Birthers: The Gift That Keeps Giving

Hawaii is having to deal with so many requests for Obama's birth certificate that they're actually considering a bill that would let state officials ignore the pesky assholes. Following is a winning example of the asshattery known as the Birther movement:

"They usually say that by not giving out his birth certificate we're breaking the law," [Janice] Okubo said.

"But we would be breaking the law by giving out a birth certificate to someone who does not have a right to it."

When Okubo told one writer they did not have a right to Obama's birth certificate because they were not related to the president, the person wrote back saying they, indeed, had a common ancestor.

"They said they have a tangible right to his birth certificate because they're descended from Adam," Okubo said, referring to the biblical figure. "We told them they need to provide some type of legal documentation
."
Nice try, asshole. And I bet you probably think that W was always a Texan.

Open Wide...

Lost Open Thread


Last night's episode will be discussed in infinitesimal detail, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want any spoilers, move along...

Open Wide...

Hey, Losties!



Lost: The Complete Collection

Due August 24, 2010. All six seasons of the series on DVD and Blu-Ray. Other features are still a bit smokey, but it should be full of more bonus features than an Oceanic cargo hold is full of tarps.

In the meantime, all of the songs featured in the show have been collected like Sawyer's ultimate mix tape, so give 'em a listen.

[Cross-posted.]

Open Wide...

On Values and Faith

This being an election year (can it be? I've barely recovered from the last election), I've begun to hear familiar murmurings from conservatives about how the GOP will appeal to "values voters" to win back control of Congress.

As it happens, I'm a values voter: I deeply value autonomy and consent. I deeply value reproductive freedom. I deeply value equality and justice for people who are female and/or queer and/or trans and/or of color and/or disabled and/or poor and/or fat and/or in any other way marginalized. I deeply value marriage equality. I deeply value stem cell research. I deeply value the separation of church and state. I deeply value science being taught in schools. I deeply value universal healthcare. I deeply value a robust social safety net.

I value lots of other things, too, but those seem to be the ones which make me not a "values voter." Not as far as the GOP is concerned.

Despite their reflexive and compulsive intoning of the word "values" during every election year, as if it's a magical incantation that can be uttered only by those who understand its complex truth, it doesn't really mean anything, in and of itself. It's an ethically neutral word. Everyone has values. What matters is not that you have values, but what values you have. Joseph Stalin valued killing people. Jeffrey Dahmer valued eating people. George Bush valued torturing people. I value not killing people, not eating them, and not torturing them. See? Everyone has values.

And, you know, I have faith, too. Not religious faith, but that isn't the only kind. I have faith in my fellow humans—and I'm not so sure that particular brand of faith should be so easily disregarded, because, quite frankly, it's a hell of a lot harder than having faith in a god, at least in my experience. The god to whom I was introduced as a child was never deliberately evil or unkind; that god may have been mysterious, but he had a plan—and you knew that everything made sense according to his plan, even if it was inexplicable to you. And there was a reward for having faith in that god. Faith in him was your ticket to eternity in heaven. Faith in him, as far as the reasons he offered, was simple.

Humans, on the other hand, the troublesome shits, conspire not only to test but to betray your faith at every opportunity. Too often evil and unkind, they mostly can't even be bothered to provide a decent reason for their ill behavior. They're unpredictable, nonsensical, irrational, and unreasonable, and there's no promise of a reward for having faith in them. Sometimes, in fact, you get nothing but spit in your eye in exchange for your trust. For your faith.

The difference between faith in a god and faith in humankind is like the difference between dropping money in the canister of a Recognizable Charity bell-ringer and placing money directly in the hand of someone in need. Your Recognizable Charity donation goes to someone you don't know, whom you'll never see, and, although you're not sure how it all works, you trust that your money will help in a productive way. It's an easy trust—the Recognizable Charity's been there a long time, and they've got a good reputation, and they promise you something for your effort.

On the other hand, giving the money directly to someone in need requires having faith in the person to whom you're giving it, respecting hir ability to make the best decisions for hirself, letting go of any expectation for how that money will be spent. You may hope that zie won't, say, put it on a horse, despite being hungry, because the temptation of gambling is stronger than hir will to nourish hir body. You may hope that zie buys hirself a sandwich, or mittens, or a pint, but you must respect that your hope is a projection, and have faith in hir self-determination. It's a harder trust—and it's not tax deductible, either.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, of course. There are plenty of people who have faith in a god(s) and faith in humankind. But there are a lot of people who only have faith in a god, because their religion tells them humans aren't worth having faith in.

Those tend to be the people who want to legislate morality, because they don't trust people to make good decisions, because they don't even trust themselves. And those are the people who are most often called the "values voters" and to whose religious beliefs the word "faith" has come to refer.

It's a terrible thing that the people who have the least faith in their fellow humans have commandeered the term, because, on this earth, humans are the only ones who can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, provide healthcare to the sick, guarantee equality and freedom.

Those of us who have faith in each other value decidedly earthy humanness, with all its flaws and foibles. That doesn't sound particularly inspiring; there are no hymns, no psalms, no Hallelujah chorus for having faith in other people.

But maybe there should be.

Because there are the times when they surprise you, when your faith pays off, makes you grin until you are certain your face will crack, or your eyes well with tears, at the wonder of how much overwhelming goodness can be found in we hairless apes. It provides a reward the beautiful magnitude of which is only bestowed because of the risk that things could have—maybe should have—gone so horribly wrong.

It's not typical that your faith in people is remunerated by your expectations being exceeded, when they amaze you with the depth of their decency, and its rarity makes such optimism, such faith, difficult. And makes it a faith worth courting, too, even if our values seem a bit grotty and earthbound.

Open Wide...

I Write Letters

Dear CNN:

Well, this is pretty much the stupidest thing you've ever done. Which is really saying something, considering I remember the time you gave Glenn Beck his own show LULZ.

Tuning out,
Liss

Open Wide...

Bread and Teaspoons Twenty-Six

Good morning (unless it isn't where you are, in which case I wish you Good $TIME_PERIOD), and welcome to this week's installment of Shakesville's networking post, Bread and Teaspoons*.

This is a (theoretically) weekly post providing a spot for Shakers to network a little with one another, see if we can help each other out some.

Remember, if you’re running or part of a small business, you’re encouraged to drop links here for that. I’m happy to see Shakers makin’ their own way in whatever manner that is.

Here's how it works: There should be four sorts of comments here.

1) You comment here with any details of work you're seeking: where, what, that sort of thing. You give an e-mail address at which you can be reached - feel free to set up a special e-mail for it, if you don't want to post your regular one for the world to spam - and if another Shaker has a lead, they can contact you directly to pass it along.

A work-seeking comment should include:

  • - a short summary of the skillset you're seeking work with;

  • - a short summary of your experience

  • - where you're looking for work to happen

  • - your contact e-mail
Please do NOT include information such as your full name or telephone number, as this is and will remain a public post, and once posted, there's no taking it back (because it'll be spidered by a search engine, not because we don't want you to).

It is explicitly alright to comment to this each week with similar info.

For example, I might post a comment saying:

I'm a professional translator of French, German and Russian, with nearly 17 years of experience. I'm looking for basically any translation job, academic, commercial, personal, genealogical, you name it, with one exception: I do not currently have certification, so if you need a certified translator (usually for legal docs: birth certificates, divorce decrees, wills), you need someone else.

I am also available as a writer or editor, for academic, journalistic, creative, marketing-oriented or any other type of written communication. Basically, if you'll pay me, I'll write or edit it. My company website is found here.

You can contact me for business purposes through my business address, cait@cogitantes.net.


2) The second type of comment would be task offering: if you've got a job you think might suit someone here, consider posting it as a comment. Use the same guidelines as above: give general information here, and specific information when you exchange e-mails. An offered task might look something like this:

I have a doctoral thesis which needs proofing and editing by Thursday, is anyone available? You can reach me at ABDShaker@shakesville.miskatonic.edu.

In addition to that, I’ve decided to welcome appropriate job resource sites for progressives, e.g. Canada’s Charity Village, which specializes in jobs with non-profits and NGOs.

3) The third kind of comment I'd love to see is success stories! We’d love to know when this works out, and people actually find some employment through our efforts. If you feel like sharing, tell us how it worked out for you. :)

4) If you’re a progressive working for or running a small business and would like to include a pointer to your business, you may do so. If you’ve never otherwise posted before here (i.e., you’re a lurker), I may check in with you to be certain you’re a Shaker and not a spammer. If it turns into a spamfest, or we start getting businesses that are of dubious progressive credentials, we may need to revisit this one, but let’s give it a try.

So, that's what we'd like to see.

What we do NOT want to see:
  • - recommendations/references, even for other Shakers - leave those for the contact phase of your negotiation

  • - rates info - again, leave this for the contact phase of your negotiation; we don't want to encourage bidding wars between Shakers

  • - illegal employment - whatever we may think of a given law against a certain activity, we don't want to put Shakesville in any awkward spots legally
So there. Have at it, Shakers, for Bread and Teaspoons!

Important disclaimers: Shakesville makes no endorsement or claim as to the capabilities of anyone commenting to this post, and anyone considering hiring someone should be prepared to treat it like any other business situation: DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE. We're not doing any screening of this, so you'll want to make sure you check references, use safe-payment procedures (e.g., ask for a deposit), all the things you'd do when working with any stranger on the Internet. While this is intended for Shakers in general, remember that there is no real obstacle to being able to comment here, and do the things you need to do to keep yourself safe.

* As might be evident, this is an intentional reference to Bread and Roses, a longtime slogan of the left. In this case, though, my hope is that if we achieve steady bread, we will use it to power our teaspoon use.

The last several Bread and Teaspoons: Twenty. Twenty-One. Twenty-Two. Twenty-Three. Twenty-Four. Twenty-Five.

Open Wide...

Open Thread


Hosted by the Cheshire Cat.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

This one time, I was taking a shower when I heard a strange ka-dong! sound. It scared the crap out of me (not literally, thank the wizard). I looked down at the shower floor! And there was a damn penny! Lying there! It scared the crap out of me! Again! (Also not literally, but closer this time!) I thought there was a polterghost throwing pennies at me!

Then I looked at my belly and saw a Silly Putty-style indentation of a penny thereupon.

Turns out that damn thing was stuck to my belly the whole time!

What's the strangest place you've discovered money? Cash or coinage accepted.

Open Wide...

Um

Echidne notes Where the Female Bloggers Are*:

Not at the meeting Speaker Pelosi organized for bloggers about the health care reform proposal:
I just got back from an on the record meeting for blogger with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Also present were David Waldman, Igor Volsky, Greg Sargent, Jason Rosenbaum, Ryan Grim, Chris Bowers, Brian Beutler, and John Aravosis. Aside from hearing a lot about parliamentary procedure that I think is being written about too much, and learning that having a woman Speaker of the House doesn't guarantee that any women will be at congressional blogger briefings, the main message was one of confidence: "I have faith in my members that we will be passing this legislation."
Perhaps women were invited but couldn't make it? ... Why does any of this matter? Because of what has been offered up as THE compromise in the whole debacle: Further reductions in women's reproductive choice. To add insult to injury is neither smart nor kind. That's why I reallyreally hope that Pelosi invited umpteen female bloggers but they were all too busy to attend. The alternative would make me angry.
For the record, I wasn't invited.

--------------------

* A reference to the "Where are all the female bloggers?" mystification that periodically grips the men of the progressive blogosphere.

Open Wide...

Proposed

I would like to put forth the radical notion that, if a fat person is fat by choice, it's okay.

I'll give you a moment to sit with that idea—that it's okay for someone to choose to be fat. Because it really is a radical notion, and, like other radical notions, it is both has the capacity and is likely to evoke visceral reactions of protest. Like: "But being fat is (potentially) unhealthy! And that's not okay!" But, if you give yourself a moment or two, you'll probably realize there are other potentially unhealthy things that people do, which you would probably argue in favor of allowing them to continue doing.

It's more dangerous to ride in a car than be a pedestrian. But if a person capable of walking to the store wanted instead to hop in their car to pick up milk a mile away, you'd probably think that's okay. Because, hey, maybe they have a good reason for preferring to drive.

More people get hurt jumping out of airplanes for fun than get hurt gardening for fun. But if someone prefers the adrenaline rush of skydiving to the relaxation of gardening, you'd probably think that's okay. Because everyone's different, right?

Sometimes, doctors tell patients that a surgery, or an experimental treatment, or a new drug, might actually be more likely to kill them than cure them. But if someone decided to opt for the risky cure, you'd probably think that's okay. Because it's that person's body, not yours.

So maybe it's all right for you to think it's okay, if someone chooses to be fat, rather than thin.

Because, the thing is, holding in judgment people who are fat by choice doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given our general tolerance for all sorts of things that people do which carry with them risks to their health (like being born, or giving birth, and things way more controversial). And people are going to be fat, or not fat, irrespective of your judgment about fat people. Letting go of fat hatred won't change anything—except, of course, to make the world a little bit better a place for its fat inhabitants.

It can be a hatred that's hard to let go of, even for fat people, because letting go of that hatred, and replacing it with acceptance, can feel akin to giving fat people permission to be fat.

But being in the position of feeling like permission is yours to give is a manifestation of privilege. And maybe it's all right to let that privilege go.

Maybe it's all right for you to hold the position that if a fat person spends hir days as a walking stereotype of a "bad fatty," eating mass quantities of unhealthy food, that is hir right.

Maybe it's all right for you not to draw a distinction between "good fatties" and "bad fatties," even as you recognize not everyone is fat for the same reasons.

Maybe it's all right for you to consider that if a fat person is spending hir days eating mass quantities of unhealthy food, it's none of your business (unless zie invites you to make it your business) whether zie is doing so because zie has an eating disorder, or because zie has an addiction, or because zie is self-medicating with food, or because zie is insulating hirself from abuse, or because zie is creating a barrier of flab against real intimacy, or because zie is bored, or because zie is self-destructive, or because zie has no will power, or because zie is just a gluttonous foodie who loves the taste of rich foods.

Maybe it's all right for you to acquiesce that you cannot tell just by looking at hir for what reasons zie is choosing to be fat, or even if it's hir choice at all.

Maybe it's all right for you to treat fat people with dignity either way—and let fat people sort out for themselves the business of their being fat.

Open Wide...

Daily Kitteh



Livs.

Open Wide...

Texting! With Liss and Deeky!

Just moments ago:

Deeky: Do I need to come over and Bedazzle™ your vajayjay?

Liss: Yes. :-(

Deeky: What color gemstones should I bring?

Liss: Blue to match my eyes.

Deeky: Not something girly like ... Oh ... I dunno ... Pink?

Liss: LOL!

Deeky: Because if there's one thing that's not feminine enough, it's the cooter.

Liss: LOL!

Deeky: I also have one of those beard trimmers, if'n you wanna go all heart-shaped with your pubes.

Liss: I would prefer my pubes to be trimmed into the shape of a penis. It's IRONIC!

Deeky: LOL! That's just because you have penis envy.

Liss: Penis envy schmenis schmenvy. "Mapplethorpe the fuck outta my ladybits" is #19 on my bucket list.

Open Wide...

Feel the Homomentum!

Pennsylvania kills proposed constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage:

The latest effort to amend Pennsylvania's constitution to effectively ban same-sex marriage is stalling.

The state Senate Judiciary Committee voted narrowly Tuesday to table the measure defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The senators didn't utter a word of debate before or after gay-rights proponent Sen. Daylin Leach proposed to table the measure. The vote was 8-6.
Suck on that, bigots!

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



The Tears: "Refugees"

Open Wide...

The Rehabilitation of Mike Tyson

[Trigger warning.]

I know it's the Post, but still... From an article on Mike Tyson's upcoming reality show on Animal Planet:

Tyson served three years for rape in the mid-'90s and effectively ended his fight career two years later by biting Evander Holyfield during a bout. But he is now well on his way to remaking himself into a sensitive guy.
Wow.

Of course, he's well on his way to remaking himself into something because of all the help he's gotten. Like a family-friendly network giving him his own show, after a sympathetic and well-received documentary was made with his cooperation, and the media sought his expertise on domestic violence, and he was offered a notable and well-marketed cameo in a huge film, and was asked to participate in a high-larious skit at the Teen Choice Awards.

Would that every rapist was so fortunate in his friends, eh?

* * *

To be clear, I'm all for giving people another chance. And being let out of prison is a second chance, which is why we don't impose a life sentence on everyone convicted of any crime. Tyson faced as many as 60 years in prison, actually got sentenced to 10, and only served 3. That's second chance enough, in my opinion.

I don't believe that people who have "paid their debts" are necessarily owed the same opportunities they had before. Giving Tyson a second chance doesn't axiomatically mean he deserves to be made rich and famous again—although that's certainly what our culture appears to believe.

If you're rich and famous, it appears you can be wicked enough to be sent to prison, but not so wicked as to be sent to the working class. I have a problem with that.

* * *

I also have a problem with the fact that the rehabilitation of Tyson's reputation is justified on the assumption that he was unfairly convicted.

Famous men who have been accused of and tried for rape is typically "He wasn't convicted!" (because they're usually not), and the acquittal is used to "prove" the accused is innocent of the charges. Such protests are rooted in the implicit promise that men who are convicted will be presumed guilty.

But, as we can see with Tyson, that's not true. Despite Tyson's being convicted and serving prison time, he's still not regarded as a rapist. "He was railroaded!" And so he deserves a big comeback. Yay!

I would say it's unbelievable, except for the fact that it's totally, frustratingly, rage-makingly believable.

* * *

Tyson was tried in Indiana and served his time in a state prison that's about 20 minutes from my house. I remember the trial. I remember how his accuser, Desiree Washington, was slut-shamed and called a liar and a gold digger and a whore. The description of the case in Wikipedia still tries to cast doubt on her story. She "claimed," rather than "testified." She "was forced to admit that on several occasions she had the opportunity to leave Tyson's hotel room, but chose not to do so." She had a "history of sexually leading men on."

Fury.

There isn't enough time in the world to pass to make me forget that.

Sensitive guy, my ass.

* * *

I'm angry at Tyson, but I am just as angry, if not even more so, at the people who have forgotten Washington, or who continue to cast aspersions on her reputation, in order that Tyson's may be rehabilitated. They are people who ignore he is not merely a convicted rapist, but a man who abused at least one spouse, and who seriously assaulted a man in a professional setting, when he bit off part of Holyfield's ear during a boxing match.

They are people who look at Tyson and have pity for him, rather than empathy for the multiple people he has hurt. Or who look at him and see someone exploitable: "Wouldn't it be funny to put that nutball Mike Tyson in our movie?!" No regard for the message that sends about the gravity of assault and rape.

And, ultimately, I'm angry at this whole fucking situation because I think if there is a chance for Tyson to be truly rehabilitated, into a person who will not hurt another person again—a reborn human, not just a reborn career—giving him back wealth and power and entitlement and privilege isn't part of that equation.

In fact, I deeply suspect those are the very things that fuel his monster.

Open Wide...

Investigation Required

At least, that's my opinion. I imagine it'll be given all due consideration by the Vatican, which will either regretfully discover there isn't enough information for action, or will bury the incident in committees and crocodilic apologies (made of the same stuff as crocodile tears).

(Trigger warning - slightly graphic discussion of pedophilia below the Open Wide)

Shaker Bald Soprano sent me a link to this Suddeutsche Zeitung article, (South German Times, a large and reputable media source in Germany) which, yes, is in German.

In short, the allegation is that while serving as Archbishop of Munich and Freising in the early 80s, the current sitting Pope was part of a council which approved the transfer of a convicted pedophile priest from Essen into his bishopric to a new community-work position - in which position that priest reoffended.

There is testimony from a then-eleven-year-old chorister that he'd been forced to provide oral sex to the transferred priest. This is a separate allegation from that of the Regensburg choristers against the Pope's brother, Georg Ratzinger, this one being directly laid at the Pope's door, while he was the Archbishop of Munich. The Vicar-General of Munich took responsibility for the transfer, but this may well be seen as the "falling-on-the-sword" for the one who had overall responsibility for the spiritual and moral health of his congregation: the Archbishop himself.

Addressing a conference of German bishops on Friday, the Pope referred to the abuse scandal now blooming in Germany against the Catholic Church, saying he was deeply upset by the revelations, and fully supported the bishops in their actions (or as we might see it, inactions) in response.

Let's be clear here: this isn't the entire church. Many Catholic clergy serve with great dedication in many parts of the world where others don't give a damn: in Latin America and in Africa, particularly. And while I'd rather they did so without the indoctrination, it cannot be denied there are many great teaspoons lifted by Catholic clergy.

Unfortunately, the upper leadership of the church, the political people who end up in bishoprics and the Vatican - because let us not forget, the Vatican is a political state in the world, and has been for centuries - has shown itself to have the same reaction to distressing news as any other conventional power-holding group: delay the press, destroy evidence, dither fitfully, and finally deny absolutely.

These men - and yes, oddly*, they're all men, and just about every one white, who knew? - have become deeply corrupted by their power. They do a daily disservice to those literally hundreds of millions of faithful Catholics, to the untold thousands of dedicated clergy, and to the good name generated by their good works, by their inaction towards, and denial of, the systemic problem of child abuse by a part of the clergy.

If they want to restore that good name, they will need to take on the moral courage of a fellow they're supposed to have a good deal of respect for (I think his name started with J?), and deal with the problem head-on. Recognize there is some rot in their clergy, in their system, and clean it out, unstintingly.

Ironic, I think, that I will close this with the imprecation so often hurled at queer folk like myself by the church, in keeping us out of mainstream society:

Won't someone please think of the children?

* For some value of "oddly".

Open Wide...

The Anti-Choice Whittling Strategy

I've got a new piece up at The Guardian's CifA about the new "miscarriage" bill in Utah, and how it's part of the anti-choice whittling strategy to render Roe a meaningless statute, to make the US a country in which abortion is technically legal but inaccessible for most women:

Legal abortion is only worth as much as the number of women who have reasonable and affordable and unencumbered access to it, and that number is dwindling: the National Abortion Federation reports that 88% of counties in the US have no identifiable abortion provider – a figure that rises to 97% in non-metropolitan areas.

That's not merely an inconvenience – between travel expenses and time off work, especially when a 24-hour waiting period necessitates at least two days of one's time, the cost of securing an abortion can become an undue burden. It can put legal abortion out of a woman's reach.

That's what state legislatures like Utah's are hoping. And because even the most publicly mendacious anti-choice activists know that even criminalising abortion doesn't stop women from getting them, they know that merely restricting access to legal abortion isn't enough – a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will find a way to not be pregnant.

Thus is their current strategy is to make legal abortion as inaccessible as possible and criminalise everything else. An abortion performed by someone other than a doctor is ergo illegal. An abortion performed on a minor without parental consent, or on an adult without state-mandated counselling and a 24-hour waiting period, is ergo illegal. An abortion late in the pregnancy is ergo illegal. Inducing a miscarriage is ergo illegal. Terminating a pregnancy by any other method than the one which has been most ruthlessly restricted – via piecemeal legislation and the defunding of clinics and the unfettered terrorising of abortion providers – is illegal.

In Utah, women still have a technical legal right to abortion, but very little means to exercise that right.
Read the whole thing here.

Open Wide...

Healthcare Open Thread

I read the news today, oh boy...

House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it:

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Republicans quickly condemned the strategy, framing it as an effort to avoid responsibility for passing the legislation, and some suggested that Pelosi's plan would be unconstitutional.
Which is debatable. And it's certainly not something about which the Republicans were very concerned on the many occasions they've used the procedure themselves.

That said, it's pretty obvious if the bill gets passed this way, its legitimacy is going to be questioned, fair or not, which is a fairly compelling disincentive against using it. Of course, getting healthcare reform passed is a fairly compelling incentive for using it. So.

Meanwhile, it just wouldn't be an important national political debate without some Republican somewhere throwing a totally inappropriate racist allegory into the mix:
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Monday used language that compared House Democrats' efforts to pass healthcare reform legislation to a Japanese kamikaze mission.

"Nancy Pelosi, I think, has got them all liquored up on sake and you know, they're making a suicide run here," Graham said on the Keven Cohen Show on WVOC radio in Columbia, S.C.
Yeesh.

Open Wide...

Open Thread


Hosted by the Caterpillar. Keep your temper.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker Spryte: Do you like or dislike your name? If you dislike it, what would you change it to? Is there a story behind your name?

I like my name, which is Greek for honey bee; it suits me. There's no real story behind my name, apart from the fact that it was difficult for two schoolteachers to decide on a name, because so many names they each liked had been ruined for the other by troublesome students. Melissa had the distinction of being a name they both liked and with which neither had negative associations.

Mama Shakes originally wanted to name me Amarantha. Papa Shakes talked her out of it. I wouldn't have minded.

Open Wide...