Banana Splits didn't contribute to the fattening of my ass, I'd eat one everyday.

What would you eat everyday if you didn't pay any health penalty?

Then they'd buy antiperspirant/deodorant. A daily shower wouldn't hurt either...

P.S.

No, a daily shower ISN'T enough you sweaty, smelly, hairy peacenik.

I wrote a post a few days back and my first sentence was this: I'd love to see Lt-Col. Oliver North run for office just so the liberals could show us how to properly treat a war hero.

The point was that Dems love to scream and cry because us evil Republicans will criticize someone without any regard to their past heroics. They went apeshit when we went after Kerry as if his 4 months in Vietnam was a free pass for life. It's not a free pass. Respecting someone for service to country is one thing, being barred from criticism is another. This is the United States of America, speaking our mind is practically a prerequisite for citizenship.

Liberal A responds to my post with this gem:

This "immunization from cricitism" spin is laughable. Was John Kerry immunized from being savaged by the Swifties? Was he not "fair game"? And Coulter's example is the most insane of all - she maintains the 9/11 widows are above criticism while in the same breath saying they enjoyed their husbands' deaths.

Say it with me. M-I-S-S-I-N-G T-H-E P-O-I-N-T

If they weren't "immunized from criticism" why was the response to the SwiftVets, all veterans of Vietnam btw, so rabid? All we heard was that most of these guys were on a different boat. So, flippin' what? Lots of Vietnam vets hate and I do mean HATE John Kerry because of his testimony before Congress. My uncle can't even say his name without snarling.

If Cindy Sheehan wasn't supposed to be immunized, then why is the only response to our criticisms of her comments a reminder that she lost a son in Iraq? Nothing on the merits, just her son died. I've never once read anything that suggested that she deserved to lose her son. It's horrible that she did but she doens't get a free pass to call people names.

I wasn't even gonna talk about the 9/11 widows but since you brought it up only to prove that you are MISSING THE POINT. I will quickly address it. Until Coulter said something mean, those women were given a free pass for some pretty vicious politically motivated remarks. Coulter's point was that YOU GUYS believe that these women are above criticism and after the outcry, her point was made. You made it for her.

Back to my point. Republicans respect service, widows, children and anyone deserving of respect. Respecting someone's service isn't going to give you a free pass. If you are an idiot, we'll say so. If you are a traitor (Benedict Arnold), brave service to country isn't gonna immunize you for life. If we think you are a dick, we'll say so.

When Ollie North ran for office, Republicans savaged him. We didn't let his past service to country immunize him, not one little bit.

Republicans have proven that if you are going to foray into the political arena, we don't care which party you align with, you'd better wear a Kevlar vest. The Democrats only hit their opponents (with no apparant regard for hero status) and cry like babies when they get hit back.

My point was to prove, yet again, what a bunch of pansy ass hypocrites Liberals are. I didn't mean to prove how dumb they are too. Sorry about that.

While Billboard still has their album at #1, I hear that Bill O'Reilly is reporting that the Chicks have had to cancel forty-two dates because no one is buying tickets to their concerts. I'd like to believe it (I didn't see the Factor broadcast, only heard about it second-hand). But let's say it's true. I'll let others wax on about poetic justice, I'm really interested in what this would show about the disparity between concert-goers and music store patrons. Not that I went to see every artist whose album I bought, and come to think of it, I don't think I ever went to see a performance by a #1 artist, but you'd think that with that many people buying the album, some would want to go see them in person.

They went off my list the night of Clinton's first inaugural. "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow" is a song I still can't listen to without feeling disgusted. But my wife just showed me an article in the July 3rd issue of People magazine wherein Stevie Nicks is quoted thus:

"I refuse to be pulled into the politics of war. But once these soldiers sign up, go to war, and come back to a hospital, I will do whatever I have to do to make them better. That is my mission."

Lindsey Buckingham, Christie McVie, and Mic Fleetwood may have differing opinions. I don't know. It wasn't about them. At the very least, I can start humming "Gypsy" again.

Just watched an A&E special on the Klan. I have a pretty strong stomach for filth but that one got me. It made me physically ill. The only bright spot was the knowledge that, despite my blond hair and blue eyes, the Klan hates me too! [Thank God I'm a Catholic...]

Against my better judgement, Jake watched some of it. I was on the fence. I felt it was important for Jake to see the history of hate, in America, to better understand the importance of the Civil Right's Movement. On the other side, it was a bit graphic and Jake isn't even 9 yet.

Jake has had questions about racism recently because of stuff he heard in older movies and music. He's never heard the "N" word before and he didn't understand it. He heard some commedian talking about fried chicken and watermelon. He didn't "get it" and he knew he was missing something. This brought on a discussion of prejudice, racism and Civil Rights. He seemed to understand but he was bit lost because he doesn't know any "racists". He doesn't see it. We live in the suburbs but it isn't "white", it's a melting pot.

When I noticed that this show was airing, I thought this would be something that would help Jake understand. I decided to TIVO it, watch it first and decide if it was Jake appropriate. He came in during and asked if he could stay. I was really ambivalent about it. He pressed and I relented but I told him that if it was "too much" for him to tell me and we'd stop it and talk.

He lasted about 30 minutes or so. He had tears in his eyes and simply asked why? I smiled at him and asked him if remembered that I periodically state that I despise stupid people. He laughed and said yes. That's why, I replied.

Ignorance breeds hate. Hate breeds violence and if you throw a cup of fear in there, you've got yourself a racist.

He said that he's glad the world isn't like that anymore. I just hugged him and sent him to bed. I wasn't prepared to ruin his sleep by correcting him.

You Are Bert

Extremely serious and a little eccentric, people find you loveable - even if you don't love them! You are usually feeling: Logical - you rarely let your emotions rule you You are famous for: Being smart, a total neat freak, and maybe just a little evil How you life your life: With passion, even if your odd passions (like bottle caps and pigeons) are baffling to others

Via: Beth

Acidman was one of the very first bloggers I ever read. He was always really nice to me and after reading him for a few years, I realize how rare it was for him. ;-)

We'll miss you, you cranky old cracker!

Lt-Col. Oliver North run for office just so the liberals could show us how to properly treat a war hero. You think they'd ignore his Iran-Contra testimony and not suggest in some way that he was a traitor just because he served as a Marine for twenty-two years, including service in the Vietnam War? Would the fact that he was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star for valor, and two Purple Hearts for wounds in combat be proof to them that he is above reproach?

Did the liberals treat Duke Cunningham with the respect a war hero deserves?

Duke Cunningham's bio includes:

After receiving his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Missouri in 1964 and 1965, Cunningham spent a year as a high school swimming coach in Hinsdale, Illinois before joining the United States Navy in 1966.

During his service, Cunningham became the first Navy ace in the Vietnam War, flying an F-4 Phantom from aboard aircraft carriers, and recording five confirmed kills, making him one of two U.S. pilots to "ace" in that war. He was one of the early graduates of the Navy's TOPGUN school that taught dogfighting techniques to F-4 Phantom pilots and RIOs. It has been alleged that Cunningham downed a MiG-17 piloted by Vietnamese fighter ace Col. Nguyen Toon. Although "Col. Toon" was a North Vietnamese manufactured myth the Vietnamese pilot was still a superb dogfighter. Cunningham was reportedly almost court-martialed while still in flight school for breaking into an office to compare his records with those of his colleagues—a charge denied by Cunningham, but supported by two of his superior officers at the time. Regardless of the controversy, there was little doubt about Cunningham's piloting abilities. He was one of the most highly decorated U.S. Navy pilots in the Vietnam War, receiving the Navy Cross once, the Silver Star twice, the Air Medal 15 times, and the Purple Heart for wounds he received under enemy fire.

After returning from Vietnam in 1972, he became an instructor at the Navy's TOPGUN school for fighter pilots at Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego. Cunningham says many of his real-life experiences in combat and as an instructor were depicted in the popular 1986 movie Top Gun, although the movie's producer says it was not based on any specific aviator.

I'd just love to see it.

Saturday I had a date with Jake. Drake spent time with Grandma so I could devote a few hours of one on one with my big boy. We went to see the Adam Sandler movie Click. We laughed our butts off. Jake and I, much to Dean's dismay, have the same sense of humor. Fart jokes and talking animals will have us in stiches for hours. We barely held our bladders watching the preview of Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby [watch the trailer].

Jake looked at me and I looked at him and said we've got another date planned. He whispered "I love you, Mom. You're the best!". Right back atcha baby!

We had a nice afternoon, ate popcorn with jalepenos, candy and slurpees. Then I asked Jake what he wanted for lunch and he just smiled and said Thai. Got my little man his Gang Gai and Satay and I snagged lunch for everyone else too.

Ate lunch at home and spent the rest of the day watching my boys play and laugh together.

It was a perfect day.

It's not the crime, it's the cover-up?

Take this opportunity to apologize to the nation, for my support and campaign efforts on behalf of Michael Dukakis. [shudder]

That is all.

Update:

I want to here and now apologize to Al Gore. Yep, Al Gore.

I hated him because of the Willie Horton thing. He brought it up in the 1988 Democratic Primaries and from that moment on, I hated him. He was right to do so and instead of getting pissed, I should have LISTENED. I have other reasons for not liking him now but that one was wrong.

Got my copy today and I have just started reading it. I'm laughing my ass off and I've picked up a couple of wise carcks that I intend on stealing for my own personal use.

That Ann Coulter is such a crack up!

Update: wise carcks? What the...? Note to self, don't write posts immediately before heading to bed.

Damn that sucks, don't it?

The Washington DC Examiner Newspaper

WASHINGTON - Robert Smith, Roman Catholic and now-former Metro board member, believes homosexuality is a form of “deviancy.” Jim Graham, District of Columbia Council member, believes Smith’s beliefs are “ancient and archaic.” Graham’s views cost him nothing. Smith’s cost him his job.

Graham and Smith’s now-former boss, Maryland Gov. Bob Erhlich, should have said something like this: “I repudiate Smith’s views and find them disgusting, but it’s a free country and he can say whatever he thinks about any issue.” In a culture increasingly dominated by political correctness, however, such remarks would be derided. So we have a fundamental issue: freedom of speech for Jim, but not for Bob. Thus the state of health of the First Amendment: You can say anything you want so long as it is politically correct. That’s the definition of “tolerance” practiced by officials like Graham, Erhlich and by many among America’s official and elite opinion-makers.

Fundamental issue? Freedom of speech for Jim but not Bob? Really? Is Bob in the hoosegow? Did Bob not say what he wanted to say? Was Bob censored by the government? I must've missed that in the editorial.

I better read that again...

Okay, I'm still not seeing it. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that you can speak without any consequences at all. There are always consequences, some little, some big, some good and some bad. That's life.

Bob's speech wasn't censored, he didn't go to jail and nobody shut him up. He said what he believed and his employer exercised his right to free speech by firing him.

Big deal.

You have a right to spout your ravings anyplace you want and you can reasonably expect that you won't be imprisoned for them. You do not have a right to be employed, that is a privilege. You work for someone else and if your public speech represents that someone negatively, they have a right to boot you on your ass.

Via: Captain's Quarter's

When standing in line at the gas station, in Metro Detroit or a similar town, and some guy with motor oil stained fingers is ranting about Bush, Tom DeLay, Republicans and the Republican candidate for Governor supposedly wanting to bust the unions...

DON'T look him in the eye and in a deadly serious tone say: Fuck the unions, I hope he does bust them up. Nothin' but a bunch of crooks that take money and deliver shit to the working man. Fuck the unions.

Unless, you're small, cute like a bunny and extremely quick witted or it is the 4th of July. Seriously, the exploding veins in his neck were impressive but it did frighten the other patrons.

I engaged the nut for about 5 more minutes, I couldn't help myself. I'm way better live than I am in print. When I stopped talking, the customers applauded.

When they can't get us dumb Rethugs to see the error of our ways, they try to scare us by using our children.

Rose, surely you realize that Jake and Drake are the ones who are going to have to pay back the credit card bill Bush ran up while you were defending him, right?

Wake up Rose! It's time for school!

I guess he's trying to scare me into thinking I'm a bad mommy for supporting Bush and the WOT. Not gonna work, my friend. I'm not gonna support cutting and running, just because you hate Bush. You guys are irrational and your policy ideas are a DANGER to my children. Your demands to "Bring 'em home" sound like screeching children being told they can't have cake for breakfast.

Well, you can't have cake for breakfast and if you don't know why, tough. Trying to explain why seems to be a waste of breath. So I won't bother.

Before you try to scare us breeders Republicans with the financial horrors our children will face because of the War on Terror, remember this horror.

The children and grandchildren of the greatest generation are currently paying for Roosevelt's clusterfuck called Social Security. The children of the 60's, of which I am one, are paying for the Kennedy/Johnson debacle called Vietnam. Future generations always pay, if you are so damned worried about my kids and yours, then support SSI reform. That's gonna cost a lot more than the defense of our nation.

K-I-S-S-I-N-G!

Ann Althouse describes a school for boys she would have done great at. I think I would have too.

(H/T Dean.)

Hey, now here's a congressional candidate that grassroots, net-roots people can get behind!

The Vets for Irey would sure love your support!

Prime Minister Maliki looks to be really kicking some serious butt.

They shoulda put this guy in charge sooner eh?

I've said in the past that I hate feminists. It drives people crazy when I say things like that. Do I mean it? Not exactly. I hate the people that define themselves as hard core feminists ("men are bad" types). I'm going out on a limb and calling those chicks Liberal Feminists, the Gloria Allreds of the world. I can't stand those bitches.

I do believe that women and men should be treated equally. EQUALLY.

I believe in equal pay for equal work, not equivicating jobs, but truly equal pay for equal work. I believe in equal standards, not lowering standards because of gender. That's bullshit.

I believe that men and women are different by nature not just biology. I don't believe that you can nurture boys to behave like girls. Boys and girls are different. It isn't the fault of the parents that little boys like pulling heads off dolls, anymore than it is a credit to them when little girls baby them. We can tell them "no" and teach them to fight the urge but we have to understand that it is an urge. It is biology that makes boys instictively abhorrent of Barbie, not the nurturing they get at home.

I do not believe, like some feminists do, that the world would be better with fewer men.

I do not believe that a drunk girl with morning after regret should be allowed to cry rape. Rape is a violent act and we have to stop treating women like children that need protection.

Equality means being equal, not special. That's the kind of feminist that I am. The kind that believes that women are equal, not special, and deserves equality under the law, not coddling.

Read this roundup of Truthout's Rove coverage and then come back and answer the big question.

What should Truthout change it's name to?

I think that Full of Crap.org sounds pretty good, Peter Pan.org isn't too bad...

Wanted: Some kind Republican with oodles of money to buy Mark a pony, poor boy won't be getting one for free this time.

For a minute, I thought Jeff Goldstein had been invited to guest post on The RCP Blog. But this is a real totally not-news headline.

Rove's attorney Robert Luskin released a brief statement this morning:

On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

Time to Move On...

Heh™

In news from the Great White North, which will undoubtedly be viewed by some, especially in the People's Democratic Republic of British Columbia, as "pseudo-analytical puff ... from people who have a less-than-stellar understanding of" Canadian politics, Ipsos reports that the Progressive Conservatives now hold a three point lead over the Liberals in Ontario. That's like Massachusetts giving up on the Kennedys. True, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty has seen his own approval rating rise 4% in the same poll. But, as Captain Ed puts it:

Canada appears to have turned its back on the Liberals, and the Liberals appear to have nothing with which to gain their attention once more.

Beer ingredient may fight prostate cancer.....

All those years of college and the Army have finally paid off. My favorite line is:

"...don't rush out to stock the refrigerator because the ingredient is present in such small amounts that a person would have to drink more than 17 beers to benefit."

My response: "SO!?!"

I guess Dr. Galakiewitz doesn't have to worry about prostate cancer.

Ten points to the first person who answers this question correctly:

"You're Doctor Galakiewits?"

The latest Pundit Roundtable is up and I'm the pundit.

The only thing that sucks about submitting to someone else's blog is you don't have a chance to fix typos. I'm not a poor speller but I am a shitty typist and the only way to hide that fact is proofreading.

Try and enjoy it anyway.

There are lots of Carnivals all over the blogosphere but the Carnival of Kid Comedy is great for us parents. Plus, my Jake story is in there!

The Lefties gave us Bushitler.

The Righties have now given us Al Gorebbels.

I wonder what the Greens will give us?

In a discussion on Gay Marriage, a commenter opened with this sentence:

"I was against it until I realized it wouldn't be mandatory."

Go read the post and the comments, it is truly one of the best discussions on the subject I've read in a long time. Thoughtful comments, no hype or hysteria.

I don't have a link yet but I just heard that Abu Musab Zarqawi initially survived the bombing. Iraqi troops had him on a gurney when the U.S. troops arrived on the scene. He was aware and he knew what hit him because he attempted to escape when he saw the Marines enter. He didn't get far before he croaked.

Why is this good?

Because the pigfucker knew "who" got him. I get added pleasure knowing that he died aware of the fact the U.S. smoked him.

Yeah, I know I'm spiteful. So?

Here's a link

My favorite way to relax is laughing.

Via: Michael

Watching America

One might imagine that the grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Al Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Revolution, would support the Iranian regime. But according to this article from Kuwait's Arabic-language Al-Seyassah, Hossein Khomeini is calling on President George W. Bush to invade and occupy Iran to liberate it from 'religious dictatorship.'

The Hollywood Liberal reviews "The Road to Guantanamo". They really believe this stuff, folks:

This film illustrates in crystal clear detail why the U.S. military needs to recruit very dumb, totally uneducated, and mostly southern cracker soldiers who are already racist bastards who have never left their hometowns and believe all the garbage they are taught in school about how we are the good guys, and everything we do is just and right. The Army can then brainwash them to treat other human beings in such a grotesque and inhuman manner.

The whole site reads like the Weekly World News. Like this story "revealing" that the President is bisexual and having an affair with Condi Rice. Sorry if this is old news to you, but I rarely slog the Fever Swamps of TinFoilHatlandia.

(HT: LGF)

Wahoooo!

I love it when evil people die horrible violent deaths!

USA! USA! USA! USA!

Among the funnier self-parodies in the Austin Powers trilogy of 007 parodies is the scene in "The Spy Who Shagged Me" where Gia Carides as Robin Spitz Swallows suffers mortal injury after mortal injury and continues to attack Austin Powers over and over again. Austin's exasperated question is the title of this post.

It came to mind as I read this excellent piece by Lee Harris at TCS Daily entitled, "Why Isn't Socialism Dead?"

(HT: Annoying Old Guy via Dean)

Some interesting snippets:

...in the introduction to Reflections on Violence, [Georges] Sorel says that the French thinker Renan "was very surprised to discover that Socialists are beyond discouragement." He then quotes Renan's comment about the indefatigable perseverance of socialists: "After each abortive experiment they recommence their work: the solution is not yet found, but it will be. The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength." (Italics [Harris's].)

...

Sorel, for whom religion was important, drew a comparison between the Christian and the socialist revolutionary. The Christian's life is transformed because he accepts the myth that Christ will one day return and usher in the end of time; the revolutionary socialist's life is transformed because he accepts the myth that one day socialism will triumph, and justice for all will prevail. What mattered for Sorel, in both cases, is not the scientific truth or falsity of the myth believed in, but what believing in the myth does to the lives of those who have accepted it, and who refuse to be daunted by the repeated failure of their apocalyptic expectations. How many times have Christians in the last two thousand years been convinced that the Second Coming was at hand, only to be bitterly disappointed — yet none of these disappointments was ever enough to keep them from holding on to their great myth. So, too, Sorel argued, the myth of socialism will continue to have power, despite the various failures of socialist experiments, so long as there are revolutionaries who are unwilling to relinquish their great myth.

Seems we all believe in one myth or another

It may well be that socialism isn't dead because socialism cannot die. As Sorel argued, the revolutionary myth may, like religion, continue to thrive in "the profounder regions of our mental life," in those realms unreachable by mere reason and argument, where even a hundred proofs of failure are insufficient to wean us from those primordial illusions that we so badly wish to be true.

Read the whole thing, if you haven't already (I realize the article is a month old).

Annoying Old Guy responds to Harris' contention that capitalism needs its own competing myth as the only way to finally put paid to socialism with this:

The counter-vailing American myth is that of the self-made man, the pioneer who builds up himself, his family, and his community through his own effort and sacrifice. We have the Cult of the Maker, which venerates those who make and do, those who break out of the crowd and achieve beyond the average. And this seems to me to be the correct myth for capitalism, which is a means, not an end. The end is creating a society in which the Maker can make and so far liberal / capitalisistic democracy is the best structure we know for doing so.

You can read the Michigan House Bill 5267 by clicking the link.

I think that the group Father: A Child's Right should get more attention. They aren't just fighting for fathers, they are also fighting for mothers. Ultimately, their mission is about the right of a child to have two parents.

Divorce is an ugly business and custody battles can be horrific. Often the mother will use child as a bludgeon against her ex-husband. Before you say it, yes I know sometimes the Dad is the vindictive one; but more often it is the woman. It is usually the mom that will bad mouth the dad and the poor kid is just stuck listening to the venom. An angry, bitter woman can do a lot of damage to a child without realizing that she is doing it.

A child has a right to love and be loved by both parents and outdated laws need to be changed so we can end the dysfunction that divorce usually causes. Face it, in the land of divorce it is usually the woman that gets custody and child support, the man gets screwed by the court and the child is miserable after months of the emotional tug-o-war.

It is time to change our laws to insure that the Child's rights are looked after. If both parents are fit then joint custody should be the standard not the hope. The new law is written with the child in mind. Divorce is going to mess the kid up as it is, we shouldn't be making it worse by relegating the non-custodial parent to that of paycheck with a few visits a month.

A child has two parents and they are equally responsible for the life they created, they should be considered equal under the law as well. A child deserves no less.

If you live in Michigan, please write your representatives and ask them to support Michigan House Bill 5267.

Since I have made statements calling for non-jihadist Muslims to stand up against jihad, I think it's only fair that I bring this news to your attention. CBS reported that US officials believe a terrorist attack on US interests is imminent, citing the lucky discovery of three separate and independent cells recently:

From CBS (via LGF):

Police in Toledo, Ohio, busted another cell in February. This one consisted of three men training to attack U.S. forces overseas. Once again, luck played a role. When they tried to enlist someone in their mosque to help, he turned them in.

I've got a new ad on the right side of the blog. I'm pointing it out because I think that it's a cause that more people should support. It's called "Father": A Child's Right( Because every child deserves equal time with their father after a divorce). Their mission advocates equal time with both fit parents.

Go check them out!

You know how the saying "when pigs fly" goes. People use it to suggest the absurd. I've never actually used in connection with Ted Kennedy but, in my mind, I assumed that if I ever agreed in any way with him, pigs would certainly be airborn.

Yesterday, Ted Kennedy said the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment) should be renamed the "Republican Right Wing 2006 Electoral Strategy Amendment" accusing the administration of using "fear tactics" to rally its "extreme base." I almost did a spit take. That was damn funny and perhaps partially true. Partially because it isn't just the "extreme base" of the Republican party that is opposed to Same-sex Marriage.

I believe that the FMA is supported by a majority of Americans both Republican and Democrat. It's pretty tough to be all high and mighty when members of your own party are lining up with the FMA.

Don't get me wrong, if fat Teddy is standing opposed to the FMA, I'm with him. Sorry friends, I've never made any secret that I'm a suppporter of Same-Sex Marriage. I believe in full and equal rights for all.

It's 2006 folks and I'm not going to sit here quiet and not fight for "my gays". I just want to address one thing that I hear a lot. It is this:

"Same-sex marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage."

Look here, if Same-sex Marriage is a threat to your marriage then you'd best see a marriage counselor quick. I've never believed that blaming someone else for my failings was valid and I don't buy it when others do. How does that work? If gays can marry are you gonna feel free to start "gaying" it up yourself?

I know this issue is touchy and for some deeply religious and that is my biggest problem with supporting the FMA. How can I support an amendment that will not allow two people in love to have a legally recognized commitment and protection under the law.

Can't do it. It seems really stingy and unChristian to me. You can pull out all the Bible quotes you want to make yourself feel better but I know in my heart that Jesus would be crying over this. Jesus would not turn his back on someone because they loved the "wrong" person.

He wouldn't do it and neither will I.

Without further ado here is the prize for the lovely Alex. Alex wants me to argue the pro choice side of the abortion debate. Here it is.

I pondered all day Sunday how I can argue this position without betraying my principles. I've made no secret that I am opposed to abortion, if I were truly Queen I'd ban it across the board because it is my belief that life truly begins with conception. Note the key words, my belief. Science hasn't conclusively proved that life begins there and only people of a certain faith believe it to be true.

Without Science backing it up, outlawing a medical practice that has been legal for over 30 years would be a violation, a moral violation as well as a medical one, to women. My argument isn't going to be about "the baby" but the woman and her right to make her own personal medical decisions without governmental interfence. Just once I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Before I do that I want to point out some differences that none of us pay attention to in our quest badger an unwilling listener.

The difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is that they aren't even having the same conversation. One side is arguing what they see, the other argues what will be.

Do you truly believe that all pro-choicers are fine with baby killing? Sure some are but most try not to get that deep. It is easier to focus on the living, breathing human than the microscopic mess of genes in a frenzy of cell division. Pro-lifers see past the woman to what they believe is the innocent life in her womb.

I can't even count the times I've heard people that are pro-choice say that they believe abortion should be legal, even though they themselves would never have one.

Why? Why do they think this way?

It all boils down to faith vs. government. This argument is an extension of Separation of Church and State. Nobody can agree where life begins. So using the government as a hammer for a religious belief is a civil rights violation. We can't live in a country that imposes laws based soley on religion on the entire populace. We all don't believe the same thing and many of us don't believe anything at all. We are all granted the right to worship or not worship in the 1st Amendment. So how can we let the Congresscritters dictate laws based on their faith? We can't. If we did, someone would be losing freedom. In the case of abortion, it is the woman.

There are some medically necessary abortions. There just are and the only qualified people to decide if an abortion is necessary are doctors. Doctors are required by their oath to first do no harm. If a pregnancy can kill a woman, the woman whose life is at risk should be the only person deciding if she will take that risk. If she isn't then the doctor should not be in a position to watch his patient die because lawmakers with no medical knowledge decided that a potential human life has more value than an existing one.

Until Science can offer proof that life begins at conception, that idea remains an article of faith and faith alone. When we start writing laws based on faith alone, we begin the short journey towards tyranny.

When lawmakers start legislating what we can or cannot do with our own bodies, we the people lose freedom. It has already begun. Prostitution is illegal. How can we make it illegal to sell something that we can give away legally? Religion. What about euthanasia? If I'm dying, why is it illegal for my doctor to end my suffering at my request? Religion.

This is a free country, we need to stop electing lawmakers that think it is just fine to legislate what we do with our bodies. Slavery ended over a 100 years ago, why does possession of a vagina relegate women to sub-human status. If women aren't allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies, then they aren't truly possessing ownership, are they?

Lawmakers should make laws that protect people from being harmed by others, not from themselves. When we aren't allowed to make our own decisions, we aren't truly free.

We had a quote contest here on Friday and I offered a prize to the winner. The prize was this: You get to pick my next topic AND you get to tell me what position you want me to argue.

The winner was the lovely Alex and her choice was choice. That's right folks. Alex wants me to argue the pro choice side of the abortion debate.

Her wish is my command, so stay tuned and watch me play the minion for a day. The post will appear on Monday and I will will be arguing the pro-choice side in the comments.

This will either be a fun exercise or cruel and unusual punishment. I haven't decided yet. ;-)

86. What's that? The percentage of Americans who are just fine with the FBI searching a congressman's office, so long as they have a warrant.

Man. You lefties are so gonna get creamed in November.

I've complained in the past about certain commercials. You know the ones that seem to be really personal. Bladder problems, erectile issues, women that don't feel so "fresh" (code for stinky vagina) and Herpes.

My new favorite commercial to hate is the one about HPV. Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is commonly referred to as genital warts. If you watch television, you've seen this commercial. It's the one that says to tell your friends about the link between HPV and Cervical Cancer. I see this commercial at least 5 times a day without fail.

I know that it's important to spread the word but do we really need to think about coochie warts all day, everyday?

One of the actresses in this commercial is in every coochie commercial. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I know way too much about that chick's vagina. Between her bladder leakage, her smelly vagina and her Herpes, it amazes me that she can still get laid enough to pick up the genital warts.

Jake, who is almost 9, reminded me of a funny incident today and I want to share it with you. Jake's friends all think that I'm the "cool" mom. Pretty laid back but firm. They think he's lucky to have me, they tell me so all the time. You know the grass is always greener...

Anyway, Jake came rushing home with a friend and he was late. 5 minutes late. He was panicked because I don't tolerate tardiness, it's one of my pet peeves. His friend Nick couldn't believe that Jake was worried because I'm the "cool mom" after all. I was feeling a bit mischievous so when he walked in I had his punishment ready. Jake and I have an unspoken understanding, if he's really quick and really witty he occasionally gets a pass in the punishment. He has to make me laugh and when I'm pissed off that is no small task.

So, he walks in and I say "boy! you're late". Out flies an apology and some b.s. excuse, his friend just stares, doe eyed.

I look at him and in an ominous tone I give him our "joke" punishment. I said that I wanted a 10 page paper on the evils of Communism by morning. His friend was horrified, "Commu - what?"

Communism, Jake whispered.

Jake's friend Nick: "What the heck is that?"

Jake: Democrats with guns. [Sometimes life demands a rim shot]

He turned to me and then flatly replied, "how can I get all of that evil in only 10 pages?"

I laughed so hard I almost wet my pants. I said, "Dude you had me at Democrats with guns". Bwahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahha

He got a pass that time but a stern warning that video games and cartoons were on the chopping block for next time.

He hasn't been late since.

Evil, Ignorant, ... or Insane.

Those are the only three choices, right? That's what I'm seeing everywhere I turn lately. There used to be a saying that one should never discuss religion or politics in polite company. The reason is obvious. When strongly held opinions clash, the results are never pretty. But you know, I've decided that there must be a fourth category.

There are, undoubtedly, evil, ignorant, or insane people in the Democrat party, the Republican party, and the centerfield bleachers at any Baltimore Orioles baseball game (for example). But that doesn't mean that all Democrats, Republicans, or Orioles fans are evil, ignorant, or insane.

I read a post recently that puts the whole thing into perspective for me. (If you follow the link, yes, I am aware that you can substitute the social ideology of your choice into the paragraph and it still makes sense. That is my point)

What it boils down to then, what turns me off to what the other side is saying is contentiousness for its own sake. You're not going to convince me of the rightness of your opinion by calling me evil...or ignorant...or insane. Or couching your arguments in such a way as to subtly infer that, since I disagree with you, it goes without saying that I am evil...or ignorant...or insane.

Now read that last paragraph again, only switch the first person pronouns with the second person pronouns.

So tell me why you believe differently than I without referring pejoratively to what I believe and I'll listen more closely and more respectfully. Let's start from now, without looking back.

***POSTED BY MICHAEL_THE_ROCK!***DON'T BLAME ROSEMARY!***

There, now that that's over with, I was just reading Scott Kirwin's post over at Dean's World, How NOT to Win Friends and Influence People, in which he quotes Zarqawi thusly:

"Anyone calling for reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites is either a man who knows the truth but is betraying his religion and his nation ... or a man who is ignorant and should be taught"

Notwithstanding either what Robert Spencer may say, or what others may think of what he says, I think that this statement positively SCREAMS for non-jihadist Muslims to stand up and denounce not only the man who says it, but the very idea itself. Is it going to happen? And no fair just denouncing him as a madman (see above where I mention the idea itself).

I'm going to give a list of quotes from some of my favorite people and some that I despise. Without Googling, match the quote with the famous person. The person that gets the most correct wins.

Bonus question: Name the author that I despise.

The prize: You get to pick my next topic AND you get to tell me what position you want me to argue.

Here we go:

1. “Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door. Oh, stupid man. After a couple of years we won't stand for that, will we?”

2. "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."

3. “Watching a baby being born is a little like watching a wet St. Bernard coming in through the cat door.”

4. "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."

5. "There was a guy, down in Florida, who said that the age of 53 years old he was in good enough physical condition to withstand the wind, rain, and hail of a force-5 hurricane. Now, lemme explain somethin' to ya: It isn't *that* the wind is blowin'. It's *what* the wind is blowin'. If you get hit by a *Volvo*, it don't matter how many sit-ups you did that mornin'."

6. "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."

7. "I look for women I know are gonna bust me up good. Come on, man, who can resist that? Who can resist that emotional pain? Yeah, they all have the same line, they're so sweet: 'I'm not gonna hurt you like all the others. Really I'm not. I'm gonna introduce you to a whole new level of pain!"

8. "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it."

Remember, on your honor, no Googling.

Ok, athei-oids, here's your chance to explain this to the thei-oids here as something other than "freedom from speech":

U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted a temporary restraining order sought by a student who didn't want prayer to be part of the graduation exercises at the south-central Kentucky school

Notice that no one was going to be forced to pray. Just one kid who "didn't want" to hear it. How does this make our country greater?

Also notice that the kids took matters into their own hands:

The senior class at a southern Kentucky high school gave their response Friday night to a federal judge's order banning prayer at commencement.

About 200 seniors stood during the principal's opening remarks and began reciting the Lord's Prayer, prompting a standing ovation from a standing-room only crowd at the Russell County High School gymnasium.

The thunderous applause drowned out the last part of the prayer.

So tell me, does the atheist kid now feel more, or less, intimidated and oppressed than he would have if he had just kept his mouth shut and recited a poem or shopping list in his head while everyone else prayed? (HT: Grassfire.org via email)

Convicted killer asks judge to force Mass. to pay for sex change.

When criminals go to prison, along with their freedom, they lose many of their rights. They do keep their basic human rights and some Constitionally guaranteed ones. Starting with prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. "Prisoners retain some other Constitutional rights including due process in their right to administrative appeals and a right of access to the parole process. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been held to apply to prison inmates. Prisoners are therefore protected against unequal treatment on the basis of race, sex, and creed. Additionally, the Model Sentencing and Corrections Act provides that a confined person has a protected interest in freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or sex. Prisoners also have limited rights to speech and religion."

We feed and shelter them, we take care of their medical and dental needs and even offer them therapy for addiction.

So, here's my question: Is a sex-change a basic human right? Should the State, i.e. The People, pay for the sex change operation of a convicted criminal?

What a relief. We were down all morning.