The World According to Me.

Well even a broken watch is right twice a day, and so was Obama after all with Libya. It seems the non-use of ground troops (which I agreed with) and GOP officials buttressed by DoD disagreed with, was the right way to go. Though it could hardly be called a no-fly zone effort, since NATO routinely bombed convoys of troops not aircraft, and it was lead by the French, it proved a very successful way to increase the odds of one side in a Civil War. Now you can debate back and forth the legitimacy of a win when you had overwhelming force on your side, but the Rebels are now in charge and Libya will see a new chapter in their history opened after 42 years. Whether that chapter is a good one or bad one remains to be seen. To all of those that would say "well the US forced regime change" the same could have been argued by many European nations a few centuries ago, circa 1776; when without the aid of the French, the 'rebels' in the colonies would have lost to England and the...

As media has grown more and more outlets have allowed for 'responses' to their articles or posts. Here is the thing, this does nothing more than make people look ignorant and rude. When you read some of these threads, which I can rarely make it through, you'll find that they all lead in with some rude dialogue that is then expounded upon. Really, do we need this? It would have made the media outlet look more credible to simply not allow responses from the masses.

CNN, which is suppose to be a news organization, runs interesting polls from time to time and depending on the outcome they want, lets the poll run for a certain time span. Take their latest poll "Who do you back, the Tea Party or OWS protesters?" Well, CNN wasn't happy when the original poll had the numbers too close so they've let the poll ride for about 4-5 days. Since then the margins have been set at somewhere around 70/30 in favor of the OWS. What seems lost here is the fact that anyone in the world can vote in this poll; yet that will not stop CNN from quoting it at some point with the caveat "not scientific"; as if a scientific poll of 1400 people somehow tells you the pulse of the nation. Anyway, point is....well...I'm not quite sure but I do think it is interesting that they choose certain topics to 'let ride'.

So the Wallstreet Protesters (WSP) are being compared to the Tea Party; aside from the very obvious differences in resources, occupations, financial status, age, education, focus, etc., there is one glaring commonality and that is the disdain for corporate welfare. This is actually a trait that both groups share. And, since the RNC and DNC have backed either part of the spectrum, I'd love to see a joint Tea Party WSP rally discussing corporate welfare. This would seriously shake the established leaders as they have backed and mocked the parties. What WSP probably doesn't realize is how much they agree with the Tea Party. Consider this, the Tea Party is against government involvement (aka, bailouts), the Tea Party was against Union Bailouts, which if the WSP paid attention, they'd realize it is exactly that which was the genesis of the Chrysler and GM bailouts. The WSP should also have a problem with the recent billions spent on "Solar failures", though that migh...