I should warn y'all that I'm having a particularly bad day today. I had two bouts of sleep paralysis last night (that's a whole separate blog), which resulted in about four hours of sleep for me. Then, I had to wait 50 minutes to get in to see a dentist this morning (not even the dentist I wanted to see). And, my poor sister had to tell me about two deaths in the last three days. One was a friend from church back in California - he and I enjoyed the same nine-month class together, where we all spent some great time exploring our own faith journeys together. His sudden death at age 47 completely sucks, and I can't begin to understand what his family is going through. And then, I found out this morning that my aunt died last night, which majorly sucks because she took care of me for a while many many moons again when I was the tiniest of squirts and both parents were working.
And, I really wanted just one full frickin' year without a death in the family, so GGRRRrrrrrr!
Now, my sister is going through these same deaths, and she has been very thoughtful about these experiences. She even wrote some very uplifting thoughts after she found out my classmate had died. I think, once I've had time to settle down a little (and sleep), I may be able to view this week a little more positively.
But for now, I feel like ranting randomly.
So these are my three rants for the day:
Rant # 1) Where the hell does Bill O'Reilly get off thinking he can determine someone's intent from facial expressions and intonations from a 20-second film clip? Give me a freaking BREAK! You can speechify at me. You can parse out the facts you choose to report. You can spew your own statistics that make it sound like you have science and public sentiment on your side. But, you go on the air with some sort of professional face-reader, and suddenly you, Bill O'Reilly are an expert. And you listen to the words a man says in an interview and YOU decide the guy is smug. Or angry. Or confrontational. Even when the expert face-reader is making a different conclusion, you've just decided that the man's intonation proves he is confrontational. Give me a break. If you are going to proclaim yourself an expert face-reader of human beings, you better not ever rampage against people who consult psychics. Or read tea leaves.
Rant # 2) I hate corporate greed. I know it is already all over the news, but I hope the executives (past and present) at Halliburton realize there is a special warm spot in Hades for them when they finally shuffle off this mortal coil. As if profiteering from a manufactured war is not enough, they are accused of abusing their no-bid government contracts in Iraq worth billions of dollars. Their profits in 2006 were $2.3 billion on revenues of $22.6 billion. They had 22.6 billion dollars worth of work in 2006. And federal investigators have alleged that Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of the $10 billion in contractor waste and overcharging in Iraq. That's taxpayers money there. So, how do they perpetuate the corporate greed and corruption? They propose to move their headquarters to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Now, they will still be incorporated in the United States, so one may argue the move is not just for potential tax breaks (no corporate or employees taxes in the UAE). But with your CEO, and many many corporate files, in the UAE, it may be much easier to avoid and/or hinder government investigations into wrongdoings by the company.
Either way - the U.S. awards you huge no-bid contracts paid for by taxpayer money, and you shift your operations to a foreign country to possibly avoid taxes and criminal prosecution?? Including ongoing investigations into alleged bribes paid to the Nigerian government? Warm spot in Hades, I tell you.
Rant # 3) Finally, along the lines of corporate greed, I'm glad to hear that the makers of Gardasil have stopped lobbying states for mandatory vaccinations of their drug. While I am glad this vaccine is available, and I'm not really going to jump into the mandatory-vaccination debate, I think it's galling that the drug company is the one doing the lobbying. Let the medical profession make that decision. But, I was reading an article about the vaccine today - which, by the way, I think it’s a misnomer to call it a cancer vaccine. It certainly will help prevent many instances of cervical cancer, but it is a vaccine for a virus that leads to 70-percent of cervical cancers. That is great, in and of itself, so why can't people say that, instead of touting a cancer vaccine? Anyway, I'm reading this article and it ends by saying that the makers of the drug, so far, can show that protection lasts at least five years. AT LEAST FIVE YEARS??? I don't think Brian Williams, Katie Couric, or Charles Gibson reported that the vaccine only lasts five years when they touted the new "cancer" vaccine for a sexually-transmitted disease that some legislators want to make mandatory for 11- and 12- year old girls. Five years! What a great racket for the drug company!! Start at age 11, and come back for booster shots, as needed, for just $120 a dose. No freakin’ kidding they are lobbying for mandatory vaccinations. Do you know how many shots that is?? Five year vaccine, my arse. Now....maybe if the booster shots are free.
