So, Um, How Expected Is That, Anyway?

Moving away from atheism and politics and towards my vagina, I have a question: just how expected is a nearly bare genital area these days?

Concurrent with my kidney infection, I had a severe allergic reaction* to the wipes provided with urine sample kits (stay the fuck away from castile soap wipes, is my advice. really far away.), and by "severe" I mean "there was blistering and my external genitalia swelled to the point where the skin tore apart in places from said swelling." If you are ever offered a choice between a kidney infection and a severe allergic reaction on your genitals, take the kidney infection. It's less painful and it clears up quicker.

Anyway, during the followup visit to the followup visit, my gynecologist told me that I need to let my pubic hair grow out in order to protect my "external structures" because "that's what pubic hair is for."

So, in the unlikely event I ever have to date again (I sincerely hope not, mostly because I have always hated dating), and given that I can't very well do it in the 70s, how expected is barely there pubic hair? Do people really freak out as much as they did about Sasha Grey's "full bush"? I mean, do people really look at pubic hair and think "disgusting!" in real life?

"Yea she had a sicko BUSH"

"Entourage was wild. So was Sasha Grey's bush"

and "did anyone else think that was disgusting. ITS 2010!" **

More than that, how much policing of my body do I really need to take? Used to be, shaving one's bikini zone was quite enough. (And rigidly enforced in the locker room in high school, let me tell you.) Now I have to get all crazy about a body part nobody sees, and, in fact, a body part I can't see without a mirror. Should I carry around a doctor's note or just pretend I'm striking a blow for feminism?

Normally, I don't take advice from porn stars***, but I guess I'll just comfort myself with Sasha's response:

"A lot of bush comments after tonight's #Entourage episode. If you're curious...that's what a grown woman looks like. Besides, I shave where it counts. I'm happy to contribute to making it ok again:) All 'fashions' have their cycles!"

*Initially, I thought it was an allergic reaction. Then it was misdiagnosed as genital herpes. Then I pointed out that was impossible, then it became "you must have transferred mouth herpes to your genitals." Then, when the tests came back negative for both, we were back to allergic reaction.

**None of these people can spell. Coincidence?

***I feel the same way about people who wear jeggings, so don't think it's the sex work, per se.

This Says More About You

I keep a lot of right wing blogs in my reader and a few days ago I starting seeing posts comparing and contrasting President Obama on a bike to former presidents on bikes and horses.

This is manly, reassuringly so.


This is not.




I couldn't figure it out. Why are former President Bush's pasty thighs "reassuringly manly"? Why is President Obama not manly, reassuringly or otherwise? I, personally, can't see a difference between the two pictures. To me, that looks like "guy on a bike" and "another guy on a bike".

Then I remembered something. You see, I don't think that the blogger responsible for "reassuringly manly" is a raving white supremacist. I don't even think that most teabaggers have Nazi flags hanging in their living rooms. In fact, I think most of these people would be quite indignant at the thought, and not fake indignant, either. Honestly indignant.

The thing that I remembered? Unconscious Racial Bias.

Scientific
research has demonstrated that biases thought to be absent or extinguished
remain as "mental residue" in most of us. Studies show people can be consciously
committed to egalitarianism, and deliberately work to behave without prejudice,
yet still possess hidden negative prejudices or stereotypes.

In other words, while you may be committed to a racially neutral worldview, you automatically view a white man as manlier, more presidential and all around better than a black man. So when you see those two pictures, which are virtually identical, you identify former President Bush as "reassuringly manly" and President Obama as embarrassing.

This says nothing about President Obama, but it does say a whole lot about you. Unfortunately.

It's the Demographics, Stupid.

civil rights, GOP, republican, bush,
I can never decide if the GOP is extremely shortsighted or remarkably stupid when it comes to minorities in this country*. If they are extremely shortsighted, then they simply don't care that the percentage of white citizens is falling while the percentage of nonwhite citizens (including everything from black to Pacific Islander) is rising. Sure, you can still win a national election on the white vote alone- today. That's not always going to be true. Perhaps the GOP is simply too stupid to evaluate simple demographics, though you'd think someone in the party is intelligent enough to do so.

I mention this due to the revelation that the GOP, beginning with Reagan and continuing through W. Bush, watered down civil rights enforcement. Although, when it comes to Dubya, perhaps the word I am looking for is "venal".

In dry statistics and even drier prose, a report released last week by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) spells out how sweeping that effort became. The Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division veered away from challenging "at-large election systems" that marginalized African-Americans and focused on language discrimination against Spanish speakers. The Employment Litigation Section moved away from so-called pattern or practice cases (suits that took on widespread or systematic discrimination) in favor of individual complaints. ("Plenty of individual lawyers can bring these individual discrimination cases," pointed out Alan Jenkins, executive director of The Opportunity Agenda, a New York–based nonprofit; but only the Justice Department can pursue certain big cases that can make a real difference.) Bush's Justice Department was also particularly sensitive to discrimination against white males. In 2007 the division filed a suit against Indianapolis for favoring African-Americans and females over white males for promotion to police sergeant.

Good luck with that, GOP.


*The National Tea Party Convention, being sponsered by a known hate group, is both.

The Wrong Bug

My butterfly bush, finally living up to its name. Prior to this point, it was more aptly named the "Really Big Bee Bush".

A few notes on butterfly bushes:

They get really big. In June, this thing was 1' x 1.5'. Now it's 6'x8'.

You have to trim the dead flowers off, or you don't get new flowers. I didn't know this, so for 2 months, my butterfly bush had no flowers. Within a week and a half of trimming off all the dead flowers, it had dozens of flowers again.

Poor Is the New Rich

republican, democrat, bush, clinton, poverty, health care,

Here's what I can't figure out about all the people who want their country back: the United States declined under President Bush. Declined. So, what they want back is decreasing wages and increasing poverty? What?

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

. . .

Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.

. . .

Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.

The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.

. . .

The story is similar again for access to health care. When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent.

So, under Bush, 21% more children entered poverty, 20.6% more people lost access to healthcare, median income fell 4.2%, and all this after the exact same numbers had improved under Clinton.

I want my country back, too- the way it was when Bill Clinton was President.

I Have a Vagina- There Is Some Maintenance Involved

vagina, schick, bush, catholic, outrage

In case anyone missed it, I have a vagina. And labia. And a clitoris. And pubic hair. But not an appendix.

I prefer to keep my pubic hair trimmed down, though not entirely shaved. I like the way it looks, I like the way it feels, and since it's my body, I can do what I want with it. What anyone else chooses to do with their pubic hair (male of female) is entirely up to them. I can understand not wanting to discuss your own, or other people's, pubic hair, but we all have pubic hair. There's nothing dirty or vulgar about pubic hair, any more than there is something dirty or vulgar about toenails or eyelashes.

Unless you're Patrick Archbold and a group of Catholic commentors, in which case a harmless Schick ad (above) is the END OF THE WORLD. If you can't view the ad, women walk by topiaries, and as they walk by, the topiaries go from overgrown to neatly trimmed in a variety of shapes. It's not the slightest bit vulgar, and I can't believe a child would have a clue what that was about. I really can't imagine a less offensive way to promote a product designed to be used to trim pubic hair. (A product I now want, because I gotta tell you, sharp scissors have their risks.)

The UK ad is a little more suggestive, though I wouldn't consider it vulgar, and no resident of the UK would, either. (They're a little more . . . open across the Atlantic.)

Patrick, however, is left boggled.

The US version of the ad, while slightly less explicit is in the same vain. I saw this ad during prime time on a cable channel. It boggles the mind how any network would accept an ad like this during prime time, or any time for that matter. This one is called "Bushes."

Women are obviously the target audience for these vulgar and disgusting ads. I highly recommend that if you are currently a Schick customer that you immediately cease purchasing their products and that you let them know why. Ads like this have no place on television. If you see one of these ads, I also suggest that you contact the network responsible and complain.

Women, and their dirty, nasty vaginas, are the target audience! Their dirty, disgusting, filthy vaginas that should never be seen or thought of. Ever!

Oh, and in the same vein.

Patty-kins channels me in the first comment: Ewwwww. Just the suggestion of those icky women's naughty parts! Yucky! Now I'll never be able to pretend my wife is the highschool quarterback tonight.

NC Sue overuses the sarcastiquotes: Our "culture" isn't very cultural at all, but crude. Yes, the ads are offensive, and yes, I will steer clear of Schick. For one thing, if it's a quality product, it can be sold without resorting to ads like this. For another, I'm simply tired of vulgarity. And finally, as you say, ads like this have absolutely NO place on prime time. Nor does nasty language or thinly veiled sex on our sitcome.

Susan doesn't use that razor. That particular razor.: This just reaffirms my decision to not have TV service. And I'm glad I don't use that razor.

Scott W apparently knows the location of the mouth of Hell: Solution to television crassness:

1. Unplug TV.

2. Load TV into suitable vehicular conveyance. a fucking car, dude?

3. Drive to mouth of Hell.

4. Drop TV in it.

5. Never look back.

Maurisa may be suffering from swine flu (because there's nothing nauseating about topiary): Ewww! I actually may not have caught onto the American version of the ad until seeing the British one. Makes my stomach churn.

Arthur may have missed the point (especially considering where cute little babies come from): We're not allowed to get pro-life ads showing cute little babies on television but they can put ads on about trimming their nether regions into heart shapes? not to belabor the point, but how on earth could i trim my labia into a heart shape? you trim the hair, dude, not the region.

I understand that some people will be offended by anything, but I would like to point out that all women have vaginas, labias and pubic hair. There is nothing offensive, vulgar or disgusting about women's (or men's) bodies, nor in the upkeep of said bodies. Morons.

Why Atheists Care

blackwater, bush, war, iraq, religion, gog, magog, hussein, eric prince, Jaques Chirac, christianity, evangelical
4,000 US soldiers have died thus far in Iraq. Around 100,000 Iraqis have died. Over $600,000,000,000 has been spent on the war in Iraq. Thus far, no one's come up with a particularly good reason why.

There were no WMDs in Iraq, and evidence has shown that nobody ever really believed there were. Al Queda wasn't operating in Iraq until after we invaded. In fact, Saddam Hussein was a fairly secular Middle Eastern leader.

Now it seems we may know the answer, and it demonstrates, with horrifying clarity, why atheists care so very much about the merging of religion and politics.

According to former French President Jaques Chirac, Bush cited religious reasons for invading Iraq. Apparently, Bush was attempting to prevent the famed Gog-Magog War some evangelicals believe is prophesied in the book of Ezekiel. Really.

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

. . .

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

. . .

The French revelation jibes with other known aspects of Bush’s renowned evangelical certitude. For example, a few months after his phone call to Chirac, Bush attended a 2003 summit in Egypt. The Palestinian foreign minister later said the American president told him he was “on a mission from God” to defeat Iraq. At that time, the White House called this claim “absurd.”

Absurd, yes. Untrue? I fear not. We may very well be involved in a modern day Crusade, especially given the latest revelations concerning Eric Prince and Blackwater. According to one of two anonymous affidavits filed in the last few days:

John Doe 2 alleges that Mr Prince operated a web of companies to “obscure wrongdoing, fraud and other crimes . . . to avoid detection of his money laundering and tax evasion schemes.” He adds that Mr Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe [and] intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder ­Iraqis.”

In a bizarre addition, John Doe 2’s affidavit says: “Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades” and refers to a “wife swapping and sex ring” run by “Mr Prince’s North Carolina operations”.

We need to fight against the conflation of religion and politics, religion and policy, religion and war. You and I (for my US readers) may well be the owners of a Crusade, and I don't really think "Oh, my bad" is going to cover this one.

Oh, Noes- Jon Stewart Uses a Teleprompter!

teleprompter, stewart, obama, bush, wingnut, conservative, liberal, asshat, stupid,
Apparently, somebody doesn't know how comedy, or the news for that matter, works.

Latest Teleprompter Scandal:

Richard Baehr

Andrew Breitbart, who navigated the Bill Maher show, has now also visited the Jon Stewart show. Turns out Jon is another big fan of teleprompters, which feed him the material prepared by a dozen writers. And to think folks believe these "comedians" are just so clever in their own right.

Comedians do not get up on stage and just start talking. Jokes are always written in advance, and plenty of comedians do not write their own jokes. In fact, shows like Stewart's, Conan O'Brien's, etc., always employ a group of writers. This isn't newsworthy, surprising or scandalous. Of course, neither is Obama's use of a Teleprompter. (Bush's use of a Teleprompter at least qualified as amusing.)

More on the Tea Party Asshattery

tea bag, tea party, teabag, teabagging, conservative, liberal, obama, bush, spleenweasel, asshat, stupid,
The Washington Monthly as an excellent look at another part of the tea party silliness that has been bothering me: these spleenweasels weren't mailing anyone bags of Lipton when Bush was spending money and driving the US government into a deficit (not to mention taking away civil liberties, starting wars and ordering torture).

Now we're less than 3 months into the first black President's term and spending money is BAD! Taxes are BAD! Civil liberties are GOOD!

Seriously, bite me.

Outside the Beltway's Alex Knapp, a libertarian, took a look at some of these events and came up with some important observations. Knapp noted, for example, the fact that most "Tea Party" participants will get a tax cut from Obama, so it's kind of difficult to believe them when they say they feel put upon. For that matter, "Tea Party" cheerleaders didn't mind excessive government spending when it was going to an unnecessary war in Iraq. He concluded:
Let's call the "tea party" and "going Galt" nonsense what it is: unprincipled partisan hackery. If these were truly principled protests, they'd have been around all through the Bush and Republican-controlled Congress years, too.

Quite right. It's no doubt inconvenient for this crowd, but a Republican Congress and Republican White House worked together to increase the debt by $5 trillion, expand the size of government, increase spending, increase the tax burden on the middle class, and expand the powers of the executive to undermine civil liberties. The some people attending "Tea Parties" not only cheered these GOP policymakers on, but voted to keep them in office as long as possible. (Indeed, many condemned those who disagreed, accusing liberals of "treason" for failing to support elected leaders during a crisis..)

Literally just two months into a Democratic administration, far-right activists are now holding public protests? They're mad about deficits and a loss of "liberty"?

I almost feel sorry for the folks who get conned into believing this nonsense.

God Needs a Missile Guidance System

graham, obama, bush, liberal, religion, christian, god, jesus, stupid, bigotry, racism, satan
I find people who blame all misfortune and tragedy (brush fires, earthquakes, tsunamis) on the victims especially disgusting. They're in the same realm as people who ask a rape victim, "Well, what were you wearing?"

I also can't figure out why religious leaders do this. Are they trying to convince me how powerful their god is? They can't possibly be trying to convince me that this entity is just or loving. Maybe they're trying to frighten me into worshipping? (Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences)

Sorry, conversion fail.

Rejecting God’s Final Messenger
By Ron Graham

Our nation is facing the worst economic recession, or depression, in years since the Great Depression; its that should be it's being said that America is experiencing a crisis of historical magnitude. historic, and yes it is. Americans have lived with the mindset of “Get it while you can” or “Gain everything you can today, for tomorrow we die, and after that, nothing”. uh, yeah. it had nothing to do with deregulating Wall Street or anything. It's the average Joe and his unconscionable need for a bigger TV. asshat. But now, as our country struggles to stay afloat, many are losing jobs as well as homes, autos, retirement securities….the list goes on and on. i truly hate phrases like "the list goes on and on". Does Mr. Graham get paid by the word? With what most pundits are touting as the reasons behind this most destructive economic era one would think they’ve got it all figured out and the fix is in. what? doesn't the "fix is in" refer to cheating? and yes, we do know what caused it. fixing it is an entirely different matter.

In general they say it’s the banking and housing markets that are the culprits. well, yeah. Actually, as you might have guessed by now, I have a different view of what ails this nation. yes, but that's because we all know you're freakin' crazy. We’ll never hear any of the secular news agencies actual journalists come within a millimeter a millimeter is the smallest unit of measurement most people use. i think you mean "a mile". or, if we're sticking with the metric system, "a kilometer". of what is really happening to this country. America is and has been rejecting the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for years now. what about Ishmael? Same god, Mr. Graham, like it or not. Rejection of God, as the husbandman found out in Jesus’ parable above, will bring swift retribution.

and this is where the explanation entirely falls apart. first of all, the financial crisis is not restricted to the US. I'm sure a xenophobe like Graham is unaware of this, but since all the financial markets are intertwined, problems in one causes problems in all. This financial crisis is now global.

Graham's proposal is that the US is ungodly, and this has pissed god off. God is now paying us back by making everyone in the world suffer. (see: the Ten Plagues) Not everyone in the world pissed him off, but apparently collateral damage is perfectly acceptable to the omnipotent ruler of the universe. Think about that for a second. The US military has missiles that can go through one specific window of a building, miles away from the launch site, but god can't punish a few people without punishing everyone.

God is less powerful than the US military. Thanks for clearing that up.

What follows next is so ridiculous, it satirizes itself. Keep in mind, Mr. Graham is talking about an omnipotent, omniscient being that created the entire freakin' universe in six days, but apparently has the emotional maturity of a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old bipolar girl. A 13 year old bipolar girl on meth.

Rejection can be an awful feeling. At some point in our lives we’ve probably all felt the sting of rejection. Mostly we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and keep going. What about God? How do you think He feels when His creation rejects Him? He’s offered us His Son as a sin sacrifice, a free gift if you will, and for the most part He’s been rejected. Do you think God ever gets over the sting of rejection? Do you think He enjoys watching while this Christ rejecting world falls deeper and deeper into the realm of unbelief?

Wow. So, we pick ourselves up and move on, but god- GOD- punishes the entire world regardless of whether or not they rejected his free gift of a "sin sacrifice*". That's just amazing. According to Mr. Graham, if I offer someone a cookie, and they refuse to take it, I have to right to blow up Disneyland.

What follows next is even more ridiculous. (for the record, Obama has never called himself the messiah, or a savior, or anything else. In fact, it was Rush Limbaugh and his cohorts who first started calling Obama "the Messiah". So now, Graham is upset that people who hate Obama call him "the Messiah". For Obama to even respond by saying "stop that" would give way too much credence to what others are saying. Get over it.)

No man being voted into office by a simple majority of folks can or should ever make claim to the title of messiah just because some misguided individuals have placed it upon him. But we currently have a man who is enjoying his reign as king of our land. we do not have a king. we have a president. This man currently sits in the office of the president of the United States . He never denies the title of savior or messiah whenever it is placed upon him. by idiots like rush limbaugh. asshat. He never rebukes those who attempt to crown him with those titles. because even saying "stop that, you asshat" is giving it too much attention. Wouldn’t you call that a rejection of the truth, the truth of who really is entitled to claim the exalted position of Messiah? oh, puh-lease. and if that is true, then it's asshats on your side that started it. good job.

Skip a little and we get a funny misinterpretation of history.

In Jesus’ day, those who supposedly had studied the scriptures hated Him and despised Him and treated Him as a criminal. He was a threat to the power structure, of course they hated him. Look what eventually happened to the Roman Empire. (they didn't need more morals, they need more lions.) What I find funny about this is that Graham is being threatened in the exact same way. He feels that the existing power structure of the religious right is being threatened, so he is attacking that threat. Welcome to irony, Mr. Graham. Today there are many who hate Him and despise Him who’ve never even cracked open a Bible. bullshit. show me a person in the US who has never been exposed to christianity, and i'll show you a recent immigrant from India or Iran. most atheists stopped believing after reading their bibles closely. "god kills little babies for no good reason" is not an inducement to worship for me, anyway. If He were to present Himself to them today in the flesh they would treat Him as a criminal and they would kill Him all over again. that's a theologically confusing image. There is only one way to understand this hatred, it is satanic. and we're back to the old standby: if you don't agree with me, you must worship satan.

Satan has a huge influence on this nation and on all nations of this world because he is the prince of this world. People follow him now just as they always have, knowingly or not. His influence is far reaching, even to the White House and the US president. Wow, we've gone from "Obama isn't Christian" to "Obama worships Satan". I wonder if we'll hit "Obama is the antichrist" soon.

The people are enamored by Obama, but did you ever wonder why? no, i'm not a racist fundy. What did Obama have that the other candidates lacked? ideas? There are powers and principalities behind this man that the normal American can’t possibly discern, Satan! especially those who are without faith in God. A recent news article stated that at the time of Obama’s inauguration 80% of Americans polled were behind him, but that number has dropped to 65% today, at the writing of this commentary. what was Bush's approval rating when he left office? 23%? something like that. Obama hasn’t even been in office a month. The lad just say "boy" and get it over with. doesn’t seem to be holding up well at all. Of course a king will just have those who appose him eliminated without a second thought. that's right- he just accused Obama, apropos of nothing at all, of murdering people who disagree with him.

So there you have it, Obama is a murderous Satan worshipper and god punishes everyone for no apparent reason.

*Please, please, please, explain to me why god needed to sacrifice himself to himself to change a rule he himself made?

How Bush Got Elected

conservative, republican, bush, religion, obama, porter (I'm testing something I heard about searchability, please ignore. If you can't ignore, please let me know.)

Well, now I know how Bush got elected: Janet Porter, Bush apologist, uncompassionate conservative, religious zealot, was part of the recount team. (Shouldn't that sort of work be done by people a little less biased?)

She now gives us Thank You, President Bush. who doesn't like lying and torture and war?

As President Bush leaves office today, I stand in respect and gratitude for a man who did an enormous amount of good in the last eight years. what good? show your work.

I was a part of the recount team in Broward and Palm Beach Counties in 2000. I saw the hanging, pregnant and dimpled chads up close – along with the miracle of God's grace in giving us President George W. Bush for the last eight years. see, this is why i'm an atheist. if god's that much of an ignorant asshole, i'm not playing.

Before you itemize a list off all the ways you think he's let us down war, torture, lies, the patriot act, i could do this all day, I want to confess that I – that we, the church, have let him down. i know what's coming next, lack of deity, i do. I told the president that I would pray for him every day and I meant it. sigh But life got in the way and I would go days, sometimes weeks, without remembering to lift him up in prayer. Mr. President, I am sorry.

You know about that plane that got geese in the engine and the pilot had to land it in the Hudson River, saving everyone's lives? Well, there's been a lot of "They were praying! God saved them! God is great!" (a) who put the geese in the plane's path? and (b) isn't every crashing airplane filled with praying people? why doesn't god save all of them? they weren't praying hard enough, that's why. oh, and if your child dies of cancer, your fault, too. if you had prayed hard enough, it wouldn't have happened.

For eight years, it seems that all he's heard about is what he's done wrong. But Mr. President, let me be among the first to say thank you for all the things you've done right. He's President (for 43 more minutes), of course he should be called on his mistakes, asshat!

Beginning with yesterday, thank you for commuting the sentences of border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

in case you are unfamiliar with Ramos and Compean, they shot an admitted drug dealer while he fleeing into mexico and then tried to cover it up. generally, if you do something good and right, you don't try to cover it up.

They will finally go free for the "crime" of doing their job and keeping our borders safe from drug smuggling illegal aliens. some guy with marijuana. i feel safer now.

Thank you most of all for your incredible and unparalleled legacy for life! huh, isn't abortion still legal? wierd.

Thank you for sending a letter to the Democratic leaders in Congress (2007) threatening to veto any bill that weakened existing pro-life policy. i'd say something like "oh, he wrote a letter!" but that probably was a difficult, time-consuming task for Bush.
Thank you for defining the term "child" from conception to birth in the Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) through your former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson in 2002. thank you for making sure less people can use S-CHIP. once they're born, who the fuck cares?

Thank you for protecting the freedom of conscience for health care workers your vagina is getting in the way of my morals! (2008), through your Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt who issued a regulation to protect the rights of federally funded health care providers to decline to participate in services to which they morally object, including abortion. and giving birth control to women. funny how viagra is never a moral issue.

Thank you for twice signing the executive orders that kept human embryos from being used for spare parts and prohibiting federal funds to be used for destructive embryonic stem cell research. Michael J. Fox no doubt thanks you, too!

Thank you for appointing two Supreme Court justices who are committed to upholding the United States Constitution: John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Thank you for your threat of a veto that kept the most dangerous threat to our freedom of speech, religion and association from becoming law: the so-called "hate crimes" bill. It seems to me that those who are so concerned about controlling speech that could be interpreted as being "offensive" should take a look at their own. The mocking, ridicule and hatred against this man is unparalleled. I'd list examples, but they would exceed my column word limit. that's right, you only get freedom of speech if you agree with Ms. Porter. otherwise, STFU!

Thank you, Mr. President, for standing up against a flood of criticism to do what is right. torture? war? patriot games?

Thank you for keeping our country safe from attack since Sept. 11, 2001. what is that about? why do we count from 9/11/01 on? hello, he was president on 9/11! saying that he kept us safe is like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer's been a really great guy since he died. The president rightly said in his farewell address: "There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. loss of freedom and the entire planet hates us? yeah! America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil." YOU'VE. BEEN. PRESIDENT. FOR. EIGHT. YEARS. The results speak for themselves. yes, now USians die in other countries, along with innocent civilians in those countries. but who cares about Iraqis. they're all muslim and stuff. We've been safe on our soil while President Bush was at the helm. Thank you, sir.

We went on with our lives as usual after 9/11, maybe you did, you psychopath, but that day scarred me for life. i still get nervous about planes overhead. but as he stated in his address, President Bush "never did." why should he have? that's not the mark of a great guy, that's just human. And for that I am grateful. Thank you for understanding the battle against a hostile Islamic takeover oh my nonexistent deity, i'm going to have to apologize to the muslim community again. is the struggle between "two dramatically different systems." It is not about two equal ideologies we should work to appease. Rather, as he stated in his farewell address, the colliding worldviews are not moral equivalents: "Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience and marks unbelievers for murder. let's see here, i've exposed the fundamentalist christians as demanding total subservience from women, total obedience to jesus, and the slaughter of gays in the streets. wait, who's the small band of fanatics again? The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God stop that! i believe that freedom is the universal right of all human beings. don't need no almighty nothing for that. and that liberty and justice light the path to peace." why are we using bombs and guns, then? this is just confusing.

I am grateful we had a president for eight years with moral clarity. torture represents moral clarity. As he said in his last address: "I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise." i have spoken about good and evil and then done evil. actions speak louder than words.

You remember eight years ago when people were unable to recognize that highjacking planes and flying them into buildings was something we could uniformly recognize as "evil." We even had people like Bill Maher confuse that terrorism with an act of "bravery." What a confused society we have become. And I am grateful for President Bush's willingness to call evil evil. Woe to those who call evil good. oh, please.

In that same address, the president also said: "Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere." how many iraqis have died in a war he lied to start? over 150,000. why doesn't any of this apply to muslims? Of course, "every time" and "everywhere" includes in the womb. It is wrong, and this president stood against it.

So I would encourage my fellow Americans to stop complaining about President Bush long enough to look at the incredible good he's done. what freakin' good? Thank him. Thank God for him. And if you don't agree with my words, then just brace yourself for what's to come without him. science run by scientists? actual real education for children? health care? ooh, i'm trembling.

Bush Apologists

Make me wish for an arena, some lions and a thumbs down. (Even the dog looks ashamed.)

The Simple Human Decency of George Bush by Ed Lasky from American Thinker.

Even the title makes me gag. What part of torture is decent? How are unjust wars decent? How was Bush's reaction to Katrina decent? How about trashing the Constitution in a quest for ever more power? Is that in some way decent?

Let's look up decent and see if it means something other than what I think it does.

1. conforming to the recognized standard of propriety, good taste, modesty, etc.

2. respectable; worthy

3. adequate; fair; passable

4. kind; obliging; generous

5. suitable; appropriate

Ok, I'm not confused. Decent cannot be applied to W in any way, shape or form. Continuing on . . .

Many readers of this site - including yours truly - have disagreed vehemently with George Bush on numerous occasions. Me and Lasky sittin' in a tree . . . Unlike the left, however, most of us have seen the president as a decent, God-fearing man who took office and served during perhaps the most consequential period of American history since the Civil War. WWI and WWII didn't count? How about the Great Depression? Not consequential? The Vietnam War era was unimportant? How about the Flu Epidemic of 1918? At least 20,000,000 people died in that. It's arrogant to think that the last 8 years have been the most consequential in US history just because we're living through it. There have been wars before, wars in which far more than 4,000 US soldiers died. There have been attacks on the US, and terrorists attacks before. What's so special about now? He will never, ever be vouchsafed this decency by the left - no matter if the evidence comes up and smacks them over the head. What evidence? Torture? Gitmo? Katrina? Iraq? Will the right ever see those things even if they smack them on the head?

What's truly important in that paragraph is one hypenated word: god-fearing. There is a meme in the christian right that if you are a christian, you must necessarily be good. christians=good. the rest of us=bad. Patently ridiculous, but there you have it.

Here's the bludgeon: or perhaps truncheon:

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney White House. apparently, someone's copy-paste button is broken. the rest of that sentence is have waged a clandestine operation inside the and then White House. I know that they have waged clandenstine operations inside the White House. They involved torture and wiretapping the whole freakin' country. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark. Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks we could have said "since 2001" or "since the beginning of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq". "Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks" is to remind you that TERRORISTS! are trying to KILLYOU! and make us all MUSLIM! and therefore Bush has the right to do ANYTHINGHEWANTS! to make us all safe. and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country. If Bush really wanted to make those people feel better, why did he start a war based on what he knew was a lie? Why doesn't he get those people out of Iraq?

On Monday, the president is set to make a more common public trip - with reporters in tow - to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, home to many of the wounded and a symbol of controversy earlier in his presidency over the quality of care the veterans were receiving. But the size and scope of Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's private endeavors to meet with wounded soliders and families of the fallen far exceed anything that has been witnessed publicly, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials familiar with the effort. BFG. He could have stopped this anytime he wanted. He didn't even have to start the Iraq war. He worked hard to start that one. Bush caused the pain these soldiers and their families are experiencing. For him to go back later and try to make them feel better is manipulative and selfish.

Bush says the reason he did it is simply that he felt it his duty to do so. Well, duh, you caused their pain, asshat.
Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and escaped public notice. Is this why we haven't been getting any actual governance that didn't relate to war and torture? Was he writing to the families of the soldiers he put in harm's way instead of dealing with Katrina? The task, along with meeting family members of troops killed in action, has been so wrenching - balancing the anger, grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a flag-draped coffin - that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, for emotional support. "I lean on the Almighty and Laura," Mr. Bush said in the interview. "She has been very reassuring, very calming." Mr. Bush also has met privately with more than 500 families of troops killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans, according to White House spokesman Carlton Carroll. Many of those meetings were outside the presence of the news media at the White House or at private sessions during official travel stops, officials said. The first lady said those private visits, many of which she also attended, took a heavy emotional toll, not just on the president, but on her as well. As well it should, you warmongering, torturing monster!

Vice President Cheney also made an extraordinary effort to meet with wounded soldiers and families of the deceased. A purely political observation is if the public knew of this herculean effort on the part of Bush and Cheney - the sheer numbers being incredible - the sheer numbers are incredible because Bush and Cheney ensured they would be. I daresay the president's approval ratings would not be hovering in the mid-20's. No, they'd be lower. The demonization of Bush by the media and the left would have been much more difficult and perhaps less successful. Hello, those boys are dead because of him! But in the end, they were right to keep it a secret. Any hint of politics in such an effort would have made the entire exercise seem hypocritical. And you can bet that the media and the left would have tried to paint any effort to visit and comfort the troops - such as the massive undertaking described in the article - as PR window dressing, nothing more.Bush has come in for a lot of criticism - much of it deserved - over the years. But the portrayal of him as an unfeeling, uncaring man when it came to the suffering of soldiers or citizens as a result of war or natural disaster was always purely political. So what about the portrayal of him as an unfeeling, uncaring man when it comes to the suffering in Katrina? Those people are still suffering. Bush hasn't done a goddamn things about it. Even his most vigorous supporters, however, could not have imagined the extent to which he gave of his time and emotional energy to ease the suffering of Americans who have given so much for America during his time in office. because he made them!

Dick Cheney Underestimates Us All

I know, you're shocked.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that President-elect Barack Obama will "appreciate" the expansions of executive power achieved during the Bush administration and is unlikely to cede authority back to Congress.
"Once they get here and they're faced with the same problems we deal with every day, then they will appreciate some of the things we've put in place," Cheney said during an interview on Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

This is what psychopaths always say when they are confronted with what they have done. "If you could get away with what I've been doing, you'd do it, too. You're just jealous."

No, Dick, I'm not. I'm betting Obama isn't either. I certainly don't want to torture people, and I wouldn't, even if I had the option. I also wouldn't wiretap the whole damn country and do every other sick, self-serving thing you've done in your endless search for the power-orgasm.

You're done, Dick. You'll be up against the wall soon.

We Live in a Theocracy!

How do keep missing these things? I could have sworn we lived in a representative democracy. *rereads constitution* No . . . wait . . . now I'm confused.

What follows is the argument that if the bible is not literally true, every word of it (stop eating shrimp!), then all is chaos and anarchy. Admittedly, I do lean toward anarchy myself, but this is insane. I don't need to believe that the bible is literally true to follow the rule of law. In fact, I am an atheist and I follow the rule of law, therefore I have already proven that biblical innerrancy is unnecessary. Billions of people prove this every day.

The corollary to the above assertion that biblical innerrancy is necessary is that the writer of the article to be dissected would immediately start raping his grandmother while throwing molotav cocktails at a preschool if his faith wavered for a moment. Watch those people with biblefish on their cars very closely.

The Bible Not Literal? by David Welch (how 'bout a verb, buddy?)

Is the Bible literally true?" interviewer Cynthia McFadden of Nightline queried President George W. Bush recently. i can't figure out why she asked this, but whatever "Probably not. … I'm not a literalist. But you can learn a lot from it," was his reply. it's not you, it's me . . . you're a nice person, really. There are a number of reasons we should grant grace to the outgoing president on this issue it's really not our business?; however, the overarching issue lies squarely at the center of the turmoil we are in as a nation. really? the economic meltdown and the health care crisis are caused by Bush not believing that the bible is literally true? The answer to that question and its variances have divided families, churches, denominations – and certainly nations. really? nations?

Does it and should it matter what a politician thinks about the Bible? no, unless you're freakin' Huckabee and you're ok with turning the US into a theocracy. Does it? yes, unfortunately, should it, no. After all, his role is civil, not religious oh my tao, it's separation of church and state!. Is the president alone in his belief that, "I happen to believe that the way to God is through Christ; others have different avenues to God and I believe we pray to the same Almighty"? if you truly are a monotheist, then you necessarily believe that everyone praying to a god is praying to the same god. If you believe that there are many gods, you've just chosen the right one, that's monolatrism. (Reread the torah. the ancient israelites clearly believed in many gods, but believed they had chosen the best one.)

We do not expect nor even desire our commander in chief also to be our theological voice for the nation. really? you'd be the first bible literalist not to want that. refreshing! We do and should, however, expect that someone who professes to be a Christian exhibit knowledge of and commitment to the orthodox principles of the faith. oh, not refreshing. you know what orthodox means? "having the right OPINION" emphasis mine. opinions and facts are two different things.

During the mid '90s Nirvana!, I debated a liberal minister from a mainline denomination before a gathering of pastors in Washington state over a proposed "No Special Rights" state ballot measure that would have prohibited recognizing sexual behavior as a protected class. we lost the blacks to civil rights, we're not giving up the gays! As I prepared and prayed over how to cut through emotional hyperbole civil rights for everyone is "emotional hyperbole"? biblical literalness, on the other hand . . . and clearly address the core principles of hate, I felt led god made me do it! I ocassionally feel led to [censored], but I resist the voices in my head. to start out with what I believed to be at the heart of the matter.

In the opening comments, I asserted to the pastors that it was really quite simple as to why we could both be standing before them as Christian leaders and take opposite positions on something that the Bible clearly addresses. The bible clearly forbids eating shrimp, wearing clothes made of more than one fabric, trimming one's beard, rounding the corners of one's hair, and sitting in the same chair that a menstruating woman has sat on. Which of these commandmants is Mr. Welch obeying? Orthodox Jews actually hold to these rules, and even they don't kill adulterers, which the bible clearly commands. (Orthodox Judaism is really hard work!) I held my Bible up and said, "I believe that this is the inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God, from cover to cover." no, you don't, or you'd have a beard! I turned to the minister and said, "He doesn't," and explained that he then had the latitude to make up and modify his positions to suit his own desires, feelings or a myriad of other factors. just like you, Mr. Welch!

According to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (the link in the article brought you to . .. the article. I looked this up myself. I remember hearing something about the Pew Forum, but I don't remember if it was good or bad. Anyway.) conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 59 percent of evangelical church attenders believe that the Bible is the "Word of God, literally true word for word."

59% of people sounds like a majority, right? Actually, only 26.3% of people in the survey self-identified as Evangelical Protestant. So 59% of 26.3%, or 15.5% of people, believe that the bible is the "Word of God, literally true word for word." That's still crazy frightening, but it's hardly a majority.

However, 57 percent of those same evangelicals believe "many religions can lead to eternal life," huh. wierd. they really believe that Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims get to go to heaven? a different heaven, perhaps? maybe there is hope for us all. which is a direct contradiction of the "literal" teaching of Jesus Christ. why are we quoting around literal? it's literal, or it isn't. can't be a little pregnant.

The rest of the article displays a frightening and essential misunderstanding of our country, our constitution and our founding fathers.

If we serve a God who is incapable of speaking through the created beings made in His image without error, then He is not God. or, god, allowing free will, allows for errors. or, god isn't speaking to anyone. Think about this for a second. If god really loved me, and the millions of people like me, and he truly will make me burn in hell for all eternity if I don't worship him, then why doesn't he just put his exact message in the sky in 500 foot tall, burning letters for me? I'd believe in him then. God should know that I'm not going to buy into a badly translated, several thousand year old document without some help. Either god is a bumbling moron, or god is a sadist. Either way, I'm not worshipping him. If he could transmit His word to a writer (from Moses to John) but could not assure that it was preserved to pass to future generations without error, then He is not God. Assuming facts not in evidence. After all, we don't have the ten commandments, do we? Why not? We have other many thousand year old stone writings. Why not that one?

If the above were true, our nation would then be at the mercy of man-centered and created philosophies, ambitions, desires and behavior restrained only by the power of the bayonet what about the gun that bayonet is attached to? After all, aren't you more afraid of a bullet than a knife? Unless it's a Lancer (see above), in which case I'd much rather be shot., as Speaker of the House Robert Winthrop noted proslavery politician! wisely proslavery! observed in the 1830s.

President Ronald Reagan, in his proclamation declaring 1983 the National Year of the Bible, why oh why would the US have a Year of the Bible? That was so fucking wrong. stated:

The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. really? The Israelites were allowed slaves if they came from neighboring countries. Lev 25:44 (Get yourself a Canadian while they're still cheap!). It was permissable to rape a woman if you married her afterwards, or paid her father for the privilege. Deut 22:28-29 The bible does not teach the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

If the Bible is not literal, then there are no such absolute standards by which to assert the rights claimed by the founders in those documents You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase "separation of church and state"? and by which to govern our nation today. Yes, there are. They are called the Constitution and the law. I obey them without god, you can, too. Since our president-elect is even more pluralistic He's MUSLIM! TERRORIST! He's BLACK! in his beliefs than his predecessor no, they're both christians who don't believe in biblical innerrancy, the time for reasserting the profound and irreplaceable "true truth" truthyness? of the Bible and its benefits for all mankind is now – and we must start in the church. stay there.

enough is enough

Rice and Rumsfeld thought it would be fun to make people scream. And yeah, terrorists are people, too. This makes me sick.

Mike Pence: Proving that the Right Just Doesn't Get It

Mike Pence, R-Indiana, was elected the chairman of the House Republican Conference, apparently for his amazing plan to lead the Republiscum out of the wilderness. After reading his op-ed for the Washington Times, I have come to the conclusion that unless Obama starts sacrificing kittens on the White House lawn, he has nothing to worry about come 2012.

On Election Day we won, you lost! that never gets old., only 22 percent of Americans described themselves as liberal i wonder how "liberal" was defined, given what else happened on election day, even while electing the most liberal, one-party government in American history. it was good when we elected the most conservative, one-party government in 2000, but bad when we elected a liberal government in 2008. why? we certainly couldn't do worse than Bushco. We remain essentially a center-right nation. This meme is gathering traction in republican circles, but it clearly isn't true. If we were a center-right nation, why did we elect the "most liberal, one-party government in American history"? Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

So, what happened? do tell. I believe Republicans walked away from the principles that minted our governing majority in 1980 and 1994 torture? deregulation? empire building?. There is a way out of the wilderness yes! he totally said wilderness. i wrote the first paragraph before i even saw this! i am made of win!. But it will require humility BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA good luck with that, vision and good luck with that, positive alternatives hee hee! and a willingness to fight yeah, republiscums always got plenty of that for what makes America (check out the Washington Times' random link)great. Could we please stop calling this country "America"? Have you never seen a globe? "America" could be North America-Canada, US, Mexico, etc.-, Central America- hello, Nicuragua!- or South America-Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, etc. It quite pisses off other citizens of the Americas that we have hijacked that word. It's the US, we are USians. (pronounced you-ess-ee-ins)

First, Republicans must admit that we lost our way DUH!. After 1994, we were a majority committed to a balanced federal budget, entitlement reform entitlement, by the way, is feeding children and giving sick people medicine. we could call that a lot of things, but "entitlement" makes it sound bad, like "welfare queen" and advancing the principles of a limited federal government which basically amounts to tax breaks for huge corporations and no food for children. But recently Republicans voted to expand the federal government's role in education damn those literate poor people!, created the largest new entitlement in 40 years damn those hungry people wanting to eat! and pursued spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and the largest corporate bailout in American history ok, the bailouts are getting silly. While Democrats continued and expanded these spending excesses over the past two years along with republicans. he makes it sound like the repuliscum were innocent bystanders after 2006, voters were obviously not done punishing Republicans for our departure from principles over the past eight or the Iraq War, or the economic meltdown. I think Mr. Pence is a little confused about what we punished the republiscum for. Big-government Republicanism is a failed political experiment Again, Mr. Pence clearly doesn't understand what the average USian is pissed off about. When Republicans admit this , we will take an important first step toward renewing our credibility with our natural governing majority. Taking a page from AA, I see.

Second, Republicans must propose new solutions to today's challenges based upon timeless principles. Timeless? How long has representative democracy been around? How about the US? Weren't we founding in, I dunno, 17something? Republicans will succeed when we present the American people a positive, conservative vision in vivid contrast to the big-government liberalism of the new, one-party government. You could start by recognizing that we are clearly NOT a center-right country. That would be helpful. Republicans must return to defending our nation from what, Iraqis halfway across the world? Catch me some bin Laden and I might take you seriously. Ask McCain how, he knows., our treasury our treasury is under attack? and our values Pence's values and my values clearly have nothing in common. He cares most about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, I care about starving people and getting health care to everyone. I'm pretty sure what Mr. Pence has are not values so much as obessessions, and possibly closets. with everything we've got.

We must be the party of open and honest government Dick Cheney had the Naval Observatory (where the VP lives) blurred on Google Images. I don't think the republiscum have any idea what open and honest means, let alone a desire to enact these ideas., reaffirming our commitment to public integrity doesn't "re" in front of a word imply doing something again? and demanding the highest ethical standards BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA in the service of the American people. We must again again with the agains for things that never happened once! embrace the notion that Republicans seek the majority not simply to govern but to change government for the better. We are the true agents of change. Democrats just want to have wild hooker and drug parties. With rock stars. And actors. Page 24, line 16 of the Liberal Agenda.

We must develop new strategies for strengthening our armed forces stop needlessly wasting them in wars we shouldn't be involved in? and homeland security pay attention to the intelligence you get, and stop making up the intelligence you want?, and be willing to oppose any effort to use our military for nation-building IRAQ WAR or progressive social experimentation letting gay people just admit they're gay. it's so very wrong.. We must again be the party of economic growth. "again" means more than once, or repeating what happened before. Is Mr. Pence aware of this? The American people Chileans or Mexicans? know we cannot borrow, spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. Shutting off the tap won't work, either. See: President Hoover and the Great Depression. Republicans must offer alternatives for restoring growth through tax relief the difference between a 36% tax rate and a 39% tax rate? not much., expanded trade, spending discipline whips and ball gags! and no more government bailouts.

We must detail our alternatives to Democratic plans to raise taxes and expand the federal government the alternative to that would be not to raise taxes and not to expand the federal government. hey, I can lead the GOP! of course, so could my dog. in education, health care and entitlements health care for everyone is Teh Evil! let the poor people suffer and die, then we won't have to give them those dirty entitlements like food and heat. fucking bastards always freezing to death. You can burn money for warmth, you know! . Ideas like a balanced budget amendment the worst possible move right now, school-choice vouchers

we're taking a little break here. school choice vouchers as education reform drives me bonkers! here's why. I live in the only Pennsylvania Blue-Ribbon School district in my city. The elementary school by my house is one of the best in the state. Other schools in the area range between barely acceptable and appallingly bad. Suppose, rather than fixing the other schools, the local School Board just gave every parent school choice vouchers. what do you suppose would happen? Every single child would automatically be enrolled in the one good school in the city. The children wouldn't just be sitting on the floor due to lack of desks, they would have to be strapped to the walls and ceiling.

School choice vouchers seem like a good idea, but they are not a solution to the problem with education in this country. It's just another damn right wing slogan that sounds good and fixes nothing.

, health savings accounts if you don't have the money in the first place, like me, you can't save it toward health care spending. if we switched from health insurance to HSAs at work, I would die. Not an exaggeration. I would no longer be able to afford my medication, would have a porphyric attack, and die. and welfare reform at this point, the only left to do to welfare is to kick everyone off of it- right in the middle of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Nice.should take center stage in the Republican agenda. And we must have a vision for defending the cherished values of life and marriage bigotry! whenever they come under attack from the courts, the new administration or congressional liberals. We hate marriage and life!

Notice how none of these ideas are new? Not a one. He's just recycling old Republiscum propaganda from 1984 and 1996. That's it. They didn't work then and they won't work now. I don't mean in terms of getting Republicans elected, I mean in terms of solving any of the problems facing the US. Think about it, the Republicans controlled the government from 2000-2006. Abortion is still legal. So, what exactly is it Republicans are doing for "life" again?

Third, Republicans need to take our vision and agenda to every American regardless of race, creed or past political affiliations. Giving up the racist elements of the GOP would be a good idea. Our party was forged in a war over the principle of equality of opportunity and we need to return to its vigorous defense. The Democrats offer a vision of hope based on increased dependency and welfare-state politics. Sick people won't have to die! Republicans must go to every community even those brown-skinned ones and offer a better hope my hope is better than your hope! built on equality of opportunity, personal responsibility and the desire of every citizen to live the American dream unfettered by high taxes and government red tape. that was the written equivalent of whiplash. Equality of opportunity and responsibility. That's gonna be a hard sell.

Finally, Republicans must be the loyal opposition. We will support the president and his party in Congress whenever principle permits us to do so never!. And we will respectfully oppose we won't call him the "n" word the administration and the liberal Democratic majority every time consistency to principle demands yeah, we're filibustering the lunch order. But we cannot make the next two years merely a battle between Democrats and Republicans at some point, we'll have to sleep. We must make the next two years a debate about what makes America great and whether we are still a land of opportunity for everyone willing to dream big and work hard or whether we have accepted a slow decline into European-style paternalism. it's your damn fault you're not rich. We must make the next two years an honest debate over the government's role in our lives and how we can best preserve the freedom and material blessings of this nation for ourselves and our children's children. you'll have lots, because we're cutting of the birth control!

If Democrats are true to their campaign promises, Republicans will have the opportunity to take a stand on behalf of the American people - to give Americans more access to American oil because what we need is more oil dependency, to preserve secret-ballot elections in the workplace no, really, we like unions!, to defeat Fairness Doctrine censorship on the airwaves of talk radio not actually an issue and to defeat any effort to overturn reasonable restrictions on abortion at the state level. In these battles, Republicans can be on the side of everyday Americans like our maids, fighting to preserve their freedoms, their prosperity and their values.

Republicans have an opportunity to redefine our party with humility, vision, policy alternatives and a willingness to fight for the priorities and values of everyday Americans. good luck with that

Christian = Sincere and Good

Can the Christian right stop with the self-congratulating? Right now. Just stop it. You are not better than me. Sorry. Christians commit crimes. Christians kill. Christians lie and cheat and steal. Get over it.

All right, now that I have that out of my system, here is what prompted it.

W too Nice to be President by Larry Anderson

This starts out well:

Conservatism needs a fresh start. True is losing arguments ... and it is losing elections. True and true One person, more than any other (even more than John McCain), has caused this: President George W. Bush. aka the albatross around McCain's neck.

Conservatives have not been winning arguments -- or elections -- by defending President Bush and his record. Because it is indefensible. Bad economic policy, unnecessary war sold to the USians with lies and more lies, torture. You just can't defend these things. We have been, repeatedly yeah, that still makes me giggle, thumped kapow! rhetorically and electorally in our efforts to support his policies. It is time for conservatives to move on. It seems as if Mr. Anderson can learn from the past.

Unfortunately, then Mr. Anderson goes on to defend W. and his policies. Those first two paragraphs are just a tease:

George W. Bush is undoubtedly a sincere man. Sincere in what? I can be sincere in my desire to set you on fire, this isn't a good thing. He is, in all probability, a good man. WHAT!? He starts wars, supports torture, victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and when Katrina hit, he was on vacation! How can anyone say W. is a good man. Wait for it-- His dramatic conversion to Christianity indicates that he, at least at this point in his life, is a man of high moral principles. AAAAAHHHHH! My brain! The stupid is eating my brain!

Think about this for a minute. You and I may judge a person by their actions. If they do good things, they are probably good. If they do bad things, they are probably bad. A person who feeds the hungry is good. A person who rapes children is bad. (I know that is an oversimplification. A person who feeds the hungry could be horrible at all other times, and most child molesters were themselves molested as children, but if you were picking a roommate, who would you go for?)

Not Mr. Anderson. He judges people by what church they attend, or don't. That's it. That's his only criteria. I, as an atheist am a terrible person. W, who started a war that killed thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, is a good person. Want to know what he bases this on? Two lines in the new testament. Two lines. Ephesians 2:8-9 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

He ignores the entirety of the Sermon on the Mount for those two lines. Reread the Sermon on the Mount if you need to, or just because it is beautiful. There won't be a quiz, but I will be referencing it heavily. (Yes, I am an Atheist, but Jesus did have good ideas.)

He is compassionate. And therein lies the problem: President Bush was too compassionate to be a good president. Show your work. Prove to me that W. was compassionate. Was he compassionate to the thousands of American soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died in the war he lied to start? Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

A few conservatives saw this coming. I remember cringing at Bush's promise for compassionate conservatism so compassion is good now, but not then? and at these lines from his first Inaugural Address:

Today, we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character.America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness. Why would this make anyone cringe? Civility makes Mr. Anderson cringe? Good will, respect, fair dealing and forgiveness makes him cringe? Now, I didn't buy it from W. then, and time and proven me out, but why would that make anyone cringe?

President Bush really believed this -- and probably still does. How do we judge whether or not a person believes what they say? By their actions. Unless you can read minds, you have no other way of assessing the truth of a person's words. If you tell me that you love me, and then lie to me, cheat on me, and abuse me, I know that you lied to me. I know that W. does not believe what he says about good will, respect, fair dealing and civility, because he started a war through lies. He supported torture. He detained people at Gitmo for years, and continues to do so. These actions prove the lie.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy

His opposition on the left, however, never has believed it and never will. Because we don't judge people on their "dramatic conversions". We judge them by their actions. President Bush "misunderestimated" aren't you glad to have a president-elect that can speak english? the ruthlessness of his political opposition. pallin' around with terrorists. And the Democrats spent eight years running circles around him. which is why we lost the 2004 election? what? As a result, conservatism will probably spend the next eight years paying for Bush's naïveté. I think the word you are looking for is "evil".

The reason we will pay is because partisan politics, in spite of what President Bush and Senator McCain believe or would have us believe, is not a quest for civility, or respect, or fair dealing, or forgiveness. Partisan politics is the pursuit, acquisition, and the use of power. And we're back to things that are true. Though I doubt W. or McCain are confused on what partisan politics are. Is Mr. Anderson actually calling for a sharing of power between the right and the left? Can't be.

The rest of this article devolves into a mush of "Founding Fathers" and "liberals" and "partisan", so let's check out a few choice comments.

Jennifer says: It's pretty sad when compassion, integrity, and honor are viewed as weaknesses. I thought those were the principles this country was founded on. Hahahahahaha. Yeah. Ok. Apparently it is no longer what it runs on. Jennifer, this country runs on oil, c'mon now. You people are proof of that. Maybe had you people stopped the whining brat act long enough you could have stood behind your president...wrote to Congress about the things you disagreed with...but supported the man who, above all else, kept you safe from what? WMD's that didn't exist? terrorists that weren't in Iraq? and never once complained about all the crap you slung his way. Because Presidents do a lot of that? Maybe had more of you supported the man who led us into safety the last 8 years, WHAT FREAKIN' SAFETY? we wouldn't be stuck with this phony who will "lead" us into the next 4 or 8. It's all YOUR fault...not GWBs.

But I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also

I think I agree with Dlanor: To mangle B. Franklin, “W” is always a good man, often a wise man, but sometimes right out of his skull. W will always be remembered as having cheerfully whistled, inarticulately, while our borders boiled, energies emigrated, debts detonated, and Gini index galloped. Bush's downfall may be attributed to his total reliance on a perverse world view. Welcome to the N.W.O. At first, I thought he meant NWA, which would have been cooler. I think NWO is a Revelation reference.

We're overextended with the two wars we're in, but Habu wants a third: I can only pray he has sequestered himself so as to put the final touches on an attack on Iran, because Barack will never bomb them and then the entire ME equastion goes heavily negative for the US and the free world when Iran obtains one. But I don't think they make churches big enough to handle that prayer. Right now Bush can prevent that from happening but sadly shows only signs of backing away. Blessed are the peacemakers, Habu.

You have heard that it was said of them of old time, You shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment

I end with Rob, who is apparently living in an alternate universe. Bush has won a war in Afghanistan, defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq, put us well on the way to winning the War on Terror and grown our economy in the face of the shocks of 9/11 and $150 oil. He has done well and gotten no credit. or, "won", "defeated", "winning", "grown" and "well" mean something other than I think they do.