This is Ridiculous

Alright, so I know I've been posting a lot, blah, blah, blah, but I need to tell this shit to someone, even if it's the Great Void known as the blogosphere. But really, telling the Great Void these things is just as good as telling my mother, who could probably care less (I don't blame her, of course; I repeatedly bring up subjects a normal person could care less about).

In any case, two atrocious things to report. First, Sarah Palin has reiterated her statement, for the second time, about what the role of the Vice President is:

"[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." (She was responding to a question fielded by a third grader.)

In contrast, here's what the Constitution says:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

And the U.S. Senate website says (bold added for emphasis):

"According to Article 1, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, 'The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.' Other than being prepared to succeed to the presidency if needed, the vice president's only constitutional role in government is to preside over the Senate."

So the VP, as per the Constitution, "presides" over the Senate (without power, however) and casts a tie-breaking vote. There are no other duties or powers granted explicitly or implicitly in that document. So when she says she's going to "be in charge" of the Senate, she's out of her mind - and this is the second time she has said this in a televised interview. I mean, what does "preside" even mean? Usually, the term is used to describe an honorary position on a committee/etc. or the person who mediates an event of some sort, without having actual power or duties other than mediation. So Palin is going to "be in charge of" something she only has the right to "preside" over. I'm a little confused as to what she does and does not know. Maybe it's all an act?

The other thing that spooked me is this: A 45 year old man was hunting with his dogs when a black bear mother rushed him, knocking him down repeatedly. He required stitches and bandages. What did he do? He killed the bear. He fought it off and found a big stick and beat its head in. Now, reading the story, I was sad, because the bear was clearly defending its young, which were nearby, but at the same time, should the hunter just let himself be killed? It's a tough pill to swallow, but obviously, the guy had to save his own life. He has given many heartfelt apologies for killing the bear, he feels awful.

But for some reason, animal-activists hate the guy. They are impersonating him in emails sent to media outlets, attacking him verbally, and harassing him at home. One lady called and asked "Why didn't you just run away?" to which he responded "you can't run away from a full grown black bear." (I would have added, "didn't you go to schooooool?") He is frustrated by all of this, as well he should be. It's ridiculous that in a situation like this we all can't feel bad for both sides and move on. The guy did nothing wrong, and he feels awful for the situation having to come down to his life or the bear's. It sucks, he admits it, we all admit, but don't harass the guy. All these people deserve t-shirts bearing the lines "King of the Douche Bags."