election time yet again

Okay so coming off Tuesday with a huge win for mainly the GOP with Scott Brown in Massachusetts (twitter @ScottBrownMA), a seat firmly in place in Democrat control for nearly 40 years (by the same guy nonetheless) this marks the next page in the re-birthing of the Republican party beginning to be written (notice I said page not chapter, his tenure in office will determine if he gets a paragraph or a chapter or more).

However, this being the 2000's people seem to have forgotten what winning means, so let me give a definition. Winning is when two or more people or teams are competing one team earns more points than the others at the completion of the game's alloted time; at which point anyone who is not declared the winner is thus the LOSER. I'm sorry but apparently people in america don't like to lose so they've eliminated the word from the majority of american dialect. Losing is something that happens in sports and politics just the same. Both sides "fight" furiously to the bitter end in hopes of being declared the winner and earning your title or trophy. In baseball it's the World Series; football the Lombardi trophy; hockey it's the Stanley Cup; in politics however it's a seat or title like Governor or President. Losing in any arena is not an easy thing to do and losing does make you appreciate winning that much more. I should know I lost my share of hockey games in my playing days, and nothing felt better than winning except winning big, and that was only topped by shuting out your opponent.

In sports if you lose the "big game" the news reporters will still be right there with a mic under your nose wanting to know "what happened out there?" or "what could you have done differently?" In politics its a little bit different... if it appears there's no way for you to come back to win, you concede defeat, or give up. In conceding there's still a bouquet of microphones awaiting your very words of defeat, and yet congratulating your opponent and thanking your endless team of people who worked their butts off for you and your shot at that seat, but everyone loves to hear the victory, 'WE DID IT' speech.

Living in St. Louis which in 2000 was voted the number 1 sports city by Sports Illustrated if I'm not mistaken, we've had our share of teams make it to championship games. The Cardinals have won the second most World Series to only the New York Yankees, the Blues had the longest streak of consecutive playoff appearances and had the Stanley Cup won on their home ice in 1968, 1969, and 1970, and the Rams went 3-13 in one season to go on to win the Super Bowl the next year, and 2 years later lost in the Super Bowl. Yet here, we always allowed the eventual winners to have their "We Did It" speech and sat and listened, whether in disbelief or shock or genuine, honest respect for the opposing team and the effort they put into their game, as should be the case. So then why did MSNBC and CNN deem it okay to air all of Martha Coakley's defeat speech and cut Scott Brown's celebratory speech. Johnny Dollar's site goes into the figures of how long they kept Senator-Elect Brown's speech on and can be found here: http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/ilc285709320.html

It's not like it was a big deal cause that was Ted Kennedy's seat for so long but they had another more important election to get to; it was the only one that day so why not give it more pop than usual? The only certain thing when that started was that someone was going to lose, and someone was going to win.

it's been a while

Okay so I know it's been a lil bit since I've posted but I feel it's about time. I've had some personal things to take care of and get straight recently and now that those are done it's time to get back to posting.

So what have I missed? Fort Hood terrorist? Nope I caught that one. I'm still just trying to figure out why he's being treated better than someone arrested for GTA right now, but then again, I'm not in law enforcement so what really do I know.

Navy Seals catching a terrorist suspect and busting his lip in the process, yep caught that one. I wish I had it on camera so it could be shown in court that they didn't cause excessive physical harm to the poor delicate flower of a terrorist they caught. Geezo, the poor sap's lucky he doesn't have a bullet hole through his head right now. 4 American soldiers catch one of the top wanted terrorists and have the restraint to not shoot him a bazillion times, but to bring him in to be tried in a military court and then they get all that thrown at them. Wow, makes you wonder what would have happened if they had to use real force to bring him in and would have broke his arm or dislocated his shoulder.

Massachusetts Senatorial race? Nope been hearing about that one too. I feel this race is more pivotal than the other races that have happened since BHO has taken office as Mass is known as a "democratic" seat and a guaranteed vote for anything liberal or pro-Democrat. If (and I hope when) Scott Brown wins it will mark the second shift in the tides with the first being the tea parties and other various "gatherings" that have happened in the world since the media's promotion of BHO to the office of POTUS.

Haiti earthquake? Nope I did manage to hear about that one through the cracks too. While I do feel for the people of Haiti and understand and realize they're in a time of need right now, there is a limit on how much people are capable to do. Am I able to give $50,000 to donate to relief/help efforts in Haiti no. Would I like to be able to and know it won't effect my personal budget for me and my family, heck yes I would, and anyone who wouldn't is crazy. However there has to be a fine line between giving to benefit a person or group of people who have had a disaster hit them and helping someone to destroy yourself and your family.

Next time you go to write that check with a comma in it for a disaster relief think about this... How many disasters could happen in America without any other country in the world batting an eyelash at it, but once it happens somewhere other than America... If we're not banging down the door to give aid to other countries until it hurts we're the villains. Where's the balance at? Yes I do realize there's people who's life work is to help those who are in disaster areas their whole life and help them out, and there's also those people who are tightfisted and won't give up a dime to help those people even though they bring the collection basket around to them, they don't even have to get up to do it. So why isn't there a balance in how the aid is produced between countries also?