besides, its not the words themselves, but how they're used. I can say my back is "killing" me because I'm talking about - me. If I say in reference to something Hub did that upset me, I can no longer say, "I'm going to kill him!" That's a threat.

It's time to get over it and get on with dialogue in our natural manner. If we spend all our time watching which words we use we'll end up saying nothing.

Gunning for success. Sales targets. His comment cut me like a knife. Stabbing pain. Explosive situation. The show was a bomb. The tornado left things looking like a war zone. He had it and finally blew up. It's not political rhetoric, it's how we talk.

A kinder, more gentle Congress needs a less, excuse me, bombastic tone, not words.

Let's see if the debate can be razor sharp without hanging the opposition out to dry and let's extend the challenge to  the media.

I aim to watch, that's for sure. I'll shoot for about a month before everything returns to the normal nasty. Especially in the media. Regardless of which words they choose.

Guns Are Only Dangerous If You Use Them

With all the talk going on about gun rights since the Tucson shootings, I was surprised to see a headline about Wisconsin's plans to expand gun owner's rights. It seems with the change of parties in charge, Republicans now, the legislature will finally win out over the former governor's veto.

Did you know, too, that Illinois is the only other state that forbids carrying a concealed weapon? Apologies to Tom Brokaw who said he'd feel uncomfortable in an Arizona bar because of their wide open rules, it seems he shouldn't have singled them out. Granted Arizona and Vermont have less stringent requirements than other states but a concealed weapon is just that and no one has to tell you whether or not one is being carried.  Of course that's what concealed is all about.  Secrecy.

I often wonder why we Americans are so fascinated with guns. I can understand hunters, but for ordinary citizen like myself, I don't get it. That being said, I'm considering taking the course mainly to get a feel for what it's all about.

I remember having a security system rep brag about the fact he wears his weapon even when he goes to church. I had a hair dresser, a woman, who bragged about "carrying". When we had a couple of teenage boys walking around town carrying guns, because they were allowed, I wondered about their parenting. When I commented to a gun store owner I was uneasy knowing how many people carry guns, he asked me why. I had no good answer other than a why not back at him. It was lame.

His view is they most are perfectly honest, sane citizens who are exercising a right. Still, why?

I guess being able to doesn't mean you have to. Yet considering the mind set in today's America, many feel safer doing so than not. I think there is an underlying thread here of which I can't quite get a grasp.

The why. But the laws are what they are. I just hope the requirements for getting those permits include proof of instruction on how to use a weapon properly. And hope for the best.

Rewarding Bad Behavior

Did you know CBS is concerned about Charlie Sheen, star of the hit Two and a Half Men? It's his behavior of course. Assaulting his own his wife, trashing a New York hotel room, downing straight shots of vodka while entertaining porn queens in Vegas for a convention. That probably should have stayed in Vegas. But it didn't. It made the papers.

I expect one day to read where Charlie is found dead from an overdose of excess. Especially since he's 45 and shows no sign of slowing down.

I would guess CBS would be concerned by their bad boy's behavior. After all, he has children. A family. Sort of.

In my world such behavior would have gotten most people a substantial stay behind bars or in rehab. Real rehab, not Hollywood style. But his world is different than mine.

CBS and his producer, Warner Brothers Television, tell us the situation is complicated for Charlie. He goes to work and does his his job extremely well. Of course there are no plans to cancel the program.

I wonder. I don't watch the show because I don't care for Charlie Sheen. Is it just a one man show? It seems to me there must be another man and a half at the very least. Actors are replaced in hit series all the time.

Whoops! I just hit on it. It's a hit! It even increased it's audience by 2% last year! M-o-n-e-y! Why didn't I think of that right off the bat!

Could the reason CBS and Warner Brothers are "concerned" about Charlie is because they're afraid they might lose their star? My guess that outweighs their concern for his well being.

With concern like that, who needs it. Charlie certainly doesn't. But at 45 it's unlikely he'll change. It's a shame. One more life wasted so that others may profit.

I'll stick with my world, thanks.

To the CDA City Council: It's The Attitude

I wonder if the Coeur d'Alene City Council realizes a lot of their problems are brought on by themselves. 


There's a certain air of arrogance surrounding much of what they do. At least that is the perception I get from reading the paper.


A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post about the possibility of a long departed carousel making a return to its home town. I'm happy to report a very generous couple has purchased it from the current owners and are already packing it for the trip. The question is where should it go.


Many have suggested it be incorporated into the plans for the revitalization of McEuen Park.  When suggested the Mayor commented,  "We're not looking at buildings, per se, so I don't know if it could fit."  My question is if the plan they were unveiling was merely a concept, why not? Her statement, knowing the council's history, suggests an already done deal.  Nothing more to be done than go through those pesky motions. 


Since that time there has been much debate as to whether or not the suggested changes should be put to a public vote.  Today's headline in the Coeur d'Alene Press screamed, McEuen: Public Won't Vote.  The vote will be up to the Council.  The controversy comes from the Council's proclivity to push through controversial issues without necessarily playing by the rules.  So some say.  They say it often enough that it's beginning to resonate.


Such is the case here.  Though the article went to great lengths to explain various procedural aspects, the statement that stood out, again from the Mayor, is "Everything has been voted on by the public because they voted for the elected officials."  This comes across to me as rather elitist.


When the Council was elected there was no conceptual plan so the statement is self-serving in suggesting that the Council is all knowing.  The public had no idea what the plan might or might not entail and the Council certainly had no idea how the public would react. The question is do they care.


As planned, this will be an enormous undertaking and the expenditure hefty. When it comes to  digging into the public's pocket they tend to want to have a say.  Not just hearings where the powers can pick and choose, but a say as in vote.


I doubt that will come to pass.  However, it might be easier going if the "we've got the power" attitude was tempered.

Let's Talk About Mental Illness!

I found it interesting, in listening to a psychiatrist for the criminally insane, to learn that Arizona has a law in which the state can be petitioned to order an exam for anyone who is deemed to be of questionable mental stability. It seems Virginia has a similar law. In neither the case of the Tucson shootings nor the Virginia Tech shootings, when people in authority knew of the questionable mental health of the shooters, no one took advantage of those laws.

 Every newspaper in the country should be examining their state laws and informing the public whether or not they too have them and if so how to go about it.

Mental illness is the issue and and it comes in all shapes and sizes. When does it become a danger to the public?

Take for instance our old acquaintances, the Westboro Baptist Church crowd. The ones who protest at military funerals. I might add they made their rounds locally not long ago over a play being preformed about Matthew Shepard, the student in Wyoming who was beaten to death allegedly because he was gay.

They just don't quit. They protested at Elizabeth Edwards funeral. Now, disappointed that Congresswoman Giffords has not succumbed to her wounds, they have decided to protest at the funerals of those who did including nine year old Christina Green. A press release from the group says she "was killed for your rebellion when God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America." A nine year old girl.

As for the Congresswoman, a spokeswoman described her as an "arrogant pinhead who surrounds herself with fags and baby killers."

She went on about the killer, "God sent the shooter - that guy's bat-shit crazy - but God sent him."

You cannot tell me this group has one sane member in it. Sane people neither behave nor believe this way. Yet what they do is protected as free speech.

Now let's look at real incitement to violence. Yes, there are groups that go where they go to blunt their effect. It happened here. Yet someday, somewhere, someone is going to be hurting so badly from his or her loss they're going to lose it and go after the protesters. Who then will be judged mentally unstable?

To me the political rhetoric that has become a flash point in this case pales by comparison.

The reason why the judge is dead is "He doesn't care about free speech." Not now he doesn't.

"Once the child enters hell, it's over for her."

It is over for the child. Hell, however, is reserved for the rest of us having to listen to this under the guise of free speech. Is that sick or what?