Hey Newt-

I wonder what the response would be if a pol said negatively "We are drowning in Christianity"?

Bigotry is not hard to find, people.

Douche of the Day

Today's Douche of the Day is a shared award, going to both the FCC and the Supreme Court.

They are still upholding the "seven dirty words", as if to say, "Don't worry folks, people are still stupid.".

Story

I truly feel this deserves a thoughtful and reasoned discussion, so here is a TRUE authority on the subject.

Douche of the Day

Bernal Smith II is our Douche of the Day for today! And boy did he earn it!

Just a quick aside before the rest of this story, but I really wish we could as a society stop getting caught up in erratic emotional responses that are literally ruining kids lives every day. For really heartbreaking stories check out DetentionSlip.org. Girls getting suspended/expelled for taking a birth control pill, 5th graders being criminally charged for looking at porn on school computers, these parent are simply out of control. Maybe Parents themselves deserve DOTD status. It's a thought. Rant ending.

"Bernal Smith II oversees the Memphis Academy of Health Sciences(a publicly funded charter school) that publicly whips and paddles students every Friday in the "Chapel" ritual."
-http://www.detentionslip.org/2009/04/heavy-hitter-of-weak-bernal-smith-ii_03.html

Original story here
http://www.wreg.com/wreg-charterdiscipline-story,0,3557529.story

This guy is a real jackass, in the DetentionSlip.org email interaction, he claims to take evidence from both sides of the Corporal Punishment argument, but the only argument that he cites as informing his pro-CP stance is that he believes it works. Then he challenges his questioner to look up for themselves the evidence which he claims supports his position, because he can't show any. Oh, and never mind the fact that this is his justification for PUBLICLY FLOGGING CHILDREN!!! This guy should be in jail.

OK. I know that was confusing. Here's an example.

I say the sky is made of marshmallows. MMMMM.
You say the sky is not made of marshmallows and there are like 300000000 specific scientific sources stating that the sky is not marshmallows, and cite a few specifics for good measure.
Then you ask me for proof that the sky is marshmallows, to which I respond that I can't cite any sources, but you are very resourceful, so you should do it.
You shake your head and I walk away convinced that I won that debate.

Given the above example, just based on that, would you let me within 5000 miles of your childs education?

If you answered yes to above, you may very well qualify for tomorrows DOTD!

Douche of the Day

Texas Governor Says Secession Possible

Governor Rick Perry- (R- Texas)

What's with all the douchebag governors Texas elects?

Honestly, I'd be glad to see them go at this point.

From his Wiki Article

Texas secession

In April 2009, Perry endorsed a resolution supporting state sovereignty as reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.^{[citation needed]} On April 15 at a "tea party protest" he said, "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."^[47]

Douche of the Day

Douche of the Day goes to Nashville Tenn., Police Chief Ronal Serpas who said after a big drug bust
last week;

"Somebody's breaking into somebody's grandmother's house to have the money to buy the weed," said Metro Police Chief Ronal Serpas. "Somebody stealing somebody's car to sell to have money to buy the weed. Somebody beating someone up because they owed them the money, the money that they used to buy the weed."

[Source http://www.wsmv.com/news/19057346/detail.html]

Former Bush Aide says Guantanamo detainees innocent (mostly) and that B.A. knew it.

Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to former-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press "There are still innocent people there," "Some have been there six or seven years.", talking about Guantanamo.

"Some 800 men have been held at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen are terrorists, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006.

"We need to put those people in a high-security prison like the one in Colorado, forget them and throw away the key," Wilkerson said. "We can't try them because we tortured them and didn't keep an evidence trail."

Wilkerson, who flew combat missions as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and left the government in January 2005, said he did not speak out while in government because some of the information was classified. He said he feels compelled to do so now because Cheney has claimed in recent press interviews that President Barack Obama is making the U.S. less safe by reversing Bush administration policies toward terror suspects, including ordering Guantanamo closed.

The administration is now evaluating what to do with the prisoners who remain at the U.S. military base in Cuba.

"I'm very concerned about the kinds of things Cheney is saying to make it seem Obama is a danger to this republic," Wilkerson said. "To have a former vice president fearmongering like this is really, really dangerous.""

Above story is modified, but mainly copy pasted. Read the rest of the story

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_wrongly_held

By ANDREW O. SELSKY, Associated Press Writer

My take on Cheney,

He should shut up, and go fuck himself.

the workforce

I keep seeing stories that actually do break my heart, but also kind of anger me.
The last one was about a '62 year old college grad' looking for help finding work.
Of course, people must do what they must, and I'm not mad about the fact that this lady wanted to find a job, but it did get me thinking about the notion of people working well into their 70's.
One thing that is true is that there are a limited number of jobs available. There is not a small number, but the number is limited. For every job someone has, there is someone else unable to work. I was talking with my sister about this concept relating to women entering the workforce en masse, but I don't think she caught where I was going with it. I was talking about the reasonably massive influx of workers when women began working more and how it affected the labor market. I was wondering if anyone was discussing the negative influence the increase in supply of labor was having on wages and benefits packages. Also, the fact that we have now an expectation based on living expenses of families with 2 incomes. The days of 1 income households seem to be over. Now I know it depends on the income, but look realistically at what mOST people make.
Anyway this ties in with the 62 year old anecdote above in that it seems that no one ever discusses the negative influence over supply of labor has on our economy. We hear about new job creation, but also that most people can't afford to live without 2 or sometimes 3 jobs, which is 'uniquely American'. I just personally wish that we as a people could stake less of our identities on our jobs/careers, so that workers won't lose themselves when they can actually afford to leave the workforce, thereby opening up opportunities for others, and bringing up the value of labor, by making it more scarce.
I don't know how much of this is making sense right now, and I know I'm not offering a solution. I don't think this has a solution. I just think that is a problem facing us, which will continue, and is worthy of discussion.

All quiet on the western front

Lately I don't have too much to complain about, I see things as going reasonably well.

I have noticed that the Republicans have been trying to assert themselves, though they have no cohesion. They are a cornered dog and are lashing out at those who approach them.

The politics of winning are disabling them now.

The Republican party became an ideological base on social issues, but lost their core values, and are now reaping the benefits of being the party who tries to make us afraid, when we no longer fear.

Vindication of Bush's Iraq War Policy

There has been some talk (specifically just on the Daily Show) referring to history's future vindication of President Bush's Iraq War Policy.

I just can't believe it.

Here's the facts that history will have to overcome in order to vindicate our soon to be ex-President.

1. President Bush and his Administration LIED to us regarding weapons of mass destruction, imminent threats, links to Al Qaeda, and that the war was not about oil.
2. Donald Rumsfelds failed policy of a fast and light, specialized military, quick in/quick out, and his superiors' inability to admit its failings for YEARS.
3. The Commander in Chief continuously failing to plan (to this day) an actual campaign. If he were a chess player, he would be aware of opening, middle, and end game, and how a commander uses strategy to achieve an end. Strategy is a MEANS to an end. The "surge" was a STRATEGY, not a policy. I think ALL of the success in Iraq belongs to the soldiers serving in uniform, be they Privates, or Generals. I think it is a SHAME that our President takes credit for being a success due to our military's unmatched competence, courage, and skill, while still neglecting HIS job, but he is leaving all that confusing stuff for the next guy.
4. Weapons of Mass Destruction?
5. Decision being made based on personal bias "he tried to kill my Dad..."
6. Decisions from the White House regarding the legality of torture (extreme interrogation) and orders to soldiers and other operatives, policies both implicit and explicit, only to leave the individual soldiers who did wrong, but under orders to do so, out in the cold.
7. FREE SPEECH ZONES

This is not a complete list.

For anyone that claims that the war is not about oil, you are being naive. It is only partially about oil, but it is most certainly NOT about the liberation of Iraqis, or the ousting of Saddam Hussein. It is about American Strategic interests in the region. Oil is a top strategic interest. Iran, and the power and sway they have with the entire Muslim world, is a major strategic interest. In the past eight years we have managed to invade the two countries on either side of Iran. Hmm.

------------- --------------- --------------------------
| Iraq | | Iran | | Afghanistan |
------------- --------------- --------------------------

I can't believe that something as obvious as that goes over everyone's heads. We are at the very least using these wars as hard bargaining with the Iranians, threatening military force by our very presence.
In other words, the reasons can't be fit on a bumper sticker. Unless maybe its this one.

How many have to die
to advance our
Strategic Interests?

Also, I remember having a conversation with my brother, in Feb, possibly March of 2003, in which we were discussing the possibility of a war in Iraq, when I brought up the possibility of it being better to fight "them" over there instead of over here. Essentially, the thinking went as such.
Terrorist = Enemy
Terrorist Home = Nowhere
American Might = Military
Iraq = Terrorists New Home
Military = Kick rag tag Terrorists Asses in open combat
Strategic Interests= Advanced

But, then I considered that a terrorist does not engage in open combat. A terrorist uses the terror of the threat that he will blow up a building, or a bridge, or a plane, or a school.
These are those who took down our towers, not a standing army.
19 guys.
No warning.
Creating a battlefield to fight an enemy with no motivation for open combat = bad idea

About a year later I began to hear that argument being used to defend the Iraq war by pundits on TV. That was one of the first times that I really thought that our entire system is being run by morons.
I began to be truly terrified.

I was not shocked that morons were on TV, but I was shocked by how transparent the arguments on either side became. Facts were simply things to be manipulated in order to advance policy, specifically public support of policy.

The truth had become obsolete.
The facts would soon vindicate Bush's policy.