Rick Santorum Doesn't Like Kids Going to College

I know, I know: it's been almost a full year since i've written anything for my own blog. To be fair, I haven't written much over at Banned and Dangerous, but all of that is going to change. I'm back, and I've got some things I want to talk about in my absence. Right now, the reason why i'm back: Republican presidential candidate, Jesus freak, gay-bashing, contraception-hater Rick Santorum.

Now, you know my stance on religion: I have no problem with one's religious beliefs, but when someone tries to shove his beliefs down my throat, or impose their warped view onto the country, I take great offense to that, and i'm going to call people out. While candidate Santorum was speaking at the First Baptist Church of Naples in Florida yesterday, he had a new target in his sights for his latest Two Minutes of Hate rant: College.

"We've lost, unfortunately, our entertainment industry," the candidate explained. "We've lost our higher education. That was the first to go a long time ago. It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college. The indoctrination that occurs at American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America -- and it is indoctrination."

Since when is higher education equivalent to indoctrination? And isn't challenging one's beliefs, the way a person thinks and looks at the world a good thing and almost a given when you go to a university? Lastly when Rick added Hollywood into the numerous things good, noble Christ-lovin' folk have lost because of us godless liberals: how can you claim you've lost something you've never fully had control of in the first place?

"If they taught Judeo-Christian ideology, they would be stripped of every dollar. If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly get. As you know, 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it. And I bet you there are people in this room who give money to colleges and universities who are undermining the very principles of our country every single day by indoctrinating kids in left-wing ideology. And you continue to give to these colleges and universities. Let me have a suggestion: Stop it!"

Rick, colleges and universities across the nation do, in fact, teach Judeo-Christian ideology, the beliefs, it's origins and the like. It's called a World Religions course. Oh, and to say that "they" would strip said school of every dollar for teaching religion is bull. First, let's get to the root of what Rick meant when he said, "they". "They," means the ACLU, the non-profit organization that's on the conservatives and evangelical Christian's shit list for, what they see as trying to eradicate Christianity from the United States. Of course, that notion is further from the truth, as the ACLU has helped Christians on numerous occasions when their right to practice their faith was threatened. Even if the government or the state tried to take away funding from said university, the ACLU would probably come to the aid of the faculty and the students.

Tea Party = GOP (Now with 2x the crazy!)

First there was Sarah Palin. The architect of downright dipshit candidates that the Tea Party now promote. We all remember her list of maladies: she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, she couldn't tell you what newspapers she liked to read, winks numerous times in a vice-presidential debate, she supported hunting wolves from an airplane, she used to ban books while mayor of Wasilla, and once received protection against witchcraft from a witch doctor.

Then there was Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate that won her Republican Primary and is now locked in a fierce race in Nevada to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Her claim to fame? She used to be apart of Nevada's Independent Party back in the 90's. The party she supported through the 90's (up until she left in 1997) were strongly homophobic.

Next came Rand Paul, the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans in politics I have respect for. His son, on the other hand, is a real piece of work. We all remember Paul Jr. being interview by Rachel Maddown and how he would tackle the Civil Rights Act of 1964...or his lack of action. Dr. Paul stated that he believes that institutionalized racism is wrong and abhorent, but it's not the place of the federal government to demand that private businesses sy that they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orentation, and disability. Nevermind that private and public ownership of busses, diners, and other areas that blacks were discriminated against played a huge part in why Dr. King marched on Washington D.C. on August 22, 1963, or why African-Americans in Montgomery, Alabama boycottted public transportiation.

And now we have Christine O' Donnell, the Republican nominee from Delaware. Of all the things i've listed about the batshit candidates, she takes the cake. Not only is she another overzealous Jesus freak and a Palin-clone(i.e. the good ol', plain-speaking girl next door routine, looks and speaks just like your mother or family elder), she also believes that masturbation is a sin against the Almighty himself.

“The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can’t masturbate without lust. The reason that you don’t tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue. You’re just gonna create somebody who is, I was gonna say, toying with his sexuality. Pardon the pun.”

No words can describe just how ridiculous that statement is. Did I also forget to mention that she used to "dabble in witchcraft?"

These are the members of the Tea Party, the group not created from Dick Armney's "Freedom Works" think-tank and from irrational fears that the President is a black radical hell-bent on taking away the white man's guns, and his daughter's virginity founded on freedom, on reducing the size of government, on getting a foothold of the out-of-control deficit, on shouting from Arizona to the footsteps of Capitol Hill, "Read our lips: No new ta..." Wait a minute...these guys sound like what former Republican Presidents have been spouting off for the last 20 years!

The Tea Party is really nothing new = it's the GOP, but in a shiny new wrapper, only now they come with frothing-at-the-mouth racial insensitivity towards gays, blacks, and latinos! The sad part in all of this is that the Republicans foolishly thoguth they would be able to control these people...now in this election cycle, the puppetmaster has become the puppet, and if Obama and the Democrats can't get their act together and sell the slow progress they have been legislating, the last 8 years of the Bush Administration wouldn't look so bad after a few rounds with these reactionary lunatics.

The Fundamental Problem Between Democrats and Republicans

Of all the things Dems and the GOP could endlessly argue and debate, I would at least think that the rescue workers - many of whom have suffered damage of their organs, have developed breathing problems, or other medical-type issues - that sacrificed their lives to save others trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center....something like giving them free healthcare and compensation for their tireless efforts would be a no-brainer, everyone in the freaking House of Representatives would unanimously support.

The bill came to the floor, was debated for weeks, and the final tally was in: yeas - 255, nays - 159. Did I mention that the bill, despite it's clear majority, didn't pass? Yes, you read that right: it had a clear majority in the House, and it didn't pass. And, oh yeah - and i'm sure this will shock every last one of you - most of the 159 representatives who voted no were.....drum-roll, please.....Republicans. So what was the argument behind voting no, you ask?

GOP critics branded the bill as yet another big-government "massive new entitlement program" that would have increased taxes and possibly kill jobs.

To pay the bill's estimated $7.4 billion cost over 10 years, the legislation would have prevented foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S.

Bill supporters said that would close a tax loophole. Republicans branded it a corporate tax increase.

Pardon my French, but ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?!?!?! These are the men and women who put their own lives on the line for their fellow man, and this is how you choose to repay them!? By giving them the proverbial finger while you, once again, defend the interests of Corporate America!? What the hell is wrong you?? At what point did outright greed trump helping those who have given back and are suffering from respiratory problems and whatnot?

And the Democrats....I can't even begin to explain what I think of these guys....

King said Democrats were "petrified" about casting votes as the fall elections near on controversial amendments, possibly including one that could ban the bill from covering illegal immigrants who were sickened by trade center dust.

When will you guys stop acting like a bunch of petrified pussies, and start standing up to these corporate thugs? You have the Majority and yet, you're letting the Minority run the show???

Great. Republicans keep sucking that big business cock, while Democrats refuse to fight back against Republican opposition. The result is that the 9/11 first responders don't receive the treatment and the benefits they so rightly deserve, which, inherently, outlines the fundamental problem with our two parties in this day and age: Democrats are like the Lion in The Wizard of Oz, desperately searching for some courage, while the Republicans have morphed into Daniel Day-Lewis's character in There Will Be Blood: a greed-filled misanthrope who has longed forgotten to call the human race his own.

The Palin Foreign Policy Manifesto Or: Why We Should Vote Obama in 2012

My friend Kerri Greene and I were talking about positive and negative energy in the Universe and how she does her best to throw out positive vibes rather than negative. For the most part, I'm trying to follow her lead:

* Guys like Sean Hannity and Mike Galllagher, and Bill O'Reilly who I hated with passion; now, whenever I see those clown on TV, I just change the channel. It's just not worth the energy to yell when I already know their shtick is to appeal to the lowest common denominator and exploit the viewer's negative-held beliefs on anyone and anything that maybe different that them or how they think, or look, etc.

* The Los Angles Dodgers, our rivals in the National League West are just that: our bitter rivals in a hotly contested divisional race. I'll be disappointed if the Padres don't win the West and L.A. does, but I won't lose sleep over it.

* Not being the jock or the cool kid who got the super-cute girls in high school, adding my insecure nature and struggle to be just like I am, drove my depression in my Junior and Senior years, and i'm now beginning to realize that all of that shit doesn't matter, that traits like that don't really help in the real world (unless you're an athlete who's banging a underwear model or a porn star, then you suck even more!)

Sarah Palin, though? I have to give her credit: when she spouted her foreign policy, "Peace Through Bombing the Shit Out of Anyone Who Fucks with Us" agenda, she set off a nerve in me. Here's some of her bullet-points:

On Defense Spending:

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

First off Sarah: the Obama administration is actually doing what you propose, by way of a spending freeze starting in 2011, where just about everything but defense is cut.
Second: We did reduce spending the "American" way. It was in the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. years, and now we're in the "Great Recession" because of the policy that Big Business and Corporate America can be trusted to regulate itself, when in fact, they can't.
Furthermore, what's the point of our military might if citizens at home are falling through the various cracks? How we claim to defend the interests of America and her allies abroad, if we're behind the ball on universal health care for all citizens, or clean energy jobs?

On the War on Terror:

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11.

And who, pray-tell, was in charge of the country, months before the devastating attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center? Who was handed a memo that read "Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.", one month before 9/11, and still did nothing!?

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances...their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror...Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security.

If you mean "winning" by bribing the Sunnis and the Shi'ite not to kill American ground forces, then i'll gladly give you that one, but let's not kid ourselves on the former president and allies and alliances. Our only major partner in this nightmare was Great Britain, as the rest of the world opted-out of joining W. down a quagmire of epic proportions not seen since Vietnam. Oh, and Obama is still committed to the War on Terrorism: we're escalated troop levels in Afghanistan, and the use of drones is becoming a big factor in our approach to taking out terrorist leaders.

On Dealing with Less-Than Likable Leaders and Nations:

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Or, what normal, sane leaders would call, diplomacy. Before the Republican Party abandoned rationality and reason for quick, knee-jerk action in the international arena, President Nixon actually used it to cool off tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. You see, Sarah: even Nixon, paranoid crook that he was, understood that the continued arms race between the two nations would lead to the tipping point that neither side would be able to contain, so he introduced the SALT I and SALT II treaties to reduce the no. of stockpiles of weapons both sides would build to avoid plunging the world into a nuclear holocaust. Hell, now Nixon would've been considered a "pussy" by arrogant, trigger-happy morons in this day and age because he favored avoiding war.

On Obama's "Differing Views of America"

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience?

Bullshit, Sarah. On the campaign trail, then-Senator Obama stated many times how his story and his rise on the national stage wouldn't have happened anywhere else but in America. Oh, and when you have a white mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, and when you travel beyond the borders of the United States for a good portion of your life, you tend to see the world and your country in different-colored lenses, which is well-needed clarity for this country.

At this point, anyone who's read her policy carefully, pretty much understands what the former Governor of Alaska is about: she's a Bush Jr. clone who prides herself on not-knowing jack. She doesn't know and understand complex foreign policy issues, and frankly, she doesn't want to know. To her, if the discussion doesn't include "U.S.," "America," "United States," "Americans," "U.S.A." or some combination of the words, then she doesn't give a damn. To her, its our way or its gonna rain bombs over your neck of the wood, diplomacy be damned; plus only pussies try to "reason" and "negotiate," because might always makes right. Sarah Palin and the new trigger-happy members of the Republican Party are the textbook example of Jim Rome's take on "Likes to Fight Guy", but on an international stage.

Going back to Kerri and throwing out positive energy in the Universe, I was about ready to write a short post, and just blast her away, as i've done in some posts in the past. As I read her piece, I had a change of heart: like getting worked up about the right-wing clowns, and the Dodgers, and what i'm not when I attended Otay Ranch High School, it's not worth the energy. Plus, its more therapeutic for me to write out lengthy pieces on, as disheartening many liberals and progressives are with the change (or lack thereof in the eyes of some) President Obama is administrating, that the other alternative the GOP is proudly suggesting, is a no-brainier: we'll stick to fighting for the change he promised on the campaign trail than resort to cynicism and apathy, allowing their brand of insanity to return to the White House.

Greed Over Principles or: the G.O.P.'s attitude toward Americans

Remember John McCain's slogan he used back in 2008, Country First? Remember how all of the GOP talking heads repeated how that, under a McCain-Palin administration, he was going to put "Country First"? When all Senate Republicans and one conservative Democrat stood together to block a jobs bill that would have reinstated many financial aid programs, including unemployment benefits to those currently out of work and/or looking for a job, is this what they had in mind when it comes to "Country First"?

Reid and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), in an effort to mollify a handful of conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, have spent the past several weeks trimming the bill to reduce its deficit impact. But after jettisoning several provisions to help the old, the poor and the jobless, reducing the bill's ten-year deficit impact down from $134 billion to just $33 billion, the bill is still sinking. Not a single Republican is willing to lend support and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson is still holding out, leaving Democrats two votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

Extended unemployment benefits lapsed at the beginning of June. By Friday, more than 1.2 million people out of work for longer than six months will have found themselves ineligible for the next tier of extended benefits, which were originally provided by the stimulus bill to fight the recession. Other programs that lapsed include elevated federal aid for state Medicaid programs and a "Doc Fix" that prevents doctors from a 21-percent drop in reimbursement for seeing Medicare patients.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a statement put out today said the reason the Republicans in the Senate blocked this important piece of legislation for millions of Americans is because they're worried about what this will do to the deficit.

That's complete bullshit!

If these so-called "fiscal conservatives" were so concerned about the deficit, then why did the GOP rubber stamp Bush Jr.'s tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans and to big business? If the Republicans were that concerned about bringing some fiscal discipline, then they wouldn't have allowed Reagan to balloon defense spending from $134 billion to $290 billion within the 8-year tenure of his presidency, or hold firm on Bush and the neoconservatives' push to drag America into an unnecessary war with Iraq. Now these self-righteous pricks have the stones to tell us that now they're worried about the national deficit they helped create over the last eight years, only after they were bounced out of power!?

Let's cut the fucking bullshit and get to the real reason the Senate Republicans are giving the proverbial middle finger to Americans who are desperately trying to find work: they've made the cynical bet that the only way they'll get back into power is to block, de-rail, and oppose every scrap of legislation the Democrats and President Obama try to push through in order to help middle-class Americans. They don't care if America has to face another near-economic crass, or if kids on the streets of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have been reduced to begging for food because the parents can't afford a damn meal, let 'em starve; hungry kids are not they're problem. To the GOP, the ends will always justify their means.

So, I revert to my original question: back in 2008, when McCain's slogan was "Country First", and all the right-wing talking heads said that under a McCain-Palin administration the pair would put "Country First"...did they mean this one? Because they've got a funny way of showing it.

Don't stop, Democrats!

This week, Democrats finally grew a pair and passed health care reform. The bill is far from perfect (many of us would prefer a public option, but we can takle that bridge later on in the year, and we will), but two things were proven: 1.) our government can still take on big issues and 2.) President Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate have the spine and the will to stand by their convictions, instead of folding over like a piece of paper becasue Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh lie and distort the message that healthcare isn't a socialist plot to destroy America, but a right every citizen deserves; it shouldn't be a priveledge to prolong one's life when they get sick.

Anyway, I originally intended to make a long post about this occasion, but Bill Maher beat me to the punch.

Not even during the winter holidays can Obama catch a break from conservatives

In this increasingly political and ideological divided American landscape, one of the few things we can find common ground in is the decency to leave partisanship to side during the winter holidays, and wish each other a safe and Merry Christmas (or Happy Hanukkah if your Jewish), and a Happy New Year, and we'll resume our ongoing clash of ideologies in 2010. Since this year town hall meetings and Addresses to the Congress have become popular venues for people to yell, shout, and bitch without regard for basic forms of respect for other people, one would believe that even the spirit of the holiday season can't get tarred and feathered with partisanship.

Enter conservative columnist Tony Blankley and his piece on the Huffington Post about his hope for the holiday season. And if you think it's the standard peace on earth and goodwill towards man sentiment, you're nuts.

Taking stock this second Christmas after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, as a conservative Republican (with growing tea-party tendencies) I'm filled with a thrilling, unexpected hopefulness that the president may be well on his way to losing his battle for the hearts and minds of the American people -- tempered by a shocked disbelief that so much long-term damage could have been perpetrated on the American economy, national security and way of life in just 11 months of ill-judged governance.

Mr. Blankley: The same rule that's applied to someone's death should be applied to the holidays - if you don't have anything kind to say about someone, then it's best to keep your thoughts to yourself.

Remarkably, this view could apply equally to the left and to the right. Mr. Obama first thrilled, then disappointed and now enrages the left with his policies of (as they now see it): (1) giving the banks, health insurance companies, drug companies, for-profit hospitals and Washington lobbyists everything they want; (2) doing nothing for middle-class homeowners; and (3) escalating the war in Afghanistan.

Yeah, we're disappointed that for all of the president's talk on creating a public option for the middle class and getting tougher on Wall Street, he has continued down the same path as president's have before him (except in the case of escalating the war in Afghanistan, we should have known Obama would stay true on finishing the job in the Afghan region). But I do recall having Obama say that there would be setbacks and false starts along the way, and no doubt, i'm going to disagree with the president more issues to come. But this is one liberal who isn't going to do what so many pissed-off liberals and progressives are threatening to do or have already done: say 'fuck it, time for a third party candidate in 2012,' which will make us feel better in the short term, but it won't change jack shit in the long haul.

Of course, conservatives are appalled at (among other things) the trillions of dollars in new deficits, the nationalizations, the trillion-dollar partisan slush fund (i.e., stimulus packages), the attempted federal government takeover of the private economy via carbon taxing and regulating, the weakening of our anti-terrorism efforts, the never-ending worldwide apology tour, the undercutting of allies while appeasing enemies, and the ongoing effort to destroy our health care system and replace it with a socialized, rationing Euro-system.

So tell me, exactly where was the conservative outrage when Bush Jr. handed out billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% of Americans? Why didn't the so-called fiscal conservatives call out the Bush administration when they were ballooning the federal deficit to the point where Wall Street almost went under last year?
Also, your fake outrage over the Obama White House's approach to foreign policy is pathetic. Remind me: which party was it that staunchly defended and acted as the pit bull when Bush and Cheney lied an entire nation into a war of choice? Exactly which president thought that tough talk and acting like we were the biggest, baddest bully on the world's playground would help us in winning the War on Terrorism? And while the previous administration presided over torturing enemy combatants, who defended such barbaric, medieval, and illegal techniques vehemently? Oh, that's right: when a Republican president starts an illegal war, tortures enemy combatants, and violates the Constitution, then all that means is that he's protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. When a Democratic president engages in diplomacy to solve foreign affairs, he's weakening national security by not calling in air strikes!

There's a reason why I don't plan on ever voting for your party, Mr. Blankley. The current crop of stuck-in-the-mud Reaganites in Congress, coupled with big business first fiscal conservatism, radical Christian fundamentalists, and the bat-shit simpleton TEA-Party movement further remind me why the GOP cannot be entrusted with political power in this country until they return to some form of functioning normalcy. I just just hope p.o.'d progressives can find that same sentiment again. We can choose to let setback after setback make us stay home on 2010 and 2012 and allow a (shudder) Sarah Palin to run the Oval Office and get her hands on the nuclear codes. Or we can fight for what we believe in and be ready to swallow our pride and make tough compromises when we don't get our way.

President Obama must also understand that although that we are still on his side, that if doesn't dig deep and find a pair of cajones and fight for his base, his eloquent speaking abilities might not sway us in the 2012 Presidential elections. We understand (or at least I hope some liberals do) that in order to bring about meaningful change and reform to America, sometimes you have to pragmatic about what you can get, and what's just a pipe dream at the moment. But Obama must quickly learn that compromise can only go so far until it's just a piece of legislation that looks like it was written by the other side, word for word. He will eventually have to learn to draw a distinct line in the sane and risk pissing people off. Right now, he has to show that he's fighting for his base, and for middle America, and not just bowing to Wall Street and Big Pharma.

Daily KOS founder calls out GOP chickenhawk

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal website Daily KOS.com, and military veteran slams former GOP congressman Tom Tancredo on the Friday edition of "The Ed Show" with David Shuster filling in for Ed Schultz. Both men were brought in to discuss yesterday's Tea Party Rally that was held on the Capital building and some of the over-the-line signs that were used.

The debate became heated when Moulitsas defended health care reform when stating that the U.S. military uses government-run health insurance, with Tancredo stepping in and saying that he knew veterans who don't like their health insurance, and desire to switch to a voucher system and buy into a private insurance plan. Here's the clip:



Tom got mad when Markos called him out as a conservative who talks a big game, but never putting his money where his mouth was when it came to the military, and stormed off in the middle of the interview. Turns out that part was true.

As a Republican student activist, Tancredo spoke out in favor of the Vietnam War. After graduating from the University of Northern Colorado in June 1969, he became eligible to serve in Vietnam. Tancredo said he went for his physical, telling doctors he'd been treated for depression, and eventually got a "1-Y" deferment.

At any rate, great job from Markos for calling on this guy's BS.

Compassionate conservatism rearing its ugly head

Some of you may already know about the horrific and shocking tale of Jamie Leigh Jones, but for those who don't, here's a bit of info on her story.

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Yes, you read that right. The act itself, as it turns out, was a warm-up compared to what comes next in the story.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave. Jones described the container as sparely furnished with a bed, table and lamp.

Unfortunately, it gets more insulting. Under the Bush Department (lack) of Justice, her case was largely swept under the rug, and left for one group to settle the matter...Halliburton/KBR.

Jones is now trying to proceed with the case in civil court, but KBR is pushing for it to be heard in “private arbitration,” without a “public record or transcript.” Halliburton has “won more than 80 percent of arbitration proceedings brought against it.”

Under a mandatory arbitration clause, if something happens to you - like the sexual abuse of Leigh Jones - under contract, you cannot sue the company for damages. Turns out its not just Halliburton that makes an arbitration clause mandatory in the workplace.

Hooters • Applebee's • KFC • Friendly Ice Cream Corporation • Circuit City • Neiman Marcus • Nordstrom • Hallmark Cards • Merrill Lynch • Citigroup • First usa • Ameriquest • Discover • Blue Cross Blue Shield • Aetna • Kaiser Permanente • AT&T • Ford • Daimler AG • Toyota • Clear Channel • General Electric • Halliburton • Bechtel • Rent-a-Center

Thankfully, last month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor over Halliburton, stating that her injuries were not covered by the arbitration clause.

Now what does this heartbreaking example of unchecked corporate accountability and another dark example of life under the Bush/Cheney era have to do with 'compassionate conservatism' rearing its ugly head yet again?

Junior Senator Al Franken of Minnesota introduced an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would make it illegal for defense contractors to stop employees from taking sexual abuse, battery, and harassment up to court, in other words, to make sure that we don't have to hear about another Jamie Leigh Jones in the news. You would beleive in the Senate, that a bill that would stop defense contractors from restricting employees from pressing charges because of rape or assault, would be an instant, no-brainer, unanimous 'yes' vote, right?

The bill did pass alright....by a vote of 68-30.

30 Senators basically defended rapists.

And these 30 Senators were, drumrolls please.......

Old, white, Republicans lawmakers. Here's the full list of the Senators who had the audacity to vote no.

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

I'm not one to wish ill will on others, but in this case, I hope there's a special place in Hell for the people who have decided to place corporate interests over those of rape victims.

Jon Stewart does a great job taking these partisan hacks to task on their actions on last night's The Daily Show.

In addition to being the Party of unchecked corporate greed, torture, anti-minorities, obstructionists, and the angry, racist Southern white voter, the GOP can add defender of rape victims to that shameful list.

Again, how the hell can honestly look at these qualities, and still vote Republican?

Homosexuality? A lifestyle choice! Your religious views? You're born with it!

Your skin color. The color of your eyes. Your ethnic background(s). These three things, are among a long list of other traits of things that not one person can change about themselves. What you wear, what you eat, what musical tastes you have, etc. are among an even longer list of things that everyone can change, or changes dramatically, thought the course of a lifetime. In the ever-raging debate on equal rights for the gay/lesbian community, one of the arguments I cannot, for the life of me, understand, is the argument that gay men and women have chosen to be with the same sex.

Really? One chooses to be sexually attracted to the same sex overnight? It's not just a biological wiring that one person might have, but a choice, much like a person switching from Vans to Converse shoes?

This bullshit argument has raised a notch today with House Minority Leader John Boehner of Texas explaining his opposition to hate crime protections for the gay community that's being debated on Capitol Hill, and it's a bigger load of BS than the argument I just mentioned.

Last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner objected to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws and make it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation.....

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."

It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.

Boehner's position, then, appears to be grounded in the notion that immutable characteristics should be protected under hate crimes laws. And while religion is an immutable characteristic, his office suggests, sexual orientation is not.

That's right. The House Minority Leader is convinced that one's religious background is an immutable characteristic, as opposed to being physically attracted to the same sex.

My dad was raised in a Baptist-Christian household, along with my mom. I was raised in the same religious household as my parents were. Because of those two factors, by Bohner's logic, I should be a Christian. Yet, I consider myself to being agnostic. How does Boehner explain that? Furthermore, how does he not think to himself and say aloud, "Well...i'm a 100% dumbass?"

When They're Full of Shit, Do They Know It?

And the old joke about politicians goes like this: "How do you know when a politician is lying? When his lips begin to move!" This week, two GOP politicos, one we all thought we would never see again, the other is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee have both resorted to the tried-and-proven scare tactics the Republicans have become masters at.

Former Governor Sarah Palin began with the "death panel" talking point last week, when she claimed President Obama's health care plan would kill her special needs baby, Trig.

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

I've gotta hand it to Sarah on this one. Her bullshit became the right-wing's talking point of the week. Too bad it isn't even remotely true.

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

Now, I know what you're gonna say: 'What an idiot that woman is!' or, 'Doesn't that dumb bitch even read the fucking bill that was presented in the House!?' or even, 'How could the people of Alaska voted for that manipulative woman?'. Sure, all three might be the appropriate thing to say and it makes us feel better about ourselves, but it's too simple, and you fall into the trap. Mrs. Palin is part of the reason why I detest the current leadership that passes in the GOP - people like her are the true cynics; she knows better than to make this false accusation, but she also knows that her base - the ignorant, the narrow-minded, the people who hate everything that doesn't fit into their world view - don't know any better, so she'll lie and yell and whip up false outrage to defeat our country's real chance to reform a broken health care system that cares more about making a profit than taking care of the family of a little boy that has asthma and pray that he has a few flare-ups as humanly possible because they might have to take out their second mortgage to pay for another hospital visit. And hey, if that means she has trot out and exploit her baby to do it (which she did), she'll practicably turn baby Trig into a human puppet.

But as the title suggests, I've come to learn that the former Governor of Alaska is completely full of shit. Palin, as it turns out, was for these supposed "death panels" before she was against it....kind of like when she said "Thanks, but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere," when in reality, she already said yes to it during her term!

WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. [...]

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.

Now onto Chuck Grassley. He also latched onto the talking point this week, after Obama praised his willingness to work with him on health care reform during a town hall meeting this week.

"There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life. And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before you're going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don't have any problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

But the Chuck Grassley in 2003 would probably scold the Grassley currently riding on his high horse now, along with 42 colleagues from the Senate during that time. You guessed it, he voted for those so-called "death panels" in the '03 version of the Medicare drug bill.

So, Mrs. Palin and Mr. Grassley: when you two are full of shit, do you both know it?

They're as mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore!

I, or course, am talking about David Letterman's joke about Sarah Palin's kid getting knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees. Now the conservatives want him.....(drumroll, please)......fired from his gig as hos of The Late Show on CBS.

Sebastian Gray at HillBuzz has been giving lessons this week on how to get David Letterman fired for his rape jokes about Gov. Sarah Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow.

Today he has a post explaining that Republicans do not have the same tenacity as Democrats in working the system to get what they want — in this case, persuading CBS to fire David Letterman. He is correct. However, there is a bonanza of empowerment in it for Republicans if we make this a fight we are determined to win.

Sebastian says it will take 30 days of daily letter-writing to CBS and Letterman’s advertisers. That’s because for the first two or three weeks, they’ll just wait for the tempest to blow over. Not only do we have to keep it up, we have to make it build. This is our line in the sand. Letterman MUST BE FIRED NOW!!!

So I take it Jay Leno and Bill Maher should be protested as well? Both comedians have made jokes about the Governor of Alaska and her daughter, Bristol.

Furthermore, Letterman didn't mention Palin's 14 year-old, Willow when making that joke. She did that all on her own. Letterman's joke was tasteless (IMO, political leader's kids are - or should be - out-of-bounds), but Palin is out to make this bigger than what it needs to be.

You'd think the two apologies he gave this week would get him out of the trouble storm, right? Not with her supporters, apparently. And you know, when protesting, they only did it with class; no, unlike that dick on the late night comedy circuit, they would be protest their outrage, but would be respectful and not make total asses of themselves for all to see....

Random Notes

* On President Obama - Let's get to the obvious: it's great to have a president who is articulate whenever he gives a speech. Its damn refreshing to have a Commander-In-Chief that is willing to listen to all sides of an issue, rather than say its my way or the highway all of the time. The United States has been subjected to that kind of mindset, and we all know that turned out in certain areas. Having said that, allow me to address the conservatives, the liberals, and the president himself:

To the conservatives: Please shut the fuck up about how Obama is driving the country on a road to socialism, or how he's a far leftist, or how he's the fucking anti-Christ. The man's already done many things that have pissed off our side (not going after Bush admnistration officials for waterborading detainees at Guantanamo Bay, his defense of DOMA - Defense of Marriage Act, to name a few) He is a pragmatic, left-of-center president, not the second coming of Joseph Stalin. Get a grip, and come back to us when you can a.) tell us us what you're for, b.) drop the Christian Right from your party, and c.) reach out to minorites and the youth without having right-wing talking heads drive us awan further.

To the liberals: I know you're disappointed that the Preisdent hans't done some of the things we wold like (see above). In a sense, I share your fustration, but we also have to remember one important detail - it's been almost six months since Barack Obama took office. The problems we're facing - from a recession to a health care crisis - won't be solved by Obama stealing Harry Potter's wand, and enuncitating, Reparo!, and the economy will be thriving and Adam and Steve will be able to say "I do," legally. My honest guess is that he's picking and choosing his battles (fix the economy and get Americans affordable healthcare now, get re-elected and takle gay marriage and reforming how Wall Street does buisness in the second term).

To the President: I know you're trying to get past the partisan and political divide that has poisoined the national debate for years by running as a president who'll reach out to both sides of the aisle, but in order for bi-partisanship to work, the other side must unclench their fist. The GOP, thus far, has been unwilling to do so. It's time to let the Republicans know that bi-partisanship is still on the table, but until they make the effort without acting like vindictive, shallow pricks, leave em' be. You have 60 votes (whenever Minnesota will seat Al Franken) in the Senate, a huge majority in the House of Representatives, not to mention the public on your side and an enthusiastic base eager to change our country. The Grand Old Party is, for the moment, irrelevent.

* On the Palin v. Letterman war - How did this become a hot-button issue? And why, now, after ever comedian from Jay Leno to Bill Maher roasted her and how Bristol got knocked up during the campaign, is she now outraged that a comedian made a tasetless joke about how one of her daughers was knocked-up by A-Rod of the Yankees? David Letterman clearly stepped over the line, but then again, who hasn't in the world of late-night television? And why are some conservatives in the blogosphere now calling for Letterman to be fired? By that logic, everyone who cracked on Palin's family and her would be on the unemployment line.

Hypocrite...Opportunist

Ah, Sarah Palin....what more can we say about the Governor of the great state of Alaska and the former Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican party that hasn't already said before (the fundamental problem with the G.O.P., but that's for another time...) ?

We can now use the term 'incredible hypocrite,' but I'll get to that in a minute. For now, Mrs. Palin is one of the three Republican governors who have openly refused President Obama's stimulus money (Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina). From the Governor's website:

Governor Sarah Palin submitted her federal economic stimulus appropriation bill to legislators today to provide jobs and needed infrastructure improvements in Alaska under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Governor Palin is accepting just 55 percent of the available stimulus funds, all for capital projects. This amount includes the funds the state accepted last month for Department of Transportation projects.

"We will request federal stimulus funds for capital projects that will create new jobs and expand the economy," Governor Palin said. “We won’t be bound by federal strings in exchange for dollars, nor will we dig ourselves a deeper hole in two years when these federal funds are gone. For instance, in order to accept what look like attractive energy funds, our local communities would be required to adopt uniform building codes. Government would then be required to police those codes. These types of funds are not sensible for Alaska.”

The state of Alaska would be receiving $930.7 million of the stimulus money, Governor Palin isn't taking $288.1 million of it, according to a report from the Anchorage Daily News.

The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students*. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it. (*emphasis added)

Now, going back to using the term 'incredible hypocrite:' that same day, she criticizes Obama's joke about the Special Olympics last night on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno...while refusing to take stimulus money that would go to help special needs students. And here's the second part on Gov. Palin's blatant hypocritical stance: her fifth child, Trig, was born with Down Syndrome. At the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, then Vice-Presidential nominee Palin boasted that families with children with Down Syndrome would have a friend in the White House if elected.

Wasn't there some passage in the Bible about casting stones if you are without sin or something like that?

The sad part in all of this is the fundamental reason why she's rejecting the money to begin with: to please the shrinking right-wing base of the G.O.P. so she can improve her credentials for the 2012 Republican primaries. And if you don't think that Palin -- along with Sanford and Perry -- aren't rejection almost 30% of the money parley out of principle, then I have this lovely "Bridge to Nowhere" (that the Gov. of Alaska was in favor of until she was selected as the Republican running mate, the bragged how she said "thanks, but no thanks, to that bridge to nowhere.") I want to show ya....

It's official: Sarah Palin scares the living shit out of me

Out of all the gaffs, the cringe-inducing interviews, and the revelation that she's a certifiable Jesus freak, if there's a final consensus on why this woman should not be anywhere near the Vice-Presidency, let alone, the Oval Office, it's her comments during the VP debate about the role of being the Vice-President.

I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

Uh, Sarah? Few things:
1.) the Constitution doesn't say that.
From Section 3 of the Constitution:
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."
2.) Exactly how is wanting to change the Constitution to allow the Vice President more executive power the kind of change leadership Americans are looking for? We've just endured eight years of a Vice President who's acted as if he's above the law or the duties described in the Constitution!

This country doesn't need another four years of a power-hungry ambition mentality running amok in D.C....especially in the Office of the Vice Presidency.

And somehow, Obama is considered the elitist

This is interesting.

When you have seven homes, that's a lot of garages to fill. After the fuss over the number of residences owned by the two presidential nominees, NEWSWEEK looked into the candidates' cars. And based on public vehicle-registration records, here's the score. John and Cindy McCain: 13. Barack and Michelle Obama: one.

Let's recap.

Barack Obama - grew up with a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya who was never around; lived off of food stamps during his childhood; had to work his ass off to get to Harvard and served as president of the Harvard Law Review; worked as a community organizer in the southside of Chicago when he could have been working for Wall Street = he's an elitist snob who looks down on Middle America!

John McCain - married to a $100 million booze heirs and owns part of the Arizona Diamondbacks; has seven homes in different time zones, with 13 different types of vehicles; said multiple times that "the principles of our economy are strong" even though this week, Wall Street dipped almost 500 points on Tuesday, then 450 points on Thursday, and had some big banks go down in flames this week as well; have your economic adviser call Americans "a nation of whiners" when the economy's in the tank = a champion of the working class!

It just doesn't make any sense.

Republican 9/11 "Tribute" Video

I knew that the GOP wouldn't go down without a fight in this presidential election, but I never imagined they would stoop to this unimaginable, unthinkable, and revolting low to get John McCain elected. During the final night of the Republican Convention in St. Paul, the RNC put together a 9/11 "tribute" video to honor those who perished and those who risked their lives to save others.

But this was no tribute to those fallen victims, nor was it a tribute to the heroes of that hellish day.

It was noting more than a piece of political and emotional propaganda, stringing together the '79 Iranian Hostage Crisis to show that Iran is part of our global War on Terror, and using the deaths of fellow Americans to make the case that if John McCain isn't elected in 2008, we're all going to be hit by the terrorists again.

Even more appalling than the video itself, was that at the end of the two minutes of hate showing, people actually applauded and broke into a mindless chant of "USA! USA! USA!"

How the heck can anyone in that audience clap for a video that managed to a.) exploit the pain and tragedy of a horrific event to scare Americans into voting for their candidate and b.) imply that Iran is part of the War on Terror to score cheap political points is just amazing.

Here's the video "tribute" along with MSNBC'S Keith Olbermann's response to the tape.

Shame on you GOP.

This is how pathetic the Obama/Hillary fights have gotten

A long time ago, there used to reasoned, lively discussions about which Democratic candidate should be: the former First Lady-turned Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, or the charismatic Junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. Those who supported Hillary made the argument that she was the most experienced because of her 8 years at President Bill Clinton's side. Those who supported Obama made the argument that it was long past due to change the status quo in Washington, D.C., and the country needed to come together after 8 years of division from the current Administration. Both sides could agree, at one time though, that whoever won the party's nomination, would be a much better alternative than the same policies that have sent America into the rut it is currently in, thanks in large part to the George Bush Jr. and the Republican Party. There even used to be talk of brining the best of both worlds together to form an incredible dream team not seen since O.J.'s murder trial in the 90's: an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.

That was two, maybe three months ago when all this good feeling was taking place.

Now-a-days, Obama supporters and Hillary backers can't stand the sight of the other person's candidate. And the list of big-named celebrities donating and supporting either candidate is more evidence of how out-of-hand this in-fighting has become.

Not that it matters much, but Clinton's got better celebrities.
gayleg | Posted 05:13 PM on 04/21/2008

You really think so? Clinton supporters are misinformed or willfully evil, in any case.
qwr | Posted 05:35 PM on 04/21/2008

Aww its okay, maybe Elton John can put on another benefit show for you and your broken dreams.
barrista | Posted 03:50 PM on 04/21/2008

Eva Longoria Parker,Ellen DeGeneres,Barbra Streisand,Magic Johnson,Ugly Betty, Mario Lavandeira,Nata Portman,Jack Nicholson,Ted Danson,Elton John,Rob Reiner ! ! !
IF YOU WERE PATRIOTIC AND INTELLGENT YOU WOULD HAVE EDUCATED YOURSELF
AND LISTEN TO OBAMA THAN YOU WOULD HAVE MADE A ( INTELLIGENT CHOICE ) Dah !
I challenge you to READ HTTP://WWW.HUNFFINGTON POST.COM/USERS/PROFILE/DVDPT
and EDUCATE yourself leave a comment ( I DARE YOU ! ) wake up and do what is good for
the country.
dvdpt | Posted 01:25 AM on 04/22/2008

Is there any truth to the rumor that America Ferrera has gotten Chelsea Clinton an acting gig? Apparently, the show will be called, "Ugly Chelsea."
qwr | Posted 05:20 PM on 04/21/2008

All Right!!! Natalie Portman supports Hillary Clinton. Natalie is a very smart young woman compared to Scarlett Johansson

Ani ohev otach Natalie Portman. Ja ne.
paciere | Posted 06:21 PM on 04/20/2008

Both sides are now fighting over celebrity endorsements. Un-fucking-believable.

A question for these guys: what the hell is wrong with you people??? Seriously??? I'm a proud Obama supporter and Democrat, but even I think that these bitch-fights in internet chatrooms have become pathetic and shameful! NewsFlash, Democrats: this isn't 2004 when we were stuck with a limp dick in John Kerry. We have two accomplished and exciting candidates who will make history as either the first African-American or woman candidate nominated by a major political party to run for the highest office in the land, and either Obama and Clinton will be a better choice than the piss-poor, corrupt, and do-nothing Republican administration Americans have been subjected to for eight longs years! Who gives a damn who Padme (Portman) or Danny Ocean (Clooney) supports for the Democratic ticket? Be and act like fucking adults, for Christ sakes!

Here's another installment of Political Hypocrisy Theater

Remember when Hillary Clinton blasted rival Barack Obama for his condescending remarks about bitter working class Americans who cling to their guns and religion, saying "Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them, who fights hard for your future, your jobs, your families."?
Well, it looks like the former First Lady has some explanin' to do.

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

So what you were saying about that whole "I don't think [Obama] really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you," again, Mrs. Clinton?

Dobson to endorce Huckabee

Too little, too late. The best way to sum up James Dobson's endorsement of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

James Dobson, one of the nation's most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, backed Mike Huckabee's presidential bid Thursday night, giving the former Arkansas governor a long-sought endorsement as the Republican field narrowed to a two-man race.

"The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Governor Huckabee," Dobson said. "His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others ... Obviously, the governor faces an uphill struggle, given the delegates already committed to Senator McCain. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best remaining choice for president of the United States."

Two questions are nagging at me; one of them I'll be able to answer.

One: I know that the GOP can't stand their candidate, so why didn't the conservative base try and fight him, tooth-and-nail, from winning in Super Tuesday when they had their chance months ago?

Two: Why would anyone want Dobson -- the same religious kook who went on an idiotic crusade against Spongebob Squarepants for having a so-called, homosexual agenda -- to endorse their bid in the race for the White House?

Then I realized why the leader of Focus on the Family chose Huckabee: He's just as batshit crazy as he is.

This God stuff isn't just talk with Huck. One of his first acts as governor was to block Medicaid from funding an abortion for a mentally retarded teen­ager who had been raped by her stepfather — an act in direct violation of federal law, which requires states to pay for abortions in cases of rape. "The state didn't fund a single such abortion while Huckabee was governor," says Dr. William Harrison of the Fayetteville Women's Clinic. "Zero."

As president, Huck would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion and would give science a back seat to religion. "Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn't," he says. "So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict." Huckabee's well-documented ­disdain for science was reflected in the performance of the Arkansas school system when he was governor; one independent survey gave the state an F for its science standards in schools, a grade that among other things reflected Huckabee's hostility toward the teaching of evolution.

The moral of this blog? Two minds think alike.