Posts Tagged ‘WotD’

on & off topic

Ok, ok. It’s been a full week with no post. I am a bad monkey. Ook, ook.

Tucker: I’ve gotten nearly no writing done since last week. In my defense, it has been a very busy week – an out-of-town graduation, a bbq, a weekend (never get work done on the weekend anyway), and coming back to work on a Tuesday which tosses my rigid schedule into the blender. Fingers crossed, hopefully some writing today.

Word of the Day: schadenfreude – a malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others

I love this word. I always have. It’s fun to say and I’ll even cop to having experienced it myself on occasion. Today while signing in WordPress presented me with a “hawt post” that discusses schadenfreude. Now while I suspect that the author of The Angry Black Woman and I have precious little in common (I am exasperated and white), I applaud her for calling attention to the singular malicious act of one blogger and the larger issue that she is unfortunately not alone out there. It makes me sad and sick that there isn’t enough drama in day to day living that people feel the need to be asshats and pick on anyone different from them.

Politics: Scott McClellan’s hot news right now because instead of penning a soft, rosy memoir of good times at the White House with his buddy Dubya, he wrote a playbook for the Dems come the general election this fall.

The current administration is jumping up fast to say that McClellan wasn’t involved in high level decisions – um, duh? Press Secretary anyone? His job is to parrot what his Commander in Chief tells him to. Shocking, isn’t it, that he might not be given all the information on something so that he can present the best face for the administration? So why didn’t he leave earlier if these were his true feelings? Maybe because over time he had a change of heart. He’s been gone for two years, he isn’t still there.

That’s actually one of the things that bugs me most about Obama. He’s constantly reminding everyone that he’s been against the Iraq War since the beginning. That would hold weight for me but for the fact the he was not a member of the Senate at the time that decision was made. He’s always on Hillary’s case because she a) voted for war (as did the overwhelming majority of the Senate at the time) and b) she hasn’t apologized for voting for war.

So we are no longer allowed to believe something, go for it and change our minds later without apologizing to someone for it? Huh. Guess anyone who’s ever gotten a divorce needs to step up and say they’re sorry for having fallen in and out of love. Guess any politician who campaigned under a certain banner of change and then got schooled by his advisers or simple reality when he hit office should step up, too.

Seriously.

Anyway, this was supposed to be a short post to wave a hand and say “I’m still out here.” Oops.