Someone else is funny

My vacation went a little longer for my online activities than it did in my real life (stupid job! I quit you!) but hopefully I'll be back in the swing of things soon. In the meantime, everyone's been looking into the Bush budget and realizing that he's basically only twenty years off 1984 so it's still a viable project to initiate. I would be clever, but my good friend Richard Jeter (whose next book will rock your knickers off) has somehow managed to capture my feelings in an appropriately solumn letter. It is as follows:

Dear Midwestern Red States,

I cannot help but notice that the budget proposed by the man that you all are largely responsible for putting back into office will lower the cap on your beloved government subsidized family farms by nearly $150,000 per year, while leaving factory and big conglomorate corporate farms alone entirely. This is, of course, a remarkable reversal on several campaign promises, the Iowa soy pledge, and many, many other reasons that you all voted for him in the first place. Because I feel the pain of your situation, I have prepared the following statement.

*clears his throat, shuffles his papers a bit*




HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA! HAAAHAHAAHAHEEHEEHEHEOOOOOOOO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! OH GOD, STOP IT, YOU'RE KILLING MEEEEAAAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! *pounds his fist on the podium with his head down, struggling to breathe* Oh lord, oh lord, you all voted for him toHAAAAHAHAHA...and then heHEHEEEEAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA...Oh boy...oh boy...ok, I'm better now, I'm better now........ HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sincerely yours,
Richard

Thanks, love.

Dropping the Gay Bomb

You can all thank the darling Bex for letting me in on this delicious tidbit of insanity.

Apparently there were several proposed non-harmful chemical weapons proposed by the US Air Force from 1994 on which would make the enemy uncomfortable and identifiable but not do any real harm.

Among them were chemical weapons that attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats to troop positions, a chemical that caused "severe and lasting halitosis", making it easy to identify guerrillas trying to blend in with civilians, the idea of making troops' skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight, and my personal favorite: the Gay Bomb.

Yep, folks. They wanted to drop a bomb that would make all the men in the enemy encampments undeniably attracted to each other, thereby reducing morale. Because being gay is not about being happy. Shit, you don't need a bomb, you just need six months with no women and a case of cheap gin.

It's kind of scary that (A) the government thought that being homosexual was a matter of chemical and pheromonal interactions rather than genetics or personal preference, and (B) that their idea of really fucking with the enemy was making sure they were fucking each other.

I tried to check out the specifics of the projects at Sunshine Project.org but it seems they weren't expecting much attention and have surpassed their bandwidth. Dammit! I want to see transcripts of those brainstorming meetings.

General Ted: All right, men, we need to come up with a way to demoralize the enemy in a non-fatal way. Any ideas?
Dr. Bob: What if we found something to make swarms of enraged wasps to attack the enemy?
Dr. Jeff: What kind of smell do you think enrages a wasp, exactly?
Dr. Bob: I don't know. Wet cat food?
Dr. Jeff: Burnt styrofoam?
Dr. Bob: Fried pork.
Dr. Jeff: Charlie Red.
Dr. Bob: Oh, yeah, that'll bugger them.
General Ted: That is the gayest idea I have ever heard.
(significant look shared between the doctors)
Dr. Jeff: Eureka!

Fake News? You decide...

Because this and this are making me bonkers.

BUMFUCK, USA -- January 2007

Today the Supreme Court is hearing a case on the state of Alabama's right to teach children that masturbation can be fatal and should be avoided at all costs.

The landmark case is just one in a series of educational reforms attempted by various school districts within the Southern United States in the past few years, wherein parents of the attending students feel that so-called "definitive scientific evidence" should be taught with caution, and that a better approach would be to teach a more conservative viewpoint. "Science isn't certain," said one parent in Evergreen, AL. "If they're allowed to teach crazy, unprovable theories like evolution and gravity, then they can teach other, more fundamental theories as well."

The unusual number of challenges to scientific teachings in public schools dates back to the attempt to sticker schoolbooks with warnings about the theoretical nature of evolution, brought about by the Cobb County BOE in Atlanta, GA in early 2004. The stickers were declared unconstitutional by a federal judge on the grounds that they were placed only to endorse a religious viewpoint, that of the Christian/Judeaic belief that God created the world in seven days. However, the case showed conservative Christians that if they wanted to get their views past the courts, they would have to back it with the very science they were challenging.

In late 2005, the Covington County BOE initiated a "wine" program for teachers in the school cafeteria, argueing that studies had shown that one glass of red wine per day helped to ensure good cardio-vascular health. It was hotly argued in court, with the parents claiming the teachers were irresponsible to drink in front of the students and then attempt to teach intoxicated. Rumor soon spread that the true reason was to be found in the Bible -- 1 Timothy 5:23 "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." Opponents of the bill said that it violated not only ethics, but the very spirit of the law. "They are only supporting the scientific study because it happens to confirm something in the bible... does that mean we should have drunkards teaching our children?"

The Wine Bill eventually went to the Supreme Court for a decision. Three new Justices sat on the bench, recently appointed by President George W. Bush (2000- current) and hand-picked for their conservative tendancies. Justice William Lowery, by far the most protested assignation as a former Baptist Deacon, passed the bill with a vote of 5-4.

The legality of several previously undisputed teaching methods continued to be challenged in the next several years, eventually including such things in the curriculum as AIDs through hand-holding and the sharing of drinks, pregnancy via oral sex, the so-called "pagan cancer" which reflected a study showing that those who believed in some kind of faith were able to live longer, and the sterilization factor of abortion, as well as the banning of school dances and public music.

The latest confrontation in the battle of science versus religion has become heated, with confrontation in the streets becoming a normal scene.

Pastor Nathan Shows, one of the more outspoken supporters of the current bill, is convinced that the school board will once again triumph. "I wish people would stop saying this is about the Bible," he said last night in an interview on 20/20. "There is documented evidence that masturbation, and really most strenuous sexual activites, can cause aneurisms in teenagers and young adults. We're doing this to protect the lives of our children. Onanism is a grave danger to our young people and must be dealt with in the curriculum."

Amelia Cavendish, an outspoken writer and self affirmed liberal, had a different view. "He even used the word Onanism," she said angrily. "Look it up in the Bible: And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. This guy honestly believes that God will strike you down if you masturbate, and he wants to inflict these ridiculous convictions on impressionable young children. It's getting to the point of legal brainwashing. Can't you people see that they're just making things up to support these outrageous beliefs and force them on their children?"

Many have labeled Cavendish a conspiracy theorist due to her somewhat shocking accusations that Pastor Shows owns and manages the top research lab in Atlanta and therefore can produce any result he wishes. Many people disregard her statements as ludicrous, while she stands firmly by them. "Check his tax forms," she yelled at one protest, "it's all there. It's called Shows Laboratories, for Pete's sake!"

Pastor Shows denies all accusations of impropriety, while continuing to rally supporters. "We have to save our children!" he says during a speech in front of the courthouse, illiciting a loud cheer of approval. "It's been proven, and now we need to make sure they have an opportunity to learn the truth."

To the Prince: Tell them to lighten up

I say, good for him. Prince Harry went to a costume party dressed as a Nazi, and damned if that wouldn't have been funny to see.

I'm sorry, I know the Holocaust was bad. We all know the Holocaust was fucking bad. Harry's not argueing that. Him wearing that costume wasn't argueing with that. But honestly people -- if Mel Brooks can flaunt around dancing Nazis in musical theater and get the crowd roaring with laughter (because really, dancing Nazis? Funny!) why is it inappropriate for him to wear that to a costume party? Does he always have to dress up as Edward the Black? He wasn't trying to personally insult the entirety of the Jewish people. He thought it was something that could be mocked in order to lighten the levity of it, just as Mel Brooks did. It's the same reason I throw a Politically Incorrect Costume Party at least once a year -- because you have to be able to laugh. It's good to identify what you are offended by and recognize that you should be able to let the hurt go. That's not to say that the Holocaust should be forgotten -- but shouldn't you be able to move beyond it? Why should the mere mention of the word "Nazi" cause such an inflammatory reaction? I have met Holocaust survivors; one of the most memorable presentations ever given in my elementary school was by a woman who had survived a death camp, only because when they packed her group into the gas chamber showers, the pipes malfunctioned and wouldn't emit the gas, and the next day the camp was re-taken. And while her story was affecting and horrifying and deeply moving, I remember that she was able to joke about it, saying that the time there "helped her keep thin." Did that make her less of a survivor, or less caring about what she'd been through? No, it made her stronger and better able to understand that there are things worth getting upset about and things that can be dealt with through humor.

I understand that the Jewish people have suffered. So have a lot of people. There's an entire race of people that are suffering right now at the hands of America, and a lot of Americans that have died in either the WTC or on the battlefield. But people still dressed up as Osama and dead soldiars for Halloween. Because you have to be able to laugh. There's a sort of protest through such offensive humor, a way of forcing people to look at what they hate and making them confront it. I'm not sure this was the case with Harry, but it bears saying.

Did he wear the costume around town to bars? No. Did he just dress up as a Nazi for fun and crash a bar mitzvah? No, of course not. He went to a party where I'm sure other people were wearing offensive costumes, and is now being attacked by Jewish leaders as if he did it to them personally.

The Jewish people have been through a lot and are still going through a lot of pain, and as a people and as a religion are based on the concept of never forgetting their heritage and what their people as a whole have been through. Zakhor, al tishkakh. I know they cannot forget -- but must everyone remember to the point of hurting? How can people heal if you constantly re-inflict the wound? People were trying to move past the Nazi movement through belittling it even when it was going on -- hell, look at most of the Dadaist art that came out when Hitler was in power. If they weren't shoving the finger at the Nazis, no one was. Why is mocking those who perpetrated these crimes somehow equated with the actual people who did the crime?

I think next year he should dress in corduroys and attach a paper-mache sheep to his crotch, and tell everyone he's earning his title as the Prince of Wales. At least then he's making fun of himself.

Feminism in unexpected places

I've read through the Salon.com article on the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston break-up, and it has some damn good points. Mainly, that not only is the media insane, but that people in general don't make any damn sense.

We all know that 2004 was the year of the Celebrity Pregnancy. If you weren't pregnant, you'd at least better be talking about it. I'm gonna go ahead and blame Reese Witherspoon. She started it all, getting knocked up by her co-star Ryan Phillipe during the filming of Cruel Intentions. Everyone was shocked then -- pregnant! A new little starlet is pregnant! Her career is surely over, she can't just keep going after getting knocked up at only 23! But then the unexpected happened: Ryan and Reese admitted that they were desperately in love, got married, and made it work. And now she's one of the most famous stars in Hollywood.

I think people looked at this and said "Hey, wait a minute. These actresses... they're still women, right? So they should still be having babies. Yes, that's it, keep churning them out!" And suddenly, four years later, it is absolutely expected of top-notch Hollywood actresses to bear children.

But, that's not really what's expected. Not for them to bear children, but to raise them. Note the constant comparison in the news to the influence of Angelina Jolie. The Salon article talks about how wild and crazy Angelina was until she became a mother, and now she's single-handedly saving the people of Cambodia while raising a happy child. They keep comparing her to Jennifer, saying "If Angelina can become a mom, why aren't you willing to?"

But Angelina didn't have to put her perfect body in danger to get that child. Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly support adoption. However, in a society where the scale of female perfection is wedged between the toilet and the tub, the effects of pregnancy on a woman's body could have disasterous results. Sure, Gwyneth Paltrow pulled it off -- but was Gwyneth ever above a buck twenty? Has Julia Roberts ever struggled with her weight? Don't forget, Jennifer used to be overweight -- and she couldn't get an acting job like that. She knows what she's talking about, because she's been through it; she was a bit of a chubby kid and has struggled with her weight ever since. Not that she's ever been the "fat Friend", but she always been very, very careful not to put any weight on. She works hard at it, because she knows what it's like to get turned down for a part because you're in the triple digits.

But whatever, even if she could take the weight off easily, that's still not exactly the larger societal issue here. The author of the Salon article seems to think that the reason They are so appalled that Jen would give up Brad Pitt rather than have a kid is because women are always and forever judged by their uterus. But that's not really true here. They're not looking down on Jen because she didn't want to have a child herself -- if that were the case, we'd be snarling at Angelina as well. What they're really scoffing at is her inability to differentiate herself from her husband, that she is able to look at her choice between career and family in the same way a man is. It's not about her uterus -- it's about not acknowledging that she has a uterus.

See, it's not really about the weight or the career or the ticking of her biological clock (which, if we don't care where Angelina's kid comes from then get off Jen's ass and let her adopt when she's ready). It's about her seeing herself as equally important as her husband. Think about it: what most of these stupid women "on the street" are saying is that if they were married to Brad Pitt, they'd do anything he wanted because he's Brad Pitt and you don't mess that up. Which inherently says "whatever he wants is most important, and I will give something of myself up to acknowledge that superiority and earn my place in this relationship." But you shouldn't have to earn someone's respect, you shouldn't have to give into their demands for them to see you as a human being. By asking her to have this baby right now, he and everyone else is really asking that she stop doing what she loves -- and Jennifer loves acting. She was a damned good painter, good enough to have one of her pieces accepted into the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but she gave that up to be an actress. Because that's what she wanted. Whether you liked Friends or not, you have to admit that she stuck it out through hell and high water because she knew it would jump-start her career. Now that Friends is over (and it's only been over for, what, a little over a year?) she wants to take advantage of what fame that garnered her and let it catapult her into the realm of movies. Is that so unreasonable? Forget the ticking clock of age and the sagging ass -- hasn't this girl earned it? Shouldn't she be allowed to cut loose and get back to what she really loves, playing more than just one character every ten years?

No, she can't. Because she should want to have a baby. Which is a different reason than because her husband wants a baby. The single-mindedness with which he's pursued this baby-angle in front of the media tells me that he doesn't want a kid, he wants a pet. When my dad pushed into his forties he bought a Corvette and a Rottweiler. Seriously, if she'd gotten Brad a puppy as her "Friends is over!" gift to him, we wouldn't be here right now. But the press and the gossip-hungry people of the world have latched onto this story and won't let go, not because Brad wants a kid but because Jennifer doesn't.

Why is this so disturbing to people? Why is it so hard for the media to understand? I think it's because for all of the so-called equality that women earned during the rights movement, they're still looked down upon for not wanting children. You can get maternity leave and keep your job if you decide to have a child -- we've progressed to the point where that isn't a problem. Men can accept strong and successful women so long as they still fulfill that "mother" role. After all, they're not really changing anything, just adding on to a woman's already-established identity. But for a woman to reject the "mother" role altogether... well, that's something our society hasn't yet accepted.

Society (and that's men and women as a collective, don't fool yourself into thinking that hardcore feminists don't want families as well) still needs there to be definable differences between men and women, and the best example of that is the "mother" role. Brad doesn't want to have a child, he wants Jennifer to have a child. I think he subconsciously wants to prove that while they are both successful, while they are both strong people, he is the better and more powerful person because he is filling all his expected roles while she still lacks being a complete person because she has not embraced her role as a mother. He and society have made it clear that they think less of her because of this, that she is not good enough for him because she is unwilling to sacrifice herself for him.

A woman is not worthy until she is successful and shackled.

Information for the masses

Here's a straight-forward explanation of why the dollar dropping is a bad thing.

Because some people think they shouldn't care. Because they're arrogant American facists.

Does this mean that investing in the yuan is a damn good idea? I think so. Not exactly an insider tip, but if anyone wants to do some short-term investing I'd say China is the place to do it.

Oliver Stone is a tupping arse

*facepalm*

Why, why is it that when famous people talk about the problems in this country, they do it in a petulant, idotic way?

Your film didn't flop because of rampant moral fundamentalism -- it flopped because it was the most boring piece of crap I've seen since I got drunk and lost the remote, forcing me to watch CSPAN until my roommate came home and changed the channel manually. Seriously, my parents watch the Weather Channel all day long, and that's more appealing to me than making another go at watching Alexander. And honestly? Not that gay. If you're gonna make him kiss a guy, can it at least be a hot guy? I mean, where's the scenes with Jared Leto and Colin Farrell doing the Massachusetts Mambo? The only reason you managed to scrape up $18mil on that film was all the fangirls who were waiting for the make-out scenes.

So instead of acknowledging the fact that Oliver Stone the Great could possibly have made a flop, you go and blame the fundies. Yes, there is a problem in this country with the overbearance of fundamentalism and conservativism. But when you say it like that, you just sound like a spoiled little dilettante. And just give Ann Coulter five minutes, and she'll turn that quote around and make you into one of the slavering Liberal Monsters that the fundies have to fight against.

In closing: Shut up, Oliver, you're just making it worse. Not worse than your movie though. The only thing worse than your movie would be a Jeb Bush for 2008.

No offense, but wtf?

It seems like someone's finally focused in on the legal inconsistencies of Apple's lock-in technology between iTunes and iPod.

I made the mistake of actually reading some of the Average Joe's thought on this at Slashdot.org, and man. There are some idiots out there. The most prevalent reaction has been "If you don't like it, don't use iTunes." These are obvious people who don't understand what monopoly-prevention legislation is all about.

Apple is being busted because they provide a service (music) which should be capable of use in a variety of mediums, but is specifically restricted to the medium which is also sold only by Apple. To put this in perspective, what if your cable company were to give you service, but you could only watch said cable if you bought a Panasonic television? Would you say "If you don't like it, get satillite tv"? Or if the electric company said you could only turn on the lights if you bought special bulbs from them. Or if you couldn't use AOL on anything but a Dell. A monopoly is not only when a company pushes out all other competition -- it's when it sets itself up in a way that there is no competition. If you download music on iTunes, there is no longer an opportunity for you to do business with a competitor of Apple; you have to buy an iPod or you cannot access the music outside of your computer.

And I don't want to hear all that crap about "oh, well why don't you just burn a CD." One of the post-ers at least got that right -- should Apple's unfair business practices force the rest of us to take a step back in our technology use? Why can't we use MP3 players as well? Besides the fact that anyone who carries around a burned CD has the chance of getting busted by the omnipotent Music Man for copyright infringement.

To be quite honest, I don't really like iPods. In my mind they really are like little alien pods -- perfect little mod players, identical and readily available to the masses, making everyone covet the delicious autonomy of it all. Not to mention they make you a little iPod obsessed: a friend of mine had someone knit a little cozy for hers. I'm convinced that iPods secretly blare pro-Apple propaganda in those little white earbuds. Speaking of which, I hate earbuds. They always fall out. Just another reason I don't want an iPod -- they have crappy earphones.

I definately think this is a step in the right direction. I mean, Apple doesn't make the music, the music doesn't belong to Apple. They're middle-men for the record companies (who are middle-men for the artists... remember them?), just as much as Virgin records is. If Virgin sold all their CDs and DVDs in a format that could only be played on Virgin Certified Equipment, people would freak right out. Is this just less of a big deal because the product is intangible? If you could hold an "iTune" in your hand, if you actually saw it and noticed that it didn't fit into the slots of any player except the iPod, would it make a difference to you?

Dear Logic, please come back. Signed, America

It looks like we're trying to replace Ashcroft with his little Mexican Mini-Me.

So lemme get this straight. We're in a war with insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a war on an intangible state of emotion. You keep screaming that we're at war, that's why you need money and troops and the Patriot Act, because we're at war. But the enemies you capture while fighting this war are not considered prisoners-of-war, and therefore you are not required to abide by the Geneva Convetion's statements on not torturing them.

So we can go into another country, single out a group of people, and kdnap and torture them... because we say we can?

Where the fuck is the war crimes tribunal?!? I want a shadowy group of UN military officials to show up the next time Bush sets foot outside the US and charge him with being a facist, war-mongering dictator. I want someone to stand up and say "You are a bad, bad man" and be able to back it up. I mean, if we're gonna be a country of jerks, why half-ass it? Why not just start the third world war and get it over with?

It's really scary how quickly this country is devolving since the election. Liberalism in America is starting to be looked upon the same way Judaeism was looked upon in pre-war Germany. There are an awful lot of people in this country who truly, honestly want to see liberals and non-Christians boiled in a vat of oil and turned into lampshades for Jesus. Don't they understand the correllations? What was it Franklin Roosevelt said, that "if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land."

Is the Casa Italiano at Columbia still requiring you to swear fealty to Mussolini, or have they officially changed the charter to include George W Bush?

Can Manhattan just suceed from America? It's obviously not the "United States" anymore, why not just make it official? We can have New England and they can have Jesusland.

Shine on, you crazy diamond

Going against his society's extreme distaste in speaking about HIV/AIDS in any type of personal manner, Nelson Mandela announced that his son had died of AIDS.

He was willing to stand up against apartheid, and he's willing to stand up against the way everyone seems to be ignoring the AIDS epidemic in his country and in Africa in general.

Where is America's badass?

Rise, you dirty liberals!

Internal memos reveal: Army reserves are a broken wreck.

So, like, if people wanted to stage a coup and get the entire country back from the bumpkins, they wouldn't have enough riot police to stop us. The old battle cry of the oppressors, Call in the National Guard!, is no longer all that scary. Because three untrained guys from Dallas just aren't that intimidating.

I think we should organize a national day of protest. It's the beginning of the year, so everyone's sick days and vacation days have refreshed. Why don't we just declare a Hartal and shut this place down? But then again, it's been proven time and again that most Americans, even the ones who care, are too lazy/apathetic/disillusioned to bother. Look at the youth voter turnout for the election. Then again, there's a difference between trying to get people to do something, and trying to get them to stay home all day.

God, when are we going to get a real leader? A real, true, honest-to-monkeys rights leader who can inspire people to get out and make a difference? Every other generation has had someone leading them, making them see how to make a difference. Who do we have? Jon Stewart? I would suggest that Republicans of the future figured out a way to come back in time and assassinate our political leaders all Terminator style, but if they had a machine like that they'd probably just use it to make more beer runs.

Hehe haw he haw

Sometimes you can find a truly brilliant political cartoon in the strangest of places.

Email exchange

An email forward from my mom, in all its grammatical glory:

This is one of the better e-mails I have received in a long time!  I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!! Let us keep this going and going til the whole U. S. reads this: So Be It!
 
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money,  then so be it. And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation,  then so be it.  And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools, on which they deem their authority, then so be it. I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen. I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that those people have the American Publics' best interests at heart. 
 
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE? 
 Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe the Government and it's employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the "God" that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life. I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving  and Easter.  After all, it's just another day. I'd like the US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays.  After all, it's just another day. I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.  I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work onChristmas, Good Friday and  Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct". In fact... I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping "God"...) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day.... 
 
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL the American people.
 
SO BE IT........... 
Please Dear Lord,  Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!  'Amen' and 'Amen'
Touche!
These are definitely things I never thought about but from now on, I will! and I will be sure to questions those, in government, who support these changes. At the top, it says "I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!!"  Let's see that it does.  Keep it in your mailbox and resend it whenever someone new comes along.
 
THANK YOU ALL.!!!!!!!!!!

*facepalm*

My reply?

Great email to send to your liberal agnostic daughter... :P

You can have your ten commandments if I can keep Dick Cheney out of my womb... deal?

I wish my dear, dear parents weren't political Red State retards.

Wasn't this on MadTV last night?

You know, the episode with Andrea Martin where she calls everyone into her office and fires them? And by the end of it she's insane and power-crazed?

Yeah, you remember. So why is the Sheriff's office in Clayton Co., Georgia re-enacting the skit? But with snipers, and more stupid?

Did he really think he could get away with firing all the white people in his office? In Georgia? Dude, this is the city where they filmed Gone With the Wind... you've got about as much chance of getting away with that as you do of getting Scalia to stop engaging in rampant Cronyism.

World devastation turned pissing contest

It's not what you say, but who you beat when you say it:

The fresh outpouring of generosity appeared at times to be almost like a bidding war and raised questions about whether rich nations were using tragedy to jockey for influence on the world stage and with hardest-hit Indonesia, which has a wealth of natural resources.

Louis Michel, the European Commissioner for development and humanitarian aid, urged donors not to engage in one-upsmanship. "We have to be careful and not participate in a beauty contest where we are competing to give higher figures," he said.

But U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland, the man who riled Washington by complaining that wealthy nations were often "stingy," said Tuesday: "I'd rather see competitive compassion than no compassion."

Michel also said too many countries were making pledges that may not be honored.

A little over a year ago, donors promised Iran more than $1 billion in relief after an earthquake killed 26,000 people there. Iranian officials say only $17.5 million has been sent.

It's easy to say you're gonna give money. $350mil my sweet giddy aunt. That's why you've been begging the American populace to give private donations, right Georgey? Or did you forget your own god-damned poverty levels? Why don't you build a couple of Walmarts in Sumatra, you smug son of a bitch?