As Seen On The Bathroom Wall

Take a look at these names:

Richard Burr (R-NC)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Isakson (R-GA)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)

Remember them come election time next year if they happen to represent your districts. These 9 men are part of a larger group of 30 who've chosen to take the side of large corporations who deem rape amongst employees to be something not worth criminally investigating but rather handled in-house via arbitration.

In layman's terms, they condone rape.

How? By believing that making contract clauses requiring victims of rape by fellow employees to not report said rape to the police illegal is wrongful governmental interference. Oh yes. The same individuals who went on for hours regarding ACORN, and how the government needs to get involved, are saying that the government should not bother with these corporations, that government shouldn't...well...govern, and that the Senate doesn't do things like that.

It's laughable, to be sure, to hear such a thing being uttered on Capitol Hill, but the sad reality is that there's nothing funny about rape. There's nothing amusing, enjoyable, or pleasant about it. How would any of those men feel if it had been their wife or their daughter who had been raped? How would they feel if their loved ones had been raped by a trusted co-worker, after being harassed without rebuke from supervisors, only to then be raped again - figuratively - by their employers who tell them that they can either handle it in arbitration or lose their job?

Well, I can probably guess, judging by their voting record and their speeches just what they think.

Tom Coburn, for example, condemns abortion in all cases - including rape - because his grandmother was raped.

It seems quite ironic, doesn't it? The Republican party strung up Bill Clinton by his balls in front of all of the world because he had consensual oral sex with an intern and set forth the only Impeachment ever to occur in the history of our country, and yet non-consensual sex, aka RAPE - RAPE-RAPE if Whoopi is reading this - is supported and protected! Who wants to be the person who voted in someone who condones rape? You? Do you want to be THAT husband? THAT father? Brother? Do you want to be that wife? That mother? Sister?

There are 30 men who run this country who condone rape, and we now know their names.

If we can't force them out, then let's vote them out.

I haven't written a blog in months and for that I apologize. It's been a hectic time and I'm just tired...

But enough of the pity party. This is a list of things that have come to my attention that makes me question what exactly is depleting our common sense supply. Where has it gone? Has it developed cancer, like compassion has? Did it commit suicide like reason did? Or has it been kidnapped, like logic was? Whatever the case, please bear with me in this slightly organized, somewhat chaotic rant that may or may not piss you off, but it's doing wonders for me right now.

• Why do people who are against Health Care Reform(HCR) say "Well, my health plan is just fine." as though they expect it to be exactly the same with everyone? Don't they see that that's the problem, that it's not the same?



• why do people who are against HCR say "maybe you should have taken better care of yourself" or "maybe you shouldn't have gotten sick" when they hear stories of individuals whose insurance companies dropped them from their rolls because they were diagnosed with an illness? I'm sure Dana Reeves was doing everything in her power to NOT develop lung cancer, and yet she was diagnosed with it and died a year later from it. Her, a non-smoker, a healthy eater, a woman who was very conscientious about bacteria and the overall health of herself considering that her husband was a quadriplegic and she was the mother of a young son died cancer. Saying that she "should have taken better care of herself" is not only insensitive lacking in compassion, it's also ignorant.



• Why do people who are against HRC think that everything will be solved if people "just got better jobs"? Let's face it, society is built on a tier system, and some people will do far more menial jobs than others, and as a society, we expected that someone will do these things, like pick up our trash, serve us our food, fix our hotel bed and change our sheets, pick our fruits and vegetables, and slaughter our meat. There's nothing demeaning about those positions, and every single one of the people who do those jobs works very hard for little pay and obviously far less gratitude and respect than those who work white collar, professional and skilled careers, so why is it that they don't deserve good, affordable health care too, without having to somehow climb to the standards that someone else looking from above them socially has set?



• Why is it that those whom oppose HRC are screaming and shouting at town hall meetings, posting up pictures of Obama dressed as Hitler, calling him a Nazi, saying that he's going to kill Down Syndrome babies and grandmothers, and then claim that he's being uncivilized and rude and taking away their freedoms? Hasn't he been calm and rational throughout this entire debacle, despite the insults, the threats, the rude and childish acts perpetrated upon him by those who are the first to shout "socialism" and the last to explain it? Whether you agree with his policies or not, doesn't an accusation of lack of civility first require that one was civil to them first?



• Why is the media writing about the anti-choice activist who was killed in Michigan as though he was the only one who mattered in those killings? Why does the media do that? Two men were killed today, both shot by the same man, and the only one who's getting any focus is the one whose views happened to be "pro-life". Is the other victim's life simply not as important because he wasn't as vocal about his beliefs? I don't care what your opinion on abortion is - no one deserves to be killed for it - so why is it that the media seems to think that one is more notable simply because he happened to be anti-choice? I'm sure the opposite would ring just as true, and it would still be unacceptable. Two lives were snuffed out and both were important to those who loved them.



• Why are the politicians most rabid about protecting the "Sanctity of Marriage" the ones who can't seem to keep their penises in their pants? They espouse biblical teachings as their reasoning, and yet, were the government to mete out the biblical punishments for violating said teachings, they'd cry foul! Why are they so intent on foisting these laws upon others that they themselves are unable to respect via their own actions?



• Why is Sarah Palin still relevant?



• Why are people complaining about companies pulling sponsorship from Glenn Beck's television show? He's the very one who screamed about free markets; shouldn't he be the prime example of how free markets work? Wouldn't he be glad to be an example of the very policy he supports? I'm not bashing a free market system here, merely wondering why what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.



• Why did so many parents not want their children to listen to the President speak about the importance of staying in school and focusing on their education? The cries of "indoctrination" were just ridiculously parroted by parents who knew nothing other than what talking heads on the radio and televisions were telling them they should be afraid of. Yes, because the worst thing we can do for our children is to encourage them to succeed in life. Of course, that begs the question if it's not a good thing to encourage our children to succeed, then why complain when others endorse mediocrity? Perhaps it's because of whom the message was coming from, and not the message itself, but even that seems a bit trite, don't you think? The argument that probably takes the cake when used to explain away the "opting out" of many schools was that the speech was using "tax payer money" to promote Obama's "socialistic ideology". If telling children to do well in school is socialistic, sign me up for my first meeting of the Obama Socialist Party because I've been doing that from day one, as have my kids' teachers, police officers, fire fighters, representatives, etc..., the latter five of which are all paid with tax dollars.



• Why do people say that Obama hasn't fixed the country's problems yet so he's a failure yet, in the very same breath say that there's no way Bush could have prevented 9/11 from happening because he had only been in office less than a year? Can they not see just how absurd that is? A man is expected to pull this country out of a recession, faltering economy, two wars, crashing real estate market, jobless tailspin, and foreign policy nightmare in less than an eight month span, but Bush couldn't possibly have been able to appropriate additional funding for the FBI and CIA as had been requisitioned months prior? Someone please explain to me the logic in that. You know what, never mind - I know where that'll lead me, which brings me to my next confounding question:



• Why do people use circular reasoning to try and get out of having to actually explain things using facts? Shouting "it's a lie, it's a lie" over and over again doesn't make it any more or less true. This is the apparent tactic that some people have taken when arguing that Obama is a "muslin commie terrorist" who's also a Nazi. "WHY is he all of those things?" gets asked, and the explanation received is "because he is" which would be received with either the question as to why being asked again, or this:
  
  I'm pretty sure you see where this is going.



• What is so wrong with admitting that America as a country could be better? Why do those who not only claim, but also insist that America is a "Christian Nation" cannot find a little bit of humility like Jesus told us we should have? We're not perfect - no one in this world is perfect - so there can be no perfect country. We exist on a body of laws based on a document that many in the legal and political community believe to be a "living" one, so why, if it can evolve and improve, can we not admit that its improvement also means that we improve? Is it that difficult to say that we were wrong? We encourage our children to take responsibility for their actions, but when it comes to our government, we refuse to acknowledge even the most minutiae of flaws - unless, of course, it's in regard to the opposing party, then it's aaaaaaaaall G - and that only sabotages our future because this is the message we're sending to our children. Either we teach them the values through our own actions or we continue on with this "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude that's obviously done wonders for politics in general, right?



• Why can't they make Throwback Pepsi cost the same amount as regular Pepsi?



• Why are not utilizing solar and wind technology like Europe is to help lower our fossil fuel dependency? Hawai'i is surrounded by the Pacific, have the world's most active volcano, and yet we'll never be self-sufficient when it comes to energy because NIMBYs keep complaining. We said goodbye to the SuperFerry, costing 300 people their jobs because of NIMBYs. We're even more dependent upon the mainland for fuel because wind turbines and solar farms are "eyesores", yet walking around in orange leathery skin while wearing a pareo (or less) and shouting at people and calling them environmental terrorists is somehow "attractive"? Really? Protect the environment, huh? With that "Move over, bitch, my Hummer's taking both stalls at the nail salon so I can get my nails did, and don't look at me like that just because I threw my cigarette butt on the ground" attitude while having the audacity to have a "Malama da 'Aina" sticker on your bumper? REALLY?



• Why do parents dress their children up like miniature versions of themselves? I'm not talking about cute little matching family outfits - I live in the land of family portraits where all three hundred children wear the same freaking Palaka fabric - but the moms whose daughters wear the short skirts, the midriff bearing tops, and the makeup, or the fathers whose sons sport diamond earrings, atrocious dye jobs, and clothing with not only suggestive words and images on them, but downright inappropriate for them to view in the theater alone, much less on their bodies. Prostitots and mini-pimps aren't cute. There is nothing redeeming about them and instilling in them a sense of vain materialism and shallow sense of self does nothing to boost their self-esteem. Instead, it makes them dependent upon it, and there will come a time when they won't have it, and what will they have to fall back on? You?

I know this was long. I know this droned on, but after all this time did you expect something short and sweet? I'm neither short, and I haven't been called sweet in a long time, so putting those two words in conjunction with a description of me is SO not happening! But, I do thank you if you've stuck around this long. If you just skipped to the bottom, I've got only one thing to say to you.

You hear it thrown around so often lately.

"The Sanctity of Marriage"

It's a phrase that's become the political platform of countless conservatives, neocons, and fundamentalists the world over. Protect marriage! Save marriage! One man and one woman!

Oh sure. It sounds like it's a noble cause, one that anyone would want to fight for. Until you get to their reasons for wanting to "save" it, and "protect" it and who exactly they think they need to "save" it from.

Homosexuals.

The Gays.

Or for you forum fanatics out there, teh [sic] gays.

See, for those who don't know because they've been living under a rock - or because you're Amish, and if you are, WTF are you doing on the computer anyway? The computer and the internets are the debbil!!! - homosexuals want the right to marry someone of the same sex because like most people, they feel that it's their right to leg shackle themselves to another human being for as long as they live. Or, if you're a Republican, for as long as it takes for you to find a new mistress and dump your hospital-bed-bound wife.

Shocking, isn't it?

Now, it's to be expected that the arguments that come against it - and I've listed a few in previous blogs - deal mainly with the religious connotations. Hey, you can't be a conservative and NOT be religious. It goes against the rulebook!

However, an article was brought to my attention today that lists some of the most asinine, ludicrous, hilarious, bass-ackwards justifications imaginable. Sam Schulman wrote a column piece titled "The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage" in which he explains what he believes to be the worst thing about gay marriage and why. It's a long, windbagesque diatribe of strawmen and red herrings that could, quite possibly, be the cure to insomnia or the cause of aortic embolisms; I'm not sure which yet as I'm still recovering from my eyes bleeding onto my keyboard.

For fun, and to save you all a lot of time, I'm going to list some of the reasons given, and in no particular order, though I'm certain it wouldn't really matter what order I place them in because they won't make any more sense - trust me, this isn't Jenga.

And here we go:

• A wedding between same-sex lovers does not create the fact (or even the feeling) of kinship between a man and his husband's family; a woman and her wife's kin. It will be nothing like the new kinship structure that a marriage imposes willy-nilly on two families who would otherwise loathe each other.



• Gay spouses have none of our guilt about sex-before-marriage.



• marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known.



• This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage. Virginity until marriage, arranged marriages, the special status of the sexuality of one partner but not the other (and her protection from the other sex)--these motivating forces for marriage do not apply to same-sex lovers.



• A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships. If Tommy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a daughter, no incest prohibition prevents Bill's daughter from marrying Tommy. The relationship between Bill and Tommy is a romantic fact, but it can't be fitted into the kinship system.



• children adopted by a gay man or hygienically conceived by a lesbian mom can never be regarded as illegitimate)



• In gay marriage there are no virgins (actual or honorary), no incest, no illicit or licit sex, no merging of families, no creation of a new lineage.



• People in gay marriages will discover that mimicking the cozy bits of romantic heterosexual marriage does not make relationships stronger; romantic partners more loving, faithful, or sexy; domestic life more serene or exciting. They will discover that it is not the wedding vow that maintains marriages, but the force of the kinship system. Kinship imposes duties, penalties, and retribution that champagne toasts, self-designed wedding rings, and thousands of dollars worth of flowers are powerless to effect.

Well now, aren't you glad that you read that? Don't you feel that much more informed?

Oh, by the way, the author of this particular article has been married three(3) times. I suppose one could argue that it wasn't the vows that made him want to get married so often, or the flowers, or the children. No. It was the kinship. The loving, wonderful kinship of having three mother-in-laws who hate him, three father-in-laws who want his brothers-in-law to kick his ass, and countless other family members-in-law to show him what happens when you fail to practice what you preach.

Of course, I'm still working on the bumper sticker that reads: "The Sanctity of Marriage: Protect It By Marrying As Often As You Can".

Isn't that right, Mr. Shulman, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. McCain and so on...?

I'm quite annoyed by the scripture used in the latter part of this interview with which the Pastor quotes that in Isaiah 3:22, the bible says that God is our Judge, God is our Lawgiver, and God is our King.

Okay, first of all, PASTOR, Isaiah 3:22 talks about removing from women their fancy garb and adornments as a means of punishing them for flaunting their wealth and sexuality amongst the poor and downtrodden whom have remained faithful. So, before you start throwing scripture in my face, at least make it RIGHT.

Second, how can ANYONE expect to believe you'd know what a muslim is when you can't even quote the book you would demand everyone be faithful to correctly?

Third, if Obama WERE Muslim, so what? Does it really matter when the past 8 years under a CHRISTIAN president have seen far worse times than we've had in the past 50?

Fourth, don't ignore the plain truths before you regarding our constitution and the words by which the forefathers of this nation bore so that we'd be able to demand equality with regards to our practicing of faith of OUR choosing, and not anyone else.

Fifth, you claim that Obama isn't a Christian because he says that there might be more than one path to God. In my first point, I made clear that your statement was incorrect. However, had you been correct, you're still insinuating that the President of this country would be King, which one, goes against the whole idea of Democracy, which our forefathers were fighting against in the first place, two, violates that pesky little commandment about thou shalt have no other Gods. What is a King but a man-god on a throne? You would have us label the President as King, and worship him? Hardly.

Lastly, you have not proven that Obama is a Muslim. His name isn't Muslim, the people that raised him aren't Muslim, and the way he lives his life definitely isn't Muslim, in ANY sense, so please... tell me how is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim in anything other than your own imagination?

Lord, save me from your followers.

And you'll cry if you want to.

How high they were - so confident in their own bigotry winning - and now how low they must feel.

Why do I not feel sorry for them at all?

Hello, Chicago.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.

We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. VideoWatch Obama's speech in its entirety »

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America.

A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Sen. McCain.

Sen. McCain fought long and hard in this campaign. And he's fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader.

I congratulate him; I congratulate Gov. Palin for all that they've achieved. And I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart, and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next first lady Michelle Obama.

Sasha and Malia I love you both more than you can imagine. And you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the new White House.

And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother's watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight. I know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters, thank you so much for all the support that you've given me. I am grateful to them.

And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe, the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best -- the best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America.

To my chief strategist David Axelrod who's been a partner with me every step of the way.

To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause.

It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep.

It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth.

This is your victory.

And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me.

You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.

Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.

There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education.

There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

I promise you, we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.

To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.

And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.

Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.

This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.

Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Here's a hint to the people who criticize others on political blogs for being "retarted" and "loosers": Learn to FUCKING SPELL before you call anyone mentally deficient in any way.

Let's recap some basic words, shall we?

Their is not the same as They're or There. They are homophones (not homosexual phones), but they each have their own meaning. Look it up, I'm too fucking tired and annoyed to do it for you.

Your and You're are not the same word. You can't interchange them. It's not fucking possible, so stop doing it.

Lose and Loose are also two different words, and also not interchangeable. When you call someone a "looser", you're proving just how much of a LOSER you are.

Anti-American means you're against America, not against a politician.

Patriotism cannot be compacted and stored in an American Flag Pin or a sticker on the rear end of some duct tape covered Daihatsu.

Patriotism is thinking that it's okay to shoot a moose - or not. You don't have to be 100% for or against an idea in order to be patriotic.

Patriotism is being able to see something wrong with your country and saying something about it without fear of retribution and death threats, as our constitution demands. If you're going to say that someone who criticizes the government should be shot, then everyone should be shot, and that would make this country pretty unpopulated. Mexico would be happy, wouldn't it? As would China, 90% of the middle east, and half of Europe.

Socialism is the new cuss word, and yet the largest socialist action in this country is now underway, headed by a Republican President. Soon, half of the banks and mortgage companies in this country will be owned by the government. Either socialism is bad or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Hussein is NOT an Muslim name. Michael isn't a Christian name, Jedidiah isn't a Jewish name, and Jong Oh isn't a Buddhist name. It's a name that derives from a specific language. Just in case you were wondering, the most prominent Muslim in this country speaks English.

And finally, will you quit with the whole "if your not voting for Obama your racist" crap? If you choose to vote for McCain/Palin, you're an idiot who is more concerned with Prada suits and misnomers than you are with the issues, but by no means does that make you a racist. Unless you're a democrat who is voting for McCain/Palin because you aren't ready for a black President. If so, then please, by all means do hang yourself with your mama's pantyhose, because there is no room for treasonous shits like yourself.

Have I pissed off enough people today?

How many people show up to their kids' hockey/soccer/football/baseball games dressed in $2k jackets? $300 shoes? With $4k hair cuts?

How many people have children whose total team costs total up to $150k?

The economy is on life support, total code blue chips, and the housing market is tanking faster than a Tom Cruise post-couch jumping movie, and yet the GOP, the purveyors of "Fiscal Responsibility" seem to think it's justified to spend more than the price of the average home costs in the US on clothes and makeup/hair styling on a woman who has done more harm to McCain's candidacy than being a cheating, superficial asshole ever could.

Hey, it's okay. I mean, this is the party that wants us to believe that Obama will spend our country into bankruptcy, as they turn a blind eye to Palin getting paid $17k to sit at home. It's okay. I get it. We Joe and Jane Six-Packs and Franzias of America should be glad that someone so lofty and powerful would deign to bless us with the recognition of merely existing.

Here's the real deal: Sarah, you're not one of us. You're definitely not me. I can't speak for my fellow Jane Franzias of this country, but I'll tell you what, I have no problem shopping at the local K-Marts and Old Navys for my clothing, or getting my hair cut at Fantastic Sam's. I don't have a problem with doing my own makeup, and tying my own sneakers, or putting on my own .99 cent pantyhose. I don't need to hire a team of advisers and nannies to schedule my kids' activities so that they stay out of my hair. I do it on my own.

With my .99 cent Wet and Wild lipstick, that I put on all by myself. Because that's what REAL Hockey/Soccer/Baseball/Football moms do. They don't spent other people's money to make them look like something they're not. Instead, they look like themselves: people who are disgusted by people like you who claim to be one of us.

Before I get started, let me make it quite clear that I am not Joe the Plumber. I never have been a Joe, never been a plumber, and never have had an interest in plumbing with a guy named Joe. I had a grandfather-in-law whose name was Joe, and a cousin whose name is Joe, and another cousin whose name means Joe, but I have never been, not now, not ever, Joe.

Okay, now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me ask John McCain and Sarah Palin why is it that Universal Health Care for the American Citizens of this country who work hard and pay taxes simply not good policy, a form of "socialism" if you will, but they have no problem with accepting UHC for themselves, paid for by our tax dollars?

Why is it that they deserve health care, but not Joe the Plumber, Joe Six Pack, Jane Franzia and their children?

Why is it, Sarah Palin, that Joe the Plumber, Joe Six Pack, and Jane Franzia cannot submit to their employers itemized bills demanding reimbursement of travel costs, while you can?

Why is it, Sarah Palin, that you seem to think that it's okay to tell the people of this country that Obama and Biden wouldn't be fiscally responsible, while you go on a $76k shopping spree (paid for by Joe and Jane out of their necessary beer funds) for clothes?

Why is it, John McCain, that you want to talk to us about the sanctity of marriage, and yet you couldn't keep the sanctity of your own marriage vows?

Why is it, John McCain and Sarah Palin, that anyone who votes for you is "Pro-American" and part of "True America", and yet those who find your hypocrisy and double standards unappealing and un-Christian aren't?

All hail the resurgence of the politico drinking game!

The $700 billion dollar Wall Street Bailout didn't pass the house today, which is no big surprise. As a result, the Dow plummeted over 770pts, the largest drop ever, and the domino effect will probably be felt for at least the next 2-5 years. Now, while I'm particularly glad that the bill did not pass, what upsets me is what transpired shortly after the votes were tabulated and the final results were announced.

The Republicans, who overwhelmingly voted against the bill, blamed the Democrats for the bill not passing.

It was Nancy Pelosi's fault, apparently, because she did not unify the two parties with her speech prior to voting, and rather alienated the GOP. Sure. Because the GOP are always working so hard to unify with the Democrats, right?

Give me a break here. The bill failed because Republicans and Democrats both did not want it. More GOPers than Dems, but the end result is still the same. Rich, white collar fat cats are extending their hands out for billion dollar payouts, and John Q. Public would have gotten shafted. Again.

This is one time when both parties should admit to blame here. We're in an economic crisis, but the Republicans, rather than say that they didn't vote for the bill because it was wrong, instead say they didn't vote because the Dems didn't "include" them? This isn't high school anymore, this isn't Revenge of the Nerds, and this definitely isn't a Mean Girls sequel. This is the lives of every single American rolled up into a nice $2333.33 package that none of us can afford.

Stop with the games and let's get on with putting this country back together again.

When Atheists Attack

A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism.
Sam Harris
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Sep 29, 2008

Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could.

Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn't be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn't ready for? He wouldn't. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House.

In speaking before her church about her son going to war in Iraq, Palin urged the congregation to pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." When asked about these remarks in her interview with Gibson, Palin successfully dodged the issue of her religious beliefs by claiming that she had been merely echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times later dubbed her response "absurd." It was worse than absurd; it was a lie calculated to conceal the true character of her religious infatuations. Every detail that has emerged about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the "end times." Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves. Otherwise, what could she have meant when declaring to her congregation that "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you"?

You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps. In the churches where Palin has worshiped for decades, parishioners enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings" and "the gift of tongues." Invariably, they offer astonishingly irrational accounts of this behavior and of its significance for the entire cosmos. Palin's spiritual colleagues describe themselves as part of "the final generation," engaged in "spiritual warfare" to purge the earth of "demonic strongholds." Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?

It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin's impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

Teen pregnancy is a misfortune, plain and simple. At best, it represents bad luck (both for the mother and for the child); at worst, as in the Palins' case, it is a symptom of religious dogmatism. Governor Palin opposes sex education in schools on religious grounds. She has also fought vigorously for a "parental consent law" in the state of Alaska, seeking full parental dominion over the reproductive decisions of minors. We know, therefore, that Palin believes that she should be the one to decide whether her daughter carries her baby to term. Based on her stated position, we know that she would deny her daughter an abortion even if she had been raped. One can be forgiven for doubting whether Bristol Palin had all the advantages of 21st-century family planning—or, indeed, of the 21st century.

We have endured eight years of an administration that seemed touched by religious ideology. Bush's claim to Bob Woodward that he consulted a "higher Father" before going to war in Iraq got many of us sitting upright, before our attention wandered again to less ethereal signs of his incompetence. For all my concern about Bush's religious beliefs, and about his merely average grasp of terrestrial reality, I have never once thought that he was an over-the-brink, Rapture-ready extremist. Palin seems as though she might be the real McCoy. With the McCain team leading her around like a pet pony between now and Election Day, she can be expected to conceal her religious extremism until it is too late to do anything about it. Her supporters know that while she cannot afford to "talk the talk" between now and Nov. 4, if elected, she can be trusted to "walk the walk" until the Day of Judgment.

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"

"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."

"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."

"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. "You can't blink," she told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization.

Harris is a founder of The Reason Project and author of The New York Times best sellers “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.” His Web site is samharris.org.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080

I'm not an atheist, although sometimes I wish I were, because it would mean that I'd not have to be associated with those like Palin when it comes to my belief in Jesus Christ. In all fairness though, I think that Palin worships at the Church of Jesus Palin of Latter Day Sarahs. And call that blasphemous if you wish. I really don't care. I'm more worried about this biblethumper trying to dictate what I can and cannot do with my body and my faith because of what she personally believes.

The first presidential debate of the election season between the two primary candidates happened last night. To say that it was anti-climactic would be an understatement. It was truly disappointing, undeniably so.

I didn't expect to have my opinion, my choice on which candidate I'm voting for to be swayed, and I have remained firm in my decision, but the reality, the gravity of the situation is that neither candidate has done enough to strengthen their hold and gain new ground. And yes, that was a very long sentence, but still rang with enough truth to make it warranted.

I lean more left than I do right, but I'm not a complete liberal. Most of my far left friends believe that I am way too conservative for my own good. Or theirs. Then there are my far right friends who believe that I am too liberal. It's a catch-22, being independent, but the fact of the matter is, both sides have too many problems for me to believe wholly in either of them.

So where does that leave me? I am still voting for Obama. His policies aren't aligning completely with what I'd like to see, but he's definitely more in line with my train of thought with regards to the certain topics than McCain. Then again, as soon as McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate, he lost any and all hope of ever winning my vote. Sarah Palin wouldn't have a problem with repealing the right for women to vote, she's so hell bent on sending women back a few centuries, and I cannot, as a woman, and a mother of future women, stand idly by and let that happen. Especially not by a woman.

So, debate or no, I haven't changed. Unfortunately, nothing else has either.

I'm a woman. That means I have one. It's the one thing every woman has in common. Some of us don't have breasts, a uterus, ovaries, or fallopian tubes, but we all have a vagina.

And apparently, in the world of politics, that's all that matters.

But, as most men will tell you, and this IS a male dominated world, not all vaginas are the same.

Take for instance the vagina that belongs to Michelle Obama and the one that belongs to Sarah Palin. Palin is running for the office of Vice President. Michelle Obama is the wife of the Presidential candidate. Palin will fill an official seat of power should she be elected. Obama will be the first lady should her husband be elected, and have no official power what-so-ever. Palin is next in command should something happen to the President. Obama will be widow and have to vacate her family out of the white house something happen. Two different seats, two different women, two different vaginas, but both are up for same level of criticism, to a point.

There's very little rush to condemn those who want to criticize Michelle Obama for her political leanings and the misconstrued statements. She's got no official seat of power, yet she's being attacked and targeted like she does.

Then there's Palin, who came under scrutiny, as she should, when she was chosen to be VP, and the axes on that criticism fell because she's "a mother" who has five children. Don't talk about her children. She'll do enough of that for all of us. Don't talk about her vagina either. She'll take care of that, too.

So let's talk about other things, shall we? How about we talk about their take on foreign policies? Michelle Obama isn't running for office, but her opinions regarding diplomacy and international relations are criticized as being too liberal, too socialistic. It doesn't matter that she'll never be able to implement them, or propose a bill in any capacity unless she runs for office herself. All that matters is that she has a vagina, like Palin. And Palin, with her foreign policy experience comprising of her state being within viewing distance of Russia, is being hailed as a reformer. Well, let's reform our Foreign Policy to involve only the countries that we can see from our own country. Guess that means less involvement in Israel and more in Mexico and Canada.

Palin's vagina, of course, is very important to the GOP. Without it, they could never hold her up as a paragon for Pro-Life doctrine. (BTW, Sarah, doctrine implies a specific principle, teaching if you will, regarding practices not limited to just government and religion. Maybe that should have been explained to you a bit better before your interview on ABC. FYI, the word comes before LIPSTICK in the dictionary. You know, that book you'd probably ban because it has the word "homosexual" in it?) Why, poor, suffering, all alone Sarah made the CHOICE to give birth to a child with down syndrome, and insists that if she can do it, anyone can, because she's just like the average woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy due to birth defects. With the tiny, minor, insignificant exception of the fact that she has a state funded staff at her beck and call, free medical care, and access to the best of everything. But don't let THAT deter you from making the exact same CHOICE that she did. Especially since, if she has her way, it won't be a choice anymore. It'll be the only thing you can do. And then, when that child is out, and you cannot care for it, you'll be treated like a leper for daring to have a child you couldn't care for.

You know, men get cracked on a lot for thinking with their lower, middle appendage. A lot of times, it's wholly deserved. I'm married to a guy who often forgets to think with the more northern end of his person, and that resulted in 4 lovely CHOICES of my own. However, rarely is it ever stated that we women think with our VAGINAS.

I think it can now be said, without any uncertainty, that Sarah Palin has been thinking with her lipstick covered one, and it's mesmerized the GOP, while Michelle Obama would probably get better reception if hers was a transplant.

Ain't it funny how that works? I'm a proud vagina American. I just don't think with mine.

... Mush mouthed, flip flopping, double standard having, hypocrtical puddin.

Mahalo to Meg for this:

I'm adamantly against the McCain/Palin ticket when it comes to this year's Presidential election, as one can probably surmise by my previous posts. I'm not a fan of McCain's lack of backbone, and I definitely am not a fan of either of their politics, associations, and affiliations. Their beliefs rankle me to no end, and I'd rather suck my big toe than have to hear John McCain say "my friends" one more time.

However, despite my inability to accept these two as anything other than a desperate bid by the GOP to retain their control over the White House, I have to come against those whom support Obama who feel it perfectly acceptable to criticize Sarah Palin for her choosing to work, rather than stay home with her children. She's a mother, much like many other female politicians, and her children are yet minors, including her newborn son, Trig. It's been pointed out that while her 4 other children are old enough, and involved in enough activities to not really be affected negatively should she work during the day, the fact that she has a newborn, and that he has down syndrome should be reason enough for her to stay home. "It's what a good mother would do."

I'm not a fan of her politics, but the fact that Sarah Palin has a child who happens to be disabled in some fashion does not negate her ability to work, nor should it be a factor in her choosing not to. She's just as capable and just as deserving of an honest wage as anyone else in this world, and if she happens to make those wages serving her people, then why should it be an issue? Have we time warped back into the 50's? Is she supposed to put on an apron, some pearls, and have a martini waiting for her husband when he comes home from work, while he dreams of pushing their two twins beds together for quick fornication session of baby making proportions? Hardly.

We have female doctors, lawyers, judges, police officers, firefighters, postal workers, architects, etc... All balance their professional lives with personal in some shape or form. Why is it that THIS woman suddenly "cannot" perform this job? Why is it that her child is suddenly more needy than any other child in the history of the world with down syndrome? I understand the need for him to be supervised more so than her other children. He'll need more attention, more patience, more of everything, but that doesn't mean she cannot provide it, albeit in some other form. Why is it that a father can leave a child, but a mother can't? Especially if the mother is capable of bringing in the better paycheck?

Perhaps it's a male ego thing. I know many males don't find the idea of a woman making more than he does too appealing. It's an ego buster, emasculating if you will, to know that you don't get paid as much as a woman. However, a lot of the vehemence I have heard and read come from women, who are so appalled at Sarah Palin's choice to work, and not just work, but run for office, that they've started calling her names that really don't belong in the same category, if we're going to be focusing solely on her profession.

The rationale that a woman who has a child with a disability should stay home comes from that deep, dark place that needs to find something, anything, to cling on to, in hopes that it blocks the view of others from your own personal shortcoming(s). The notion that a child with a disability cannot be raised by just its father has the ring of idiocy to it, with a touch of "that's effing stupid" for good measure. The reasoning that Sarah Palin should step down because she's got to take care of her 5 children is asinine because she has her spouse, her family, herself right there to continue the role of MOM, just as much as she has all of them to support her should she fill the role of Madam Vice President as well.

Say what you will about Sarah Palin. I know I will. But what should not be said is that she shouldn't be working just because she's a mom. Perhaps all of these women who are so opposed to Sarah Palin doing what she was nominated to do should stop listening to Dr. Laura and start listening to Donna Summer. BTW, Dr. Laura, an adamant opponent to the working mom, worked throughout her child's entire adolescent life. If it's good for the goose...

Sarah Palin has a vagina.

She's got a uterus, too.

She has a vagina and a uterus, and she's used them. Frequently. At least 5 times.

And apparently, that's all it takes to earn the vote of millions of women in this county.

It's not her ability to lead a country out of the turmoil of two wars. It's not her ability to help balance an ever downward spiraling economy. It's not her ability to stave off corruption. It's not her ability to deal with foreign nations diplomatically and respectfully. It's not her ability to handle humanitarian crisis with compassion. It's not her ability to lead with strength during times of great struggle. It's not her ability to focus on the issues that plague this country. It's not even her ability to not wear a brown belt with black shoes.

No.

It's whether or not she's got a vagina...that she was born with.

Somewhere, there's a dead suffragette rolling over in her grave three times and spitting upwards in our general direction. And we deserve it.

That seemed to be the running theme during tonight's RNC speeches.

Rudy Giuliani repeatedly stated that Islamic Terrorists were this and that. Mitt Romney also declared that Jihadist Islamist Terrorists were evil.

I, personally, was under the impression that all terrorists were evil. It didn't matter what religion they happened to belong to. Perhaps I was wrong all this time.

Terry McVeigh isn't evil. The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, wasn't evil either, apparently. ELF isn't a terrorist organization. Matter of fact, as long as you're not a Muslim, you're not evil, because only Islam is evil.

I sit here, shaking my head, while listening to the ramblings of confused and bitter conservatives chanting what sounds a lot like "white power" to the rants of those who would have us believe that if it's not Jesus Christ, it's just not right. I wait for the Ann Coulters of the world to start ripping off their skirts and laying down for the plethora of wide stances that rests on the cusp on one gigantic Republican orgy of hypocrisy, bigotry, and double standards. We've already witnessed adultery, misogyny, fornication, and idolatry on one stage, in one night, so why not add a little bit more?

Conservative my ass.

...that we're not all Hockey moms with 5 kids.

I'm disappointed in Sarah Palin. Her speech, monumental in its achievement, and historical in its moment, was down right anti-climactic and flat. Unbelievably flat.

She spoke about her experience as Governor of the largest state in the Nation...with one of the smallest populations. She spoke of how she took a surplus of money that came in from oil production and gave it back to the people, as though she made the personal decision to do so...never mind that it's already in the State constitution. She spoke about being a Hockey mom, about having chosen to give birth to a child with down syndrome, about how she married her high school sweetheart.

That's all fine and well, but is she looking to win the position of Vice President or is she writing a letter to Dr. Laura? This is the position automatically next in line should the President become unable to continue to serve, and I'm not exactly comfortable with a Dr. Laura caller who has no problem telling ME that the only way to prevent teenage pregnancy is to teach abstinence only sex-education, and then proudly announce that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant herself. I have a problem with someone trying to force their values onto me, while espousing "freedom" and the "constitution".

Not once did she talk about the economy, which is faltering amid 2 wars, budding feuds with other countries, rampant outsourcing, high fuel and food costs, and growing unemployment and homelessness. Not once did she talk about how to improve the educational system, which she claimed was her reason for joining her local PTA.

She gushed about her parents, about her husband, about her kids, about her "experience". She lambasted Obama for his lack of experience, and hailed McCain for his support of the war, and his POW experiences. All of which make him the perfect choice for President, of course.

We've all heard the saying right? Politics makes for strange bedfellows?

Well, what if we WANT those strange bedfellows?

Why is it that only politicians are allowed them?

Why is it that a Senator can have a wide stance in a public restroom? A governor can have an $80k hooker habit? A Speaker of the House can have a mistress mentality? A President can have a little fellatio in the Oral Oval Office?

Of course, I know that when Mr. Warner made that saying, he didn't exactly mean the aforementioned situations, but the question does beg to be answered, doesn't it?

I wonder if any of these individuals had been women, would the public have been so quick to forgive and forget? If it were Nancy Pelosi, rather than Newt Gingrich, who had cheated on not one wife, but two, would she be speaking on behalf of the Senate right now? What if it were Hillary Clinton, rather than John McCain, who had dumped her husband after a severe accident, and then married her lover a month after the divorce was final? Would she be able to have gotten away with that?

Politics is a very lopsided game of teeter totter. While we would like both sides to weight the same, go up and down equally, there's additional weight holding female politicians down. For example, it's hailed by conservatives when a female politician is a married mother. However, once her back is turned, the snide comments about how her place should be in the home, how she's taking jobs away from MEN, how she's the cause for the economy crashing, joblessness growing start to stream out in endless ribbons of misogynistic psychobabble. If she were single, then it'd would be a question about her sexuality, her ability to even bear children, and so on. This weighs down on the woman, more so than any physical entity could. Then you add on the weight of how other women view her. Some will hate her for being able to seemingly do it all. Others will hate her for not making a decision between motherhood and a career like they did. Her clothes, her hair, her makeup, even her jewelry will be criticized. We women can be just as harsh, just as cruel, if not more than men can in our criticism.

The sexual aspect of politics is very complicated. Male politicians are handsome, debonair, distinguished. Female politicians are usually called names rhyming with Yarpy, Witch, and Bike. Male politicians are excused for their rash decisions, the stress of the decision making process being one generic reason tossed out to fill that obligatory blank space. Female politicians are automatically "hormonal" and "emotional", incapable of any "rational" decision. Male politicians are given passes on their peccadilloes because the power can sometimes confuse them. Women politicans had better not even think about anything of the sort, because that will just prove she's the slut everyone thinks she is.

It's a double standard, to say the least, but it is the way that things currently are in this country. One day, we will see a female president in office. She might even be a mother when it happens. But, what most will want to know is if she still has sex with her husband, and she will have a husband. No lesbians in office unless she lets us watch. Her politics won't matter once she enters that big White House. Her foreign policies won't matter, her economic strategy, her concern for the GDP, or her interest in national welfare; She's only got to do one thing and one thing only to make the men in this country happy. Bring the men some beer and the remote control.

Election is over.

Time for football.