I wonder why there is even any debate whatsoever for the bill from the state Senate labeled “Romeo’s Law” which would upgrade torturing a dog or cat from a misdemeanor into a felony.

I read somewhere that it has stalled in the House because of politics, which I must admit I can not understand in any way, shape or form. Is there some lobbyist out there representing a special interest that makes a profit off of dog and cat torture? Just where exactly does politics come into play here?

I think we should just sit down and agree that torture in any form is a bad thing and perhaps merits a little more than a slap on the wrist.

Take a look at the video of Romeo which spurred this bill in the first place and tell me that act doesn’t deserve some jail time. I was always under the assumption that torture was one of those things we don’t do in America. George Bush even told us so last year, so surely we should characterize any criminal charge that contains the word “torture” as felonious and hold those doing the torturing accountable.

Another argument I heard as to why it has stalled is that the second time it happens then it’s a felony, so there’s no need to have it be a felony the first time. Oh, so we should wait until someone starves and brutalizes a cat or dog for the second time before we really pay some attention to what this person is doing. That makes perfect sense.

This is one of those bills that should have gone quickly through committee, sailed through each chamber and gone straight to the governor, no questions asked. And then the governor should sign it. It seems that perhaps common sense isn’t that common after all in some circles in Frankfort.

Let me say this once and for all. It’s torture. It doesn’t matter if it’s a dog or cat. If someone can do this to another living creature, chances are it’s not that far from happening to another human being.

And speaking of human beings, it seems that one of our presidential candidates is an elitist. Don’t tell anyone or everyone will know.

Yes, it seems that Barack Obama, who was born to a working class family in Hawaii and grew up without a father, is an elitist of the highest order. Apparently he made some comments in the elite city of San Francisco that disparaged some Pennsylvania folk and it was all over with. In truth, what he said about people in small towns turning to religion and guns in the wake of lost jobs and a struggling local economy was a tad offensive. But it makes me wonder if that makes it any less true? Sometimes the truth hurts.

Let’s look at what he said for a second. It’s hard times in small town Pennsylvania. People in these towns turn to God or guns. Isn’t that pretty much what we always do? Some of us turn to God for hope and a hand up while others indeed turn to a life of crime when times get tough. Obama surely could have worded what he said differently, and indeed it makes rural America seem more like a backwards America and that urban citizens are for more civilized (cause they have no guns in big cities and crime is never a problem in big cities, right?) and for a second I was pretty offended, but let’s drop the McCain and Clinton rhetoric for a second and face facts. Some people are bitter at our government, and no amount of sniper fire Hillary’s supporters in Obama’s direction will change that.

And speaking of elitist, is there any more elite than Hillary Clinton? A former first lady and New York Senator who, along with her husband, earned $109 million in the past few years. Or how about McCain, who has been a ranking U.S. senator for a number of years and is making his second run at the most elite of elected offices. Let’s face it again. You sort of have to consider yourself to be elite just to run for the presidency. I doubt being humble would be a virtue that would serve you well in that office and get you a majority of votes in the first place.