HOME | FUNNY ARTICLES | TOP NEWS REPORTS | SUBMIT
|
Aug. 24, 2010 I feel very negatively about the talking heads who appear on daytime cable shows (and some on prime time as well). Take the recent case of the woman who strangled and than strapped her two babies in car seats and rolled the car into a lake. I can't tell you how many psychobabblers commented that she was either a sociopath or suffered from post partum psychosis. These are amazing conclusions considering that not one of the talking morons ever examined the woman in question. Next, would be the hosts of some of these commentary shows. Jane Velez-Mitchell is one of the worst offenders in my opinion. She seems to link every single crime committed to some sort of addictive behavior. They are either a drug addict, an alcoholic or suffer from an eating disorder. How absurd is this rationale? Because Ms. Mitchell is a recovering alcoholic (which she will remind you of ten times per show), she seems to have a need to link everything to addiction. Maybe that tells her that since she herself is recovering she can't do anything that would be considered criminal. Maybe she needs some sort of reassurance? She also states that racism is a mental illness. To me, the reason for most racism is due to ignorance and fear and exposure to intolerance while growing up. If racism is a mental illness and crime is related to an addiction of some sort than most of the country is mentally ill or addicted. The word "Sociopath" is thrown around a lot lately and having studied that particular subject for more than 40 years, I am stunned that those who profess to be educated and expert in their fields of psychology haven't read the material available on the condition. Not every one who commits a crime has a total lack of empathy for others or the inability to feel remorse. Some people are just evil and some act in the heat of passion while others are truly mentally ill. There is a recent decision by an appeals court that crosses paying tribute to fallen troupers who died on the highways while protecting the public must be taken down because they signify government support of a particular religion. The lawsuit brought against the placing of these tribute crosses was brought by atheists. I see crosses all over the place on roadsides where someone has lost someone to an accident and I am never offended. I am saddened and it makes think twice about driving safely but it never makes me feel that I am viewing a religious preference. These are simply a symbol of loss and a caution to others to be careful on our roads and highways. Since when is it okay to let atheists who believe in nothing tell those who believe in something that they can't exercise their own constitutional rights? If the crosses are paid for by individuals or non-profit groups (which the ones in question in the lawsuit were), than where is anyone's constitutional right to freedom of religion being abused? Because they are on public roadways the government is supposedly responsible and therefore the lawsuit was successful. Don't the taxpayers pay for those roadways or is it only atheists who pay for them? I feel very negative about the fact that those of us on social security were told that we would not receive a raise in our cost of living expenses since we obviously don't require it or need it according to those in Congress who don't seem to hesitate to vote themselves a raise on a regular basis. Since the beginning of the year my expenses have gone up by over 20% (far more than any raise would have been). My utilities went up, my insurance went up, my groceries went up.....and that's just the beginning of the additional costs I have incurred since the start of 2010. We will not see any raise during 2011 either so I can only imagine what life will be like when they raise the cost of our Medicare and we get less than we are getting now. That brings me to the biggest negative of them all...the Congress of The United States. They gave a lot of our hard earned money away to bail out crooks on Wall Street and elsewhere, voted themselves outrageous raises and benefits yet have the nerve to tell us that the recession is abating and we are all doing much better. Really? How many of them are in short sale on their homes or bankrupt? How many of them have no healthcare and are stuck in homes that are worth less than is owed on them? How many of them have no money to make necessary repairs on their homes and are living with leaky roofs and other signs of decay in their personal environment? I would venture a guess that we would be hard-pressed to find a Senator or member of Congress struggling to buy food or going without a doctor's care despite how seriously ill they may be. My solution is to vote no incumbent back into office in the next election. If they voted against my best interests I will vote against them.
There's more...I'll leave it for Part Three.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
