In a speech Saturday, Romney, a Republican considering a run for president in 2008, acknowledged he took a big political risk in taking control of the project after a fatal tunnel ceiling collapse, but said inaction would have been even worse.
"The best thing politically would be to stay as far away from that tar baby as I can," he told a crowd of about 100 supporters in Ames, Iowa.
Somehow, in the minds of people enfeebled by decades of hand-holding over race, this means that anyone who refers to a "tar baby," whether Mitt Romney or Tony Snow, must be making a racial reference. (I can only imagine the squeals of outrage if Romney were ever to refer to the funding of the Big Dig as a "black hole.")
Romney, naturally, was forced to apologize for failing to take into account lacunae in other people's literary education.
I reckon with some people, God was a bit niggardly in passing out brains.
A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the
Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."
The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.
Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.
Only some concerns? Are you kidding me? I have a whole shitload of concerns and I plan to voice them post haste. If you do too, call your favorite Armed Services Committee Senator.
John Warner, Chairman (Virginia): (202) 224-2023
John McCain (Arizona): (202) 224-2235
James Inhofe (Oklahoma): (202) 224-4721
Pat Roberts (Kansas): (202) 224-4774
Jeff Sessions (Alabama): (202) 224-4124
Susan Collins (Maine): (202) 224-2523
John Ensign (Nevada): (202) 224-6244
James Talent (Missouri): (202) 224-6154
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia): (202) 224-3521
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina): (202) 224-5972
Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina): (202) 224-6342
John Cornyn (Texas): (202) 224-2934
John Thune (South Dakota): (202) 224-2321
Carl Levin, Ranking Minority Member (Michigan): (202) 224-6221
* Israel has a right to self-defense and self-determination.
* Hezbollah's war is Lebanon's war. As such, UN Resolution 1559 must be completely implemented including the disarming of all militias, most notably Hezbollah.
* Egypt, Jordan, the Saudis (at least) should support the reconstruction of Lebanon. And support it in such a way as to make it impossible for Hezbollah to hijack the country into a impossible and bloody war again in the future.
* Israel's war is NOT America's war. It is NOT the undercard to America vs. Iran.
* This is NOT World War III.
That's what Democrats should say.
Not because it was bad, only because you thought for a second you would see the Democrats say something like that publicly. They are Democrats, not Republicans. Republicans can say that without losing their base but Democrats? Gimme a break, they are more scared of losing their base then Maliki is of losing his head and rightly so on both counts.
"The president made a big deal about bringing the Iraqi prime minister to address Congress and met with him yesterday. The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite. We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion dollars bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself and to refuse to condemn Hezbollah..."
So we now measure how much we spend helping people based on their opinion of Israel and her right to defend herself? If you don't like Israel, you get none of our money?
Sweet! I'm with that Howard Dean. Let's start right here in America. Let us go one by one and poll people in America.
I'm pretty sure the Education system will get a much needed revamp when we ask all those Lefty teachers their opinion on Israel.
I guess it didn't occur to Howie that Maliki didn't or couldn't condemn Hezbollah without losing his head, literally, when he got back home. Did Howie give a shout out to the anti-semetic leftist liberals in Congress for refusing to vote for House Resolution 921?
You know what that bill was, don't ya? Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and for other purposes
I do find it funny when Republicans are called hypocrites for defending Maliki. Yes, I am a hypocrite for thinking that getting beheaded over a couple words that would change absolutely nothing is a bad thing.
Kiss my ass. Seriously. Kiss my smooth, creamy, white ass. I'm not going to tell someone that he should get himself killed because we spent money freeing them from a dictator.
Freedom still means something. It doesn't mean that someone should sacrifice himself for what YOU BELIEVE.
Don't like it? Move to France, I hear they really love Israel over there.
According to your favorite pundit, Ann Coulter, he may be...
DEUTSCH: Before we’re off the air, you were talking about Bill Clinton. Is there anything you want to say about Clinton? No?
Ms. ANN COULTER: No.
DEUTSCH: OK. All right. Did you find him attractive? Was that what it was?
Ms. COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: You don’t find him attractive?
Ms. COULTER: No. OK, fine, I’ll say it on air.
DEUTSCH: Most women find him attractive.
Ms. COULTER: No.
DEUTSCH: OK, say it on air.
Ms. COULTER: I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality.
DEUTSCH: OK, I think you need to say that again. That Bill Clinton, you think on some level, has — is a latent homosexual, is that what you’re saying?
Ms. COULTER: Yeah. I mean, not sort of just completely anonymous — I don’t know if you read the Starr report, the rest of us were glued to it, I have many passages memorized. No, there was more plot and dialogue in a porno movie.
There's more below the fold, if you want to read it, I'm sure you get the idea. I haven't laughed this hard since I saw Howard Dean on the news last night.
DEUTSCH: I’m not paying any attention. I’m still stuck on Bill Clinton. Don’t — now, isn’t that an example of mean-spirted? Isn’t that just a mean-spirited low blow? No pun intended.
Ms. COULTER: No. Which part of what I said?
DEUTSCH: I think this…
Ms. COULTER: Well, you can read high crimes and misdemeanors if he wants some low blows.
DEUTSCH: OK. No, no. Here’s a — here’s a president of the United States…
Ms. COULTER: There’s merely a comment.
DEUTSCH: …a former president of the United States, and just saying, `You know what? I think he has latent homosexual tendencies.’
Ms. COULTER: No. I think anyone with that level of promiscuity where, you know, you — I mean, he didn’t know Monica’s name until their sixth sexual encounter. There is something that is — that is of the bathhouse about that.
DEUTSCH: But what is the homosexual — that’s — you could say somebody who maybe doesn’t celebrate women the way he should or just is that he’s a hound dog?
Ms. COULTER: No. It’s just random, is this obsession with his…
DEUTSCH: But where’s the — but where’s the homosexual part of that? I’m — once again, I’m speechless here.
Ms. COULTER: It’s reminiscent of a bathhouse. It’s just this obsession with your own — with your own essence.
DEUTSCH: But why is that homosexual? You could say narcissistic.
Ms. COULTER: Right.
DEUTSCH: You could say nymphomaniac.
Ms. COULTER: Well, there is something narcissistic about homosexuality. Right? Because you’re in love with someone who looks like you. I’m not breaking new territory here, why are you looking at me like that?
Defense attorneys never disputed that Yates killed her five children — 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah — by drowning them in a bathtub of their suburban Houston home in June 2001. They based their case, however, on a claim that she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, believed Satan was inside her and was trying to save them from hell.
This is complete and utter bullshit. I don't care if she had post-partum depression. The first act of hunting and drowing her 7 year old son should have snapped her out of it. It did not. After she finished with her 7 year old, she then hunted down her 5 year old and drowned him, then her 3 year old, then her 2 year old and finally her 6 month old infant.
Earlier Tuesday, jurors reviewed the slide presentation of the state's key expert witness, Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Yates in May. He testified that she did not kill her children to save them from hell as she claims, but because she was overwhelmed and felt inadequate as a mother.
Well, she's all better now. That post-partum should be truly gone now. Oddly, she didn't kill herself when she "snapped out of her funk" and realized that she committed a quintuple homocide. Why is that? Against her religion, maybe?
Well, it's against mine too (along with murder) but if I woke up and found that I murdered my children, I would've swallowed my fully loaded Mossberg and pulled the trigger. I wouldn't have spent a single minute trying to save my ass from punishment.
The Senate has approved a measure that would prohibit taking a minor across state lines to have an abortion without informing her parents. The 65-34 vote is the first time the Senate has approved such a bill — many states already have laws covering such cases.
Opponents charged that the bill is tied to election-year politics.
About half of the states have laws that require a minor seeking an abortion to get her parents consent or to notify them. The new Senate bill would make it a crime to take a girl under the age of 18 to a state without such laws in order to get an abortion.
You can be pro-abortionchoice but keep your fucking hands off our children and stop trying to undermine parental authority. The day a 12 year old or a 13 year old or a 14 year old and so on is truly capable of making an informed decision about her body; that is the day you can drop the age of consent to marry, have sex, join the military, stand trial as an adult, cease collecting child support from non-custodial parents on their behalf, drink, and drive. In short, make these children into legal adults and be done with it.
Till you feel confortable with ALL OF THAT, shut the fuck up and leave the decisions about children with parents. Where they belong.
"The president made a big deal about bringing the Iraqi prime minister to address Congress and met with him yesterday. The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite. We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion dollars bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself and to refuse to condemn Hezbollah," Dean told the Democratic Professionals Forum in West Palm Beach, Fla.
I was going to write a thoughtful post on this subject but alas I have been saved.
By Mark! I know that you must be shocked. I am too. My only quibble is that I like calling terrorists, ummmm, terrorists. I never called that fat thug terrorist kingpin Arafat a statesman and I'm not going to legitimize Hezbollah by calling them something more PC.
I had no clue how long my eyelashes really were. OH. MY. GAWD. After I used it, it looked like I put on false lashes. Never before did a mascara expose the true length of my lashes. I always thought they were short and stubby. Being a blond makes it worse because without the help of mascara (the one product I would never do without) it looks as though my lashes are non-existant.
I'm not a big make-up person, I don't use much because I don't require it. My skin is pretty flawless even at the not so tender age of 38. I normally use a good moisturizer, some translucent powder to mute any shine, lipstick and mascara. I'll use an under eye concealer if I'm tired and it shows. Other than that, nada. No liners, no foundations, no eye shadows. If I'm going out on the town, I may spark it up with some smokey shadow but more often than not I just use a real slutty lipstick. I love slutty lipstick colors.
Anyway, back to the mascara. If you think your lashes are short, I highly recommend you run out and buy this product. It's pretty inexpensive (well under $10) and it works magic.
Because they are cowards. They are not "Freedom Fighters" because they aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting to keep their people down not elevate them. They hide behind women and children. They use innocent people as human shields to attack other innocent people. They don't wear uniforms and they don't stand up like brave soldiers declaring their intent. They duck and cover and then blame their targets for making them victims.
There is nothing more despicable as a coward who murders then cries foul when free people fight back against them. That is why I hate them.
I'm a white guy. I also am a U.S. Army Soldier. Have been for the past 16 years. I spend alot of time outdoors. I live in Hawaii. I go to the beach alot. I get sunburned. I peel. I tan. I also look good in pink. My skin color goes well with pink. Where in the hell did the idea that men aren't supposed to wear pink come from? I didn't vote on it. Women can wear any color they want. Men can wear almost any color they want...except PINK!! I went to a company BBQ wearing a pink shirt and my Sergeant Major gave me some grief over the color of my shirt. I immediately went out that weekend and bought 5 more pink t-shirts and/or Polo shirts, AND I make it a point to wear them at every military event wear civilian clothes are authorized. Why?
1. I look good in pink.
2. It pisses some people off (the kind of assholes that I take a special pleasure in pissing off) - especially uneducated redneck military pricks. It's especially satisfying when I compare my fitness test score with those NOT wearing pink shirts.
3. Chicks dig a guy confident enough to wear a pink shirt. (at least the type of woman I like does.)
To insure that our readers have basic comprehension skills. Reading is fundamental but it isn't just about recognizing the words. You are supposed to understand their meaning and if you don't you may want to bookmark an online dictionary for assistance.
If you are wondering what inspired this post go read the comments here and this little section from Lefty hero Glenn "Read it Wrong" Greenwald:
Wear some sunglasses and get over it. Some people show skin during the summer because it's cooler, thermostatically speaking, and could care less what they look like. Who are you to tell us, because we're lily-white, that we can't be seen in public unless we look more like you?
A fashion-police piece could have been funny. A racist fashion piece is just offensive.
My intent was not to be offensive - or at least not any more offensive than the tongue-in-cheek "Black Folks Are Annoying" / "White Folks Are Annoying" posts that have been seen on here. Hence my public service announcement line at the end, to inject some humor. Merely giving a heads up. And this is something that black folks discuss, so I consider it a "keeping it real" thread.
Thanks for the heads-up that 'black folks' make fun of us for the color of our skin. A lot of 'white folks' I know make fun of blacks who wear the crotch of their jeans around their knees. "Just keeping it real"
UPDATE: Shay keeps digging deeper:
Bill: Let's check the reverse equivalent: "Dear Black Folks - please lighten your ugly dark skin before you show it to me, it's unappealing and its sight offends me." Yep, most would call that offensive.
And I would care less, unless it was violating my civil rights. Especially since I believe that my reddish-brown color is great, regardless of what any white person said about it. I'd also point out which dark skin shade did such a person mean (since black folks come in a wide variety of shades). But hey, that's me. I don't offend easily. And my post is mild compared to criticisms that whites often have of black folks.
First off, I think what she's saying is that we need to get out the spectrometers and separate, once and for all, the range of skin shades that are offensive from those that are not offensive.
Second, "I'm not as bad as some others" is the lamest excuse for posting excrement that exists.
For what it's worth, in case you don't read our comments, I agree with Mike Veeshir, anyone who wears the crotch of their jeans down by the knees is subject to ridicule, not just blacks. But no one should be subject to ridicule for the shade of their skin.
Mark is outraged at the hypocrisy. I'm not outraged. I'm not even miffed but I am confused. Why is it not okay for Democrats to use images of flag draped coffins of soldiers in their political ads?
Bush used 9/11 imagery very effectively and I had no problem with his doing so. 9/11 happened during his presidency and he had every right to use the images to show his leadership. The Iraq War is happening now and many Democrats are against it. They are against the loss of life our military is sustaining. They feel the War is a mistake and they want to prove it by showing the flag draped coffins of our fallen soldiers.
What is the difference?
Why is it okay for Bush and the Republicans to use 9/11 and/or Iraq but not the Democrats?
I absolutely loved the film "Super Size Me", and I also love McDonalds' food. However, I feel discriminated against as an adult because kids get prizes in their Happy Meals. Each kid gets a kid toy to enjoy with their nuggets or cheeseburger or whatever. I propose that McDonalds adjust their menu to include Adult Meals that, drum roll, come with ADULT toys.
Here's a typical drive-thru exchange:
Worker: Welcome to McDonalds! Would you like to try an Adult meal?
Customer: Sure. I'd like the Big Mac Adult meal for guys, and my wife would like the Quarter-Pounder with Cheese Adult meal for women. Which one comes with the butt-plug?
Worker: Well, the butt-plug is a unisex prize. It's available with either meal.
Customer: Ok. My wife will take the butt-plug, and I'll go with the magic decoder cock-ring.
(Wait for it. You knew it was coming.)
Worker: Would your wife like to SUPER SIZE THAT?
Question: What adult prizes would you like to see McDonalds offer for their inevitable marketing campaign?
I've been thinking a lot about all the venom in the blogosphere. The Right is always condemning the Left for not condemning their loons (Deb Frisch) and the Left does the same to the Right. (Like this Greenwald piece illustrates.)
I think we all spend too much time demanding apologies and pronouncements from each other. It's stupid. Just because I don't denounce something stupid or evil that Misha/Malkin/Coulter says doesn't mean that I agree with it. It more likely means I didn't read it. I think the same goes on the Left. Just because Kos or one of his minions says something stupid or evil, we shouldn't expect every Lefty blogger to pronounce their disgust. We shouldn't tar them for silence.
It is ridiculous. I didn't get into the Deb Frisch/Jeff Goldstein drama because I had better things to do. I do understand why so many bloggers went nuts, it's why I would go nuts. Not because this Deb person was a threat, she wasn't. It was not because she spewed vile crap like a moonbat. Nope. It wasn't because she was on a mission to "get banned" by the infamous and dastardly funny Goldstein.
It was because she brought his two year old child into her raving. She said some nasty things and I have no problem with nasty. I do, however, have a problem when people go after the children of their target.
Children are out of bounds and going after them will bring on a shitstorm. Parents, regardless of political affiliation, don't tolerate having their children attacked.
Keep your dirty fingers (literally and figuratively) off our kids.
So think as if your every thought were to be etched in fire upon the sky for all and everything to see. For so, in truth, it is. So speak as if the world entire were but a single ear intent on hearing what you say. And so, in truth, it is. So do as if your every deed were to recoil upon your heads. And so, in truth, it is. So wish as if you were the wish. And so, in truth, you are. So live as if your God Himself had need of you His life to live. And so, in truth, He does.
While men commit evil, they are not essentially so. They are driven by other things; usually, by a pursuit of the good, whether it is personal or social. Those that affirm Islam, whether for the first time, or for the hundredth, are no different – all are chasing their ideal. For a moment, consider the import of this idea: it means that all men are receptive to change. It means that all men are, at any time, engaged in what they believe are acts to better themselves. It means that all men are progressive. They want to get where they are not. To be what they can become.
Such being the case,...
Despite the escape valve, later abandoned, of the word 'usually', none of the rest of this piece matters since it is all based on the thesis that all men are inherently good and motivated by a desire to better themselves. This is pure 'progressivism' and is the overarching rationale of Communism, Socialism (all its flavors and definitions), and the Welfare System.
Very few people, out of six-plus billion spend any time at all regarding the idea of bettering themselves in the way Mr. Eteraz means it, let alone actualizing it. Most only go as far as trying to figure out how to feel more comfortable (selfishness, not self-betterment). Some may extend their wishes of getting more or better circumstances to family, friends, or even clan or country. They look at what others have and instead of figuring, "how can I get that too?", they think, "why him and not me? In fact, why him at all? I'll just take his." Those who seek to impose collectivist or redistributive socio-economic systems believe that assets and opportunities are finite zero-sum concepts and, by enacting confiscatory tax and property laws, acknowledge that unless the people I have just characterized are coerced, they will not share what they have with others. So then, the power to coerce becomes a requisite.
Which brings me to the second class of people for whom self-betterment comes at the expense of others: the Power-seekers. The Power-seekers are every bit as selfish as the first group. They are, however, unwilling to leave the taking to others, lest they not get what they see as their fair share, (which is invariably way more than the other guy's fair share).
These two groups, in contradiction to Mr. Eteraz' assertion, while they may contain non-evil people, definitely do harbor the truly evil. For sake of this post, I define evil as the deliberate commission of an injustice on another for purposes of self-aggrandizement.
The next group includes the ignorant and the lazy who may dream of truly bettering themselves but leave it to others to tell them what goal to strive toward and the methods for attaining that goal. This is the second largest group, after the purely selfish, but are the most dangerous because their numbers tip the balance one way or the other.
The last group, and the only one addressed in Mr. Eteraz' article, is, sadly, the smallest. You are one by virtue of reading this or any other blog post in the 'sphere. You are one if you work two jobs while your husband or wife finishes law school. (You are one if you work two jobs while YOU finish law school!) You are one if you write a letter to the editor. You are one if you allow a confused tourist to stop you to ask for directions. You are one if you clear leaves from the yards of elderly neighbors, gratis. You are one if you are a soldier in the volunteer army (thanks Tim). You are one if you start a business and hire employees. You are one if you step outside a pure concern for yourself and those you define as "Us" and go out of your way to help those you define as "Them". You are few and far between, comparatively speaking. You are too few upon which to base an economic system or a philosophical thesis.
Muslims, Jews, and Christians could live in peace without fear of mutual destruction.
There would be no more need for US AID or justification for Dimona.
We could bring down the Wall, send prisoners home, and families could be reunited.
We could dismantle checkpoints, open crossings, and pull down barbed wire fences.
There would be no more settlements or armed settlers because the people would be united.
We could replant trees and olive groves and rebuild battered cities.
No more suicide bombers or sniper fire, and no more dead civilians.
No more targeted killings and hell-fire missiles, or systematic demolitions.
Palestinians and Jews could live together and the world could address other issues.[emphasis added]
What a simpler place this world would be
if there was no need for a Jewish majority - where there would otherwise be none.
Is it so hard to imagine?
Charles Johnson calls this piece anti-semitic. I just think the writer is hopelessly naive and misinformed. If the writer will accept requests, I'd like to read "Imagine a world without petroleum" or "Imagine a world without beachballs".
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 13, 2006--Valerie Plame Wilson, Ambassador Joseph Wilson and their counsel, Christopher Wolf of Proskauer Rose LLP, will hold a news conference at 10 AM EDT on Friday, July 14 at 10:00 AM at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045, to announce the filing of a civil lawsuit against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Karl Rove.
In response to my laughing agreement with this statement: "Clinton was the best Republican president in the modern era."
I was treated to a couple of interesting quotes from some of my liberals. The first one came from Shep.
Surprising then that you don't recognize how extremist Republicans are.
I'm surprised by the assumption that I don't recognize extremism within my ranks. I do and so do many others that call themselves Republican. I disagree frequently with the more extreme fringes of my party. I have on many occasions and on multiple blogs voiced my disagreement with comments and/or policy that I find extreme or wrong. I also think that deep down you know it or you would have written me off long ago.
The second from Adam.
Being a Republican these days is like being a born-again Christian who works in a carbon dating lab. The cognitive dissonance must be painful.
This comment made laugh and laugh hard. I don't agree with the substance but I found it to be really witty and worthy of being seen by more than those still combing through the comments. This is my way of patting Adam on the back for an impressively funny put down. I feel like a proud momma.
From the articles linked below, I noticed this paragraph:
For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
So, he knew from the beginning but didn't seek any indictments for the act he was investigating. What's up with that?
Why did it take him two years to conclude that no law was broken? Is it because he was hunting Republicans rather than doing an honest criminal investigation?
So it looks like Novak learned Valerie Plame's name from [drumroll please] Joe Wilson!
In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.
Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."
Novak was told that "Wilson's wife" [unnamed] got him the Niger gig. Novak looked up Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who in American and voila got Valerie Plame's name. After that he contacted Rove for confirmation.
A spokesman for Rove, Mark Corallo, said Novak's account of phoning Rove confirms what the White House strategist has said. "Karl never reached out to any reporters," Corallo said. "They called him."
Novak said he and Rove had differing recollections of what happened when he asked about Plame. Novak recalls Rove saying, "Oh, you know that, too?" Rove, according to Corallo, has said he responded, "I've heard that, too."
Democrats are confused by the notion that many gay and lesbians vote Republican. "How can they vote against their own interests?" seems to be the question most liberals/leftists ask. That question implies that gay people have only one interest as Americans, their sexuality. Not very open-minded if you ask me. Since I'm not gay, I won't presume to tell you what I already know. I'll let Paul do it.
This is the short answer: I do not understand my political interests exclusively, or even mostly, in terms of my sexual orientation, and I do not understand my interests as a gay man to be inconsistent with voting Republican.
But even if I prioritized same-sex marriage highly, the trade-off — slightly improved odds for gay marriage in exchange for Democratic governance — is simply not worth it. I’d have to vote for a host of ideas that I think unwise, nonsensical, offensive or even dangerous. For example, I do not share the view, popular in many Democratic precincts, that George Bush is a greater threat than the Islamofacists to my life and liberty.
Under our Republican and evangelical-soliciting government, it’s true that I cannot on a dime overturn millennia of tradition. But under the Republicans, I live and prosper, blog on the Internet and carry a .45 caliber Glock. Under the Islamofacists, whose aims the Democrats seem unwilling to frustrate, I’d get the scythe. “Kill them before they kill us” is the Republican posture. As a gay man, I’m straight up with that.
I've been sick for over a week. I had a cold that morphed rather quickly into acute Ethmoid and Frontal Sinusitis. I've got some good drugs now, so all will be well soon. (Unless the antibiotics turn my coochie into a leavening agent... uh, sorry that was a little TMI.) BTW, Sinusitis is seriously a painful condition. It made me reclassify some past hangovers as fond memories.
I don't look my age and according to a few people I don't sound my age either. I never have and frankly I hope I never do. People think I'm lucky but sometimes it is annoying.
I'm a creature of habit. I shop at the same stores, I eat at the same restaurants and I rarely change. Remember the theme song for Cheers? I am that song. I like going to places where everyone knows my name. The only annoyance I ever get is when a new person starts working there. That happened today.
I went to Speedway where I always gas up, buy Diet Coke and my smokes. I only buy my smokes there because they are always cheap and whenever there is a deal for my brand the girls will stash some away for me. I went in to buy my smokes and there were two brand new people. So I dug out my ID because I knew I'd need it. I asked for a pack of Marlboro and without missing a beat the old lady demands to see proof of age. I hand her my Driver's License and she looks at the birthdate and sneers "yeah right".
"There is no way in hell that you were born in 1968."
Are you suggesting that it's fake? She responds by raising an eyebrow and grunting.
Are you kidding me? Why would ANYONE fake 38 as an age? Lady, if I wanted to lie about my age I assure you that I wouldn't choose 38. More grunting.
I have a 9 year old son right there with my toddler.
"Having babies doesn't prove anything."
Well, the fact that I have a full set of teeth, proper grammar AND a 9 year old proves I'm not from the backwoods of Kentucky. Basic math and a general knowledge of reproduction should allow you to conclude that I'm at least 18. Unless you think I could've been pregnant before age 9. Did I mention that I'm not an inbred hick?
At that point her countermate, proving he's either deaf or stupid, asks if I'm old enough. I show him my ID and he says "wow, you are a stone cold fox. I can't believe you're 38, I figured 25, tops." I smiled and said thanks.
Not sensing that I'm annoyed he asks another question. "Do you have a boyfriend?"
Nope, my husband frowns on that sort of thing.
Dude, I have two kids and a two carat diamond on my left hand. (When did being married with children become so shocking?)
Anyway, I finally get my smokes and head home. My son kept saying that I shouldn't be annoyed because I do look like a kid and it's not their fault. I wasn't annoyed about being asked. I love being asked because it's an ego boost. I almost get giddy when I'm asked. It was the accusation that I would pretend to be 38. If I had a phoney ID it would say 27. Not sure why I just like that number. Not too old and not too young.
Please spare me the "evolution is fact" line. Evolution is still only a theory with precious few facts that can be twisted to support it.
I personally think that people who "believe" in evolution, just like those who believe in creationism, are doing it soley on faith not science.
Think I'm wrong? Tell me why.
Addendum: I'm not asking because I'm a religious person. I'm asking because I'm curious how you are/were convinced. I double majored in Biology and Chemistry in college and I maintained a 4.0 gpa. I took a boatload of science classes and none of them convinced me that evolution was near provable. Most evolutionists require that you assume facts not in evidence for the theory to work. Many of these assumptions of fact have been disproved even though they are still used in textbooks.
To me and many other scientists, the theory of evolution is more mythical than factual. I just want to know why we teach our children one theory based on faith in science classes and all others are villified. Why is one faith acceptable and others not? Are not all faiths a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence?
Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."
Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.
Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.
Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,--
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town
And the moonlight flowing over all.
Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay,--
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.
Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse's side,
Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns.
A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.
It was twelve by the village clock
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer's dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.
It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.
It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadow brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket ball.
You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,---
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.
So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.
Israeli PM said he won't barter with the terrorists. The Pals want 1500 prisoners released in exchange for one kidnapped Israeli soldier.
I say that Israel should make a counter offer. Mine would be like this: Israel will not kill every single Palestinian in exchange for 19 year old Gilad Shalit. 24 hours to comply.
That seems fair.
It has been pointed out that this plan would be genocide. Oops, I thought this was along the lines that the arabs have in mind for Israel. Unless, "driving them all to the sea" is just rhetoric. So, I have decided that killing all the adult men and raping all the breedable women would be a better plan.
Yeah, I know it's harsh. Returning the 19 year old soldier seems like a no brainer.