Yeah, yeah, language is a living thing and all that, as such it evolves, or 'Darwinizes' if you must. I should think that would mean that when something new is discovered or produced, it shall be named. ipod comes to mind. And notice, even though it comes at the beginning of the sentence, it does't require capitalization for the same reason Coca Cola gets capital letters regardless where it comes in a sentence. I just made that up, but I'm probably right. Certain words are fairly well done evolving. Mostly they are nouns. An example would be; if a child pointed to a tree and called it a mountain, chances are they would be corrected: "No, that's a tree!".

If only it were that simple with adjectives and verbs. Of course, it's not. We learned that in first grade when someone called us a dweeb. Not really knowing what a dweeb was, and absolutely certain that the antagonist was dweebier than we were, chances are that we retorted with the classic 'same to you but more of it'. When the return came that he was rubber and you were glue, and what ever you said bounced off him and stuck to you, we were left with the dilema of where to go from there. The word 'escalate' probabaly didn't enter our vocabulary until some years later, so rather than straining our little mind for just the right word, we punched him in the nose. Things were simpler then.

Today, we deal in degrees of 'dweebocity'.  An example; lets say I am at a dinner party, and I have just been served the best tasting chicken dish I have ever eaten, and I want to convey that to the cook. I could say, "that was the best tasting chicken I have ever eaten", but is that really enough? Wouldn't saying instead, "that chicken is to die for", be a higher compliment? After all, saying the chicken was the best you ever tasted is indeed heady praise, but don't you think the cook would rather hear that you would be willing to risk death for more chicken? But wait, the martyr thing is impressive, but would you 'kill for more chicken'? What if another guest also liked the chicken , and would be willing to destroy the entire universe for more chicken? Kind of leaves your compliment in the dust, huh? I mean, if any one deserves more chicken, I believe that the person who is willing to destroy the entire universe should get it. Don't you? It just makes sense.

This is kind of silly, isn't it? But if you read or listen to media, you have been hyperbolized. Our language doesn't just evolve, it morphs! A confused, upset, distraught hollywood starlet might be having a total meltdown, your favorite team could lose a game and suffer a crushing defeat, and yet in neither case was a life was lost, nor even serious injuries sustained. Hmmmm. Some one started this escalation, and if I could find him, I would punch him in the nose. No, wait! I would punch him in the nose so hard, it would destroy the entire universe.

   Profiling is a bad word, right? It means side view of the face, among other definitions, and I obviously have no argument with that. So that's what I'm going to do here. Profile Speaker Pelosi. Has a nice ring to it. As much as I want to read up on her heritage, research the culture she came from, study her high school transcripts,  find out what she was like as a little girl and really understand her, I am going to restrain myself, and simply 'profile'.

   I'm going to be honest here. The moment she became the most powerful woman in the world, some how displacing Oprah, she frightened me. Right from the get go I had a bad feeling about Mrs. Pelosi. She reminds me very much of the kind of person who is bent on saving me from myself. I know. Harsh. But I said I was being honest. Her eyes seem to radiate ' I know what's best for you' beams. I had alot of teachers with eye beams, but they were generally of the 'you are getting very sleepy' variety, much less unsettling. Nancy's eyes tell me she knows what's best. I see not the least bit of doubt there. If that's not enough to scare the heebee jeebees out of a person, it should be. Now here's where a little research would have helped. I can't remember any particular thing she has said that was a clarion to me, but I do recall one time on TV she was saying how she was going to call the President over something the Vice President had said or done. I thought that was funny. Then I thought 'boy, I bet Cheney is gonna get it'. Having never actually been to the house that Pelosi is Speaker of, and having only a high school education, I doubt I have a clear understanding of what her job really entails. But looking at the situation from the side, and using sports metaphors, she's like the  quarter back and offensive line all in one. She gets to throw the ball to her team,  while blocking all but the intended receiver. Too much power for a grand mother of that many. (Remember, profile) That is worrisome.

   I am worried for President Obama. If Obama gets annoyed with the vice president for any reason and decides to shoot him, Nancy Pelosi will become the new vice president. And then what? Take this home with you, of those that would try to save us from ourselves, be afraid. Be very afraid.

I'm not sure it's a good thing to legislate common sense. For one thing, it kind of renders moot the whole idea of  'common sense'. The latest example that comes to mind is the 'no texting while driving ' laws going into effect in various states. And yet  those very same states have no specific law banning driving while doing crossword puzzles. Perhaps it's intuitive, not doing crossword puzzles while driving, where as texting is so new, our DNA hasn't had time to absorb all the latest technology, pass it on to our instincts, which then will let us know in a cognitive way, "bad". Until that time, (seemed to have happened rather quickly in the case of crosswords), we got the Law! Right here I better explain that I have enormous respect for the law. The Law. That's why in this case and others, I think the Law is misused. This kind of law is either unenforceable, or is subject to discretionary enforcement. And you know as well as I do that driving while texting is not intrinsically unsafe, that would depend entirely on the skill of the driver as a texter and as a driver, and, of course, circumstances. We live in an era of Massive Mindlessness. All things must be 'idiot proof'. So we get these kind of laws. Meaning that the cop can let his mood decide if you get a ticket.  Kind of like seat-belts. We already have a bunch of those kind of laws. They debase The Law. We have no problem breaking these laws for years. If and when we get a ticket, we wonder if cops don't have better things to do. Must be trying to make their 'quota'. Or whatever whiny thing that pops to mind when the 'Law' comes to visit. So now we have 'serious law', and 'not so serious law'. Why not just have one empirically comprehensive Felony Stupid Law. This would unclutter a lot of courts and eliminate the need for a great many lawyers. I'm sure there must be a downside, but I can't think of it right now.

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but for those of you not quite sure what constitutes 'Media Bias, or how a story can be 'spun', here is a perfect example: I'm watching ABC Nightly News with Charlie Gibson. The story is about a school in Gaza that had been fired on by Israeli forces. The school was being used as a designated U.N. shelter for Palestinian children and and Palestinian non-combatants, and the reporter, (Scott Soucutto?) told us that the facility was G.P.S. marked and everything, all the while video of dead and seriously injured women and children were being shown, and a Palestinian man was bewailing the loss of his entire family. A lot of people died, a lot of people were hurt. A horrible scene. When asked how could Israel do such a thing, an Israeli woman in uniform said rockets were being fired from the school. Then right back to more video of a very unfortunate scene. The idea that perhaps rockets  actually were being  fired from the school never comes up. I suggest that if that question were asked, that might lead to thinking about 'what kind of people use civilians as human shields'? Why does it seem not much of a stretch to imagine this of the kind of people that strap explosives on their children and send them out to kill the infidels. I must have missed any official U.N. person coming forward to dispute the Israeli woman's claim. Most of the time you can tell serious liberal spin not by the questions they ask, but by the questions they don't  ask. I am not a Jew. I don't know what really happened. I don't think the reporter did either. I don't know why ABC wants me to think good is bad and bad is good, but they often do. Now to show you my bias; The barbarians are at the gate and Israel is answering.