"Real" news

Now don't get me wrong; I'm as glad as anyone that we have entire websites dedicated to things such as Brittany Spears' couchie.  I like being able to pop on over to such upstanding reporting sites as OMG.yahoo.com.  That really helps inspire my confidence in the American people.  For the love of satan (it IS halloween), don't show me any usage figures for these websites.  Why the hell can't I visit the BBC or CNN website and not see some stupid custody shit for someone I don't care about or need to care about.  I mean, can you just let me pat myself on the back and feel like a concerned citizen?  Scrolling through the headlines I kinda get the feeling that I generally have a hold on world news.  And then I see that Brittany dyed her hair.  Great.  Is there a button somewhere I can click to make you go away?

I'm getting a bit tired of standard DC rhetoric.  From now on, just because you don't know what weapons a state has, if any, you can't just say "weapons of mass destruction."  I thought we were done with this shit after Iraq, but it seems to be coming back.  And not a moment too soon if you ask me.  I'm curious to see just how long the attention spans of Americans are.

Along the same lines, just because you don't know who you're trying to fight doesn't mean you can just call them terrorists.  Really?  Terrorists?  You have no idea who you're talking about do you?  Can we be any more vague?  We won't even worry about it being a somewhat loaded term to begin with.  

So from now on, when you're flipping through channels on Sunday morning and you see some senator say something about keeping the "terrorists" from getting their hands (if terrorists even have such things) on "weapons of mass destruction" you smile and realize that that guy (or Hillary) has no fucking clue what they're talking about.  But don't be too harsh, they've likely just stumbled into ambiguous rhetoric spewing mode.  It happens to the best of us.