I'm Still Here

I realized that I haven't blogged in awhile, as tends to happen sometimes. But I think this is my longest period of inaction yet, 10 days since my last post. My apologies, I've just been very busy with the program that I'm in. I had two exams last week, and a very difficult assignment to hand in. But thankfully that's past, and the semester is almost over. So hopefully I'll have some more time to devote to blogging, which I have missed terribly.

So as a result, I haven't been able to keep up with happenings here and around the globe. Gas prices continue to climb, and it downright scares me what it's doing to food supply. There are already shortages due to the climbing prices. There have been riots in other countries, and here, I believe that places like Sam's Club are rationing items like rice. There's a certain limit you can buy.

Another thing is that the "scandal" surrounding Obama's minister, Wright, has resurfaced. The more I see these kinds of news items, the more I feel that the media is going to do to Obama what they did to Gore in 2000. Back then, they skewered Gore over all these supposedly outrageous things that he said. Like he helped to "invent" the Internet, that he was the inspiration for Love Story, etc. Of course, it turned out later that he was either misquoted, or that in fact, he wasn't that far off. I believe that the writer of "Love Story" had stated that Gore did inspire "Love Story." But I don't know, it was a long time ago. I just remembered the media just did not like Gore and pulverized him every chance they got. But they loved Dubya though.

So I feel they're doing the same thing to Obama, with Reverend Wright and the "bitter" comment replacing Gore's so-called claims. To this point, it's barely made a dent in his popularity. No one outside of Beltway media was offended by the whole "bitter" thing, in fact, many agreed with it. And why shouldn't they? If working-class voters are not bitter over their living standards declining and their opportunties limiting over the years, there's something wrong with them. And now Hillary's saying that Obama is "out of touch" with working-class voters. That might well be the case, but what makes her in touch? One went to Harvard, the other to Yale. They're pretty much the same person, if you ask me.

And what did Reverend Wright say that outraged everyone so, and which prompted Obama to distance himself from Wright, after initially defending him last month? He again said that the U.S. government is responsible for HIV. I'm not an expert, I really don't know how HIV and AIDS came about, but he also said that we were behind Tuskagee (I spelled that wrong, I'm pretty sure). And he's right, if our government was behind that, how can we dismiss his belief on how HIV was devised, on its face?

And what drew the most fire, was when he talked about terrorism, and how when we've committed so much of it, it's only a matter of time before it comes to our doorstep (i.e., 9/11). And the media's up in arms about his statement that we've committed acts of terrorism. Which, of course, is a ridculous statement by Wright. Just look at our foreign policy record after World War II, and all the interventions that we took part in. All the influencing and downright overthrows of governments the world over who didn't see things in the same light as our government.

I'm sure most people would find Wright's comment offensive, because no one is more ignorant about U.S. foreign policy than the average American. It may be considered a stretch to refer to our foreign policy as "terrorist", but his overall premise was right, IMO. Why do you feel radical Islamists don't come after, say, Switzerland? The fact that they don't have military bases in their homeland might have something to do with it.