The average American Life Expectancy is at an all time high of nearly 78 years according to recently relaesed government figures.  Apparently, this is because of a drop in the death rate of two of America's leading causes of death: heart disease and stroke.  I find these statistics a bit fascinating because we seem to have an uncanny knack for coming up with the latest and greatest in self-destructive habits.  The worse part about this is that we are not becoming better at being less self-destructive, but only that we are becoming better at healing the damage our vices can cause...

One word... Moderation.

On Monday, July 23rd, the YouTube Democratic Debate was held on CNN.  It was perhaps the most interesting debate because the questions were quite unpredictable.  One question in particular set up a bit of contraversy.  A viewer sent in a question about whether or not the candidates would meet with certain national leaders like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and the like.  Barack Obama, said quite emaphatically that he would.  Whereas, Hillary Clinton said she would but only with a bit of advanced work being put in.  Later, Hillary Clinton said that Barack Obama was "irresponsible and naive" for his commitment to meet this type of leader without any kind of preset conditions.  However, I don't remember Barrak Obama saying that he wouldn't set conditions.  I just remember him saying that he would meet them, and I believe he did this to answer the question clearly and seperate himself from the Bush Administration and their policies.  Of course, it is a competition to become president and he gave Hillary Clinton some ammunition by being a bit too overly eager, and naturally she took the shot. What I really found interesting was a poll sponsered by AOL that asked 2 questions.  The first was which candidate came across better on the issue.  Hillary Clinton got 40% of the votes, Barack Obama received 35%, and Neither received 26% of the votes.  The second question was if a U.S. President should meet with enemies.  Yes, but with conditions received a landslide of 68%, while Unconditionally got only 17% and No only 15%.  What I find most interesting about the results is that while most people agree with Hillary Clinton's answer, not as much of a majority is willing to say that she came across better on the issue.  This leads me to believe that this is because these people are not willing to agree with her (or even Barack Obama in the case of the Neither votes) for some other reason.  Perhaps because or ethnicity, gender or personality issues.  I wonder if the actual Presidential Election will have similar results.  I wonder when personal quirks became more important that policies.  I wonder when the Presidential Election became a popularity contest.

Apparently it has now become the "in" thing to idolize and adore Paris Hilton.  I suppose I'm just not "in" because I really don't get it.  NBC is paying her one million dollars for the first crack at an interview when she gets out of jail.  I emailed NBC tonight and asked them if I could get fifty bucks if I could transcript the high point of the interview for them.  This is what I came up with:

Meredith Viera: "So what was it like serving 'hard time' in jail?  It must have been horrible for you."

Paris Hilton: "Yeah, it like totally sucked."

Meredith Viera: "Well, how did the orange jumpsuit look on you?"

Paris Hilton: "It's hot."

Seriously, this woman's claim to fame is a couple horrible movies, an incredibly pointless reality show, and internet released sex tapes.  How pathetic.  I, for one, will not be watching that interview.  I really could careless about anything this woman does.  I'm appauled that anyone would actually give her money to speak.  Is that what it has come to in order to entertain the masses?  Perhaps she isn't the one who's pathetic.  Perhaps it's the masses...

I can't sleep, so I'm going to rant for a bit... hence the title.  About twice a week, sometimes more, I have a conversation with a friend, a coworker, or a random person.  It goes something like this:

Random person: "You know, George Bush is a really lousy President.  I think he should be impeached.  He never should have been elected President."  Or something like that.

Me: "Oh, you voted for Kerry (or Gore)?"

R.P.: "No, I didn't vote."

And it's always the same excuse... that one vote doesn't matter. 

It's unbelievably frustrating.  I voted for Bush.  I have no problem admitting that.  I don't, however, think that Bush is a good President.  I voted for Bush because he said he would do something that was important to me.  Now, the reason that it's so frustrating to me is that the people that are complaining didn't bother to vote.  I understand that in some cases it's nearly impossible for a person to vote for one reason or another, but not everyone or even most people have a legitimate excuse.  One vote does matter, and this was proven in the Bush/Gore election.  The President is the person that has the single most influence over our daily lives.  Any person that doesn't have a legit excuse for not voting and still doesn't bother, has no right to complain about the President or the things that he (or she) does.  Complain if you didn't vote for him (or her) and he (or she) is doing something that you feel is wrong.  Complain if you did vote for him (or her) and they are letting you down in some way.  Complain if you didn't bother to vote, but only about the fact that you were too inconvenienced to take the time and effort to go and contribute to the election process.  Other than that,  just shut up and remember to vote in the next election.

I noticed in the Republican Debate tonight that most of the Republicans definately weren't as insync as the Democrats seemed to be.  The Democrats disagreed on certain issues in that they disagreed for the most part on how to go about it.  The Republicans, however, seemed to disagree on the end results quite a bit more.  Also, it wasn't at all a surprise that most of the Republicans had no real desire to stay on track about the Iraq conflict.  This was to be expected because the majority of Americans want to pull out of Iraq, whereas the Republicans want to "finish the job" as President Bush said.  Even I was swayed on this issue.  I definately think that we can no longer just pull out.  Tancredo quoted Benjamin Franklin when he was asked what the forefathers of our nation had given us and he responded "a republic, if we can keep it."  I think that's entirely accurate.  We should set a deadline to pull out and tell the Iraqi's that it's their nation now and we will be there to assist, but we won't continue to fight their battles for them.  Ron Paul was the only candidate that came out and said that Iraq was a mistake.   McCain, on the other hand, pointed fingers by saying that under the Clinton administration he didn't call the conflict in Bosnia "Clinton's war."  Well, that should have been obvious because we only went there as peacekeepers to stop genocide.  We went to Iraq under the premise that there were WMD's there because President Bush told us that they were there.  That's why it is, in fact, "Bush's war."  A very surprising comment was made by Tancredo when he announced that he wanted to stop all immigration for a while which is just insane being that our country is founded on the principles of coming here as immigrants when our forefathers arrived to pursue the American dream.  Tonight, I feel that Rudy Giuliani showed that he was very knowledgable and strong willed, while John McCain showed his strengths and was able to reach people in general.  Though the Republicans had some good ideas, I feel that Obama or Clinton is still the next President and very deserving of the job.

Tonight was the Democratic National Debate for New Hampshire.  It was quite interesting.  I was fairly sure that the main 3 would be the people that said anything that was really important that I agreed with.  The big 3 are, for those of you who dont know, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barrak Obama.  Realistically, the others were invited as a nicety.  Nobody really cares what they said, for the most part.  John Edwards proved why he shouldnt be the next president.  He immediately went on the attack against Clinton and Obama.  Personally, thats a sign of weakness because he knows hes third in the polls.  I think that for a presidential cantidate to have to resort to verbal attacks on the other candidates is ridiculous.  They should distinguish themselves and their ideas.  I was also a bit disappointed by the emphasis that was placed on Iraq.  As a voter, I was pretty sure before the debate that the Democrats would want to pull out of Iraq.  And thats exactly what they said.  We all knew they would.  So lets move on to emphasis the points and stances that we dont know about the candidates.  Iraq really, in my eyes, should have been deemphasised.  TELL ME WHAT I DONT KNOW ABOUT YOU NEXT TIME...  I look forward to the Republican Debate on Tuesday.  I hope that they discuss more than just Iraq.  I also have a pretty good idea on what their general ideas are.  Another disappointment was the fact that, though it was mentioned a couple of times, not a single question was asked in regards to environmental issues.  Im still conflicted as to the Democrat that I am pulling for.  Its definately Hillary Clinton or Barrak Obama.  This will require some research on my part.