Red State Rah Rah

Thursday, December 2

2004-12-02T07:49:00.000-06:00

Blue-state liberals proclaim their tolerance for gays and other deviants, but in fact they are the worst gay-baiters of all; we red-state conservatives believe it is every man's and woman's right to love and marry a member of the opposite sex or keep quiet about not wanting to

Mark Coffey at Decision '08, noting that opposition to gay marriage is not homophobic, rightly takes blue-state liberals to task for their secret homophobia:

John Kerry "won" all three debates this year, according to opinion polls (I only gave him the first one myself, but hey, I'm biased), but he still managed to lose, because he made the only debate gaffe that people remembered. I'm talking, of course, of his inexplicable and unwarranted gay-baiting comment about Dick Cheney's daughter.

See? It doesn't matter that Mary Cheney has been an out lesbian for years. It doesn't matter that she has been an activist and spokeswoman for lesbians, at Procter & Gamble and in the Republican Party. It doesn't matter that her father mentioned her lesbianism just a few weeks before, by way of respectfully disagreeing with President Bush's principled red-state refusal to accept gay marriage. It also doesn't matter that Kerry was defending Mary Cheney's right to be exactly who she is. None of this matters to us red-state conservatives! If you say someone's gay, that's gay-baiting. Pure and simple. Why? Because being gay is such a horrible thing that even gay people must hate to be accused of it--even nicely! If you walk up to Queer Eye's Carson and say "You know, I really admire the positive image you give gay men," that's gay-baiting. If you say to Richard Simmons, "Richard, you are the sweetest gay man I've ever met," that's gay-baiting.

With one exception, though: Dick Cheney should be able to use his daughter Mary's sexual orientation for political purposes without being accused of gay-baiting. After all, he's her father. And we red-state conservatives love our families! (It's just more liberal gay-baiting to suggest, however, that "Sisters," Lynne Cheney's torrid unpublished novel, celebrates lesbian love!)

Mark goes on:

The intolerance of the Radical Left comes into even sharper focus with their smear campaign against new RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman. You see, because, as Hindrocket at Power Line points out, Mehlman is 38, single, and likes to keep his personal life to himself, he must in fact be gay. This is part and parcel of the Left's parlor game of outing gay (or just rumoured to be gay) Republicans. Really, this is no different from the Democratic plantation view of black Americans. The identity politics of today's Democratic party mean that there is a "correct" viewpoint for blacks, for gays, for labor, for women - and if you don't hold that viewpoint, then you're a sellout and less than human. So I ask you - who's intolerant?

It really is shocking that Democrats should be pressing to know whether Ken Mehlman is gay. After all, a 38-year-old single man who adamantly refuses to identify himself as either straight or gay, who's never had a girlfriend, and who has faced down numerous rumors of clandestine affairs with male costaffers, has a right to his privacy! The fact that as RNC chairman he'll be presiding over the campaign to pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is utterly irrelevant to the salacious gay-baiting quest to know his sexual orientation! It's not hypocrisy to want to keep your private life private; it's just good common decency! Not everyone wants to parade their sexuality to the whole world, like Carson on Queer Eye or Richard Simmons. Maybe Mehlman is just shy around girls! Maybe he's asexual, like a spore! You don't know! Let the man live his own life, for God's sakes! And stop dragging politics into everything! What have we become as a country if even appointments to the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee have to be dragged through the mud of party politics?

* * * * *
Robert Brightwell at Drunken Samurai takes a different tack toward liberal gay-baiting, citing The Independent's take on Oliver Stone's turkey Alexander, starring Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie:

Now, I have read some pretty amazing America hating stuff lately but this might be the most insulting of the bunch. This guy has the nerve to say that the reason Alexander the Great is doing so poorly in US theaters is because dumb Americans are homophobes. It is interesting that Americans are homophobes but where is the condemnation of the Greeks who won’t even admit Alexander was gay? Please…the movie just plain sucks. We will see how quickly our tolerant and worldly European brothers flock to this turd.

I must admit I'm confused on this one. I went to the Independent site that Robert linked to. The title of the piece was "Alexander the (not so) Great fails to conquer America's homophobes." That didn't sound to me like the authors, John Hiscock in Los Angeles and James Burleigh, were saying that the movie is flopping because dumb Americans are homophobes. But maybe the authors said that outright in the piece? Well, I searched and searched, and maybe I'm just sleepy and missed it, but the only passage I could find that came anywhere close to saying what Robert claims the article said was this:

The three-hour, big budget epic, starring Colin Farrell, Colin Farrell's shockingly bad blond hair-do and Angelina Jolie has dared to suggest what most historians have long taken for granted - that Alexander was bisexual. And that gets rather different responses in different parts of the US.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation says the $150m (£79m) film breaks new ground for a big budget epic because it shows boyhood friend Hephaestion "as the true love of Alexander's life". A line from the film says: "Alexander was defeated only once - by Hephaestion's thighs."

But conservative Christians have loudly denounced Alexander as "pro-gay" propaganda from Tinseltown, insisting that Alexander was a firmly hetero hero. To add to the film's problems, the public has stayed away from what was to be the big movie of the Thanksgiving weekend.

Doesn't this say only that (1) gays and lesbians have applauded the movie's recognition that Alexander was bisexual, (2) the Christian Right has denounced it as pro-gay propaganda, and (3) in addition moviegoers have stayed away? If somebody can read that article and point out to me exactly where the authors say that the movie flopped because Americans are dumb homophobes, I'd greatly appreciate it! I just must be a bad reader.

But of course I should add that Robert is probably right about liberal gay-baiters. Oliver Stone is a known blue-state liberal who slathers his radical liberal propaganda all over every one of his movies--and smearing the great heterosexual hero Alexander the Great by calling him a fag is clearly gay-baiting of the worst kind. Why do liberals feel it is their duty to drag every great hero down into the mud of their own pathetic dirty little minds?

* * * * *
Alabama State Representative Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, has for a long time been a strong non-homophobic opponent of gay marriage. But now, understandably distressed at rampant liberal gay-baiting, he is pushing his cause further. He wants the Alabama state legislature to pass a non-homophobic bill that would remove all novels with gay characters, or that make homosexuality seem natural or acceptable, from the shelves of public libraries. Textbooks that made reference to homosexuality as natural or genetic could not be used in Alabama schools. The plays of gay playwrights like Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee, and Tony Kushner could no longer be performed on Alabama stages receiving state funding, such as state university theaters. When asked what Alabama would do with the banned books, Rep. Allen suggested that a big hole be dug and the books buried.

But as Ryan Thibodaux notes at The Higher Pie, Rep. Allen's bill is nowhere near inclusive enough in its non-homophobic censorship of disgusting gay art:

They should also ban children from looking at paintings by Da Vinci and Michelangelo, listening to Queen's "We Will Rock You" at sporting events, or watching any more Lord of the Rings because Sir Ian "The Heathen" McKellen is Gandalf. It's no secret that Gandalf subliminally promotes "The Homosexual Agenda" throughout the entire LOTR trilogy.

Hear hear! And there's more, much more. Who among our readers can suggest other gay art to ban?

Wednesday, December 1

2004-12-01T07:11:00.000-06:00

Blue-state liberals hate religion and have been imposing their anti-religion bias on America, especially via unelected activist judges, through a "separationist" interpretation of the First Amendment, according to which state-affiliated religious practices (including school prayer) that might lead to a monopoly over belief will not be tolerated; we red-state conservatives love God and divine worship and recognize that the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually favor an "accommodationist" interpretation, according to which the only thing that is forbidden is the creation of a state religion

Charles at Sheep in Wolfs Clothing argues the red-state conservative accommodationist view of the First Amendment (or, as he spells it, in good red-state fashion, "ammendment"):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
~Bill of Rights, First Ammendment.

It simply strikes me dumbfounded how judges who are appointed to interprit the constitution (IE: not letters to Baptist's), and interprit laws can find anywhere where it says "Seperation of Church and State" will be maintained. [...]

This is right in line with the language of the first ammendment of the Bill of Rights (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). Now Jefferson DID just say Church and State were seperate. Could it be that the whole "wall" he meant was in saying that Congress will not set a national religion? This language doesn't seem to agree with making public prayer illegal, it doesn't seem to agree with public display of nativity scenes being illegal.

People don't get it...it's not a freedom FROM religion...it's freedom OF religion.

It means it is ok if Wiccans have a gathering on public property (IE: State owned parks, schools, whatnot). It means it is ok if Menorahs, and Nativity scenes are displayed. It means it is ok for Muslims to pray at school over intercoms as well as any other relgion. I would actually ENCOURAGE other religions to do so, do you know how neat Arabic Muslim prayer sounds?. Congress opens with prayer...what is so wrong with schools doing so? Answer: It's not wrong.

I have to admit, though, to a certain degree of skepticism about this suggestion. Instead of a five-minute morning Christian prayer at the beginning of the school day, public schools all over this country would open the day with an hour-long prayerfest, Baptist prayers in English, Roman Catholic prayers in Latin, Jewish prayers in Hebrew, Muslim prayers in Arabic and Turkish, Zoroastrian prayers in Farsi, Confucian prayers in Chinese, Shinto prayers in Japanese, Hindu prayers in Gujarati, Buddhist prayers in Tibetan, Mormon prayers in ancient Egyptian, and so on? Is that what Charles is suggesting? Drowning out the sounds of good red-state Christian prayers with all these prayers in other languages from around the world? Isn't that just liberal multiculturalism, Charles? How is the good Baptist child ever to know what's right if his Baptist prayer is only one of many he hears every morning at school? Doesn't this in essence prohibit the free expression of Baptist religion, that Baptists are forced to listen to all manner of heathen prayers alongside their own true godlike prayers? Surely this can only lead to more liberal heathenism and falling away from religion.

Charles goes on to say that parents should be free to opt their children out of morning prayers, and send them, for example, to special English classes, where they would learn to spell properly--another blue-state liberal idea, to replace words of devotion to the One True God with godless spelling lessons. If Charles himself had been subjected to this kind of freethinking education, surely he would not be the devout bad speller that he is today! He'd be able to spell amendment, interpret, and separation like a blue-state liberal, and would have hated religion just as much as those blue-state liberals do, too!

Tuesday, November 30

2004-11-30T07:45:00.000-06:00

Blue-state liberals are always invoking laws, agreements, and logic that nobody really cares about; we red-state conservatives know that the only law and the only logic that matters is God's will

A follow-up to yesterday's post: in comments to Jen's post about how it's okay for us to kill innocent Iraqis because they killed innocent Americans first and God's on our side, several crazed liberals started throwing all sorts of irrelevant nonsense at her, like the Geneva Conventions, which, as we pointed out yesterday, are just a thinly veiled piece of liberal propaganda anyway.

And anyway, as Jen noted in response, we have honored the Geneva Conventions in the past:

The Geneva Convention -- I believe we have honored that piece of paper. Why? You never saw any photos of WWII POW's (Japanese and German) getting their heads chopped off while here in the States. In Canada, the Nazi soldiers worked on farms which led to their release.

See? We've been honoring the Geneva Convention for a long time. We've got a track record. Surely that should count for something? Surely it's okay if the Bush administration, well, interprets the agreement not to bomb civilians and torture POWs a little loosely for a change?

But this is actually sort of a weak argument. The stronger red-state conservative argument, that the Geneva Conventions are actually irrelevant to God's Chosen Instrument on earth, George W. Bush, is made by Kevin from Strategy Revolutions, in an impatient rant against the "libs" on Jen's comment page:

I'm with you Jen,

I can't believe that this is the liberal arguement. They have pointed at the Geneva Convention, which I doubt many people have read. Well the Geneva Convention only applies to those that have signed it.

Second, I'm sure that these same people would have gladly gone over to the workers paradise that was Iraq and given up their cushy lives in the West. Heck the average Iraqi would have traded with them.

The liberal postiton is that only the Western White countries can have freedom, liberty and democracy. That fit sin with their racist attitude that only government can cure the pains of minorities.

Sorry for the rant, but the libs deserve it!

This is clearly a much more powerful argument than the one Jen herself originally came up with: the Geneva Conventions don't even apply to us, because probably nobody has even read them, so America almost certainly hasn't even signed them! So it doesn't really matter what so-called "atrocities" we perpetrate in God's name--because God is bigger than the stupid Geneva Conventions! The Geneva Conventions are not really civilized countries' collective attempt to protect their citizens and soldiers against the brutality of other nations in war; they're a mere irritating roadblock to our acting as God's fist in the Middle East.

Besides, it's our government's duty to do whatever it takes to bring freedom, liberty, and democracy to Iraq--even if that means killing tens or even hundreds of thousands of them and bombing their social and technical infrastructure into the Stone Age. Blue-state liberals are wrong about it being the government's responsibility to cure the pains of minorities in this country; it's really only the government's responsibility to cure the pains of minorities in other countries, by armed force if necessary--that is, if they resist! And because our standard of living is so much better than Iraqis', we're actually doing them a huge favor by occupying their country, bombing their cities to rubble, and killing tens of thousands of civilians--and liberals who claim to hate the destructions of war are in actuality just using fake pacifism to conceal their true racist belief that only Western whites get to live good lives.

As Jen remarks in her response to Kevin, this is good solid red-state conservative logic: "It's fine Kevin ... at least you presented some logical arguments unlike these two liberal yahoos." Needless to say, Kevin's isn't the kind of logic you might study at blue-state liberal colleges like Harvard, Yale, or Berkeley! No, it's a much stronger, more masculine, more red-state logic, the logic typical of, say, Bob Jones University. In a word, it's a more godlike logic, the logic that God Himself used on the Canaanites, when the ancient Hebrews were conquering back the land that He had given to Abraham--the logic of "kill them all, let Me sort them out." It's the logic that blue-state liberals used to ridicule back during the Vietnam War: "killing for peace is like screwing for virginity." But see, if tens of thousands of evil godless terrorists stand between these people and peace, we have to kill them to make peace a reality! We have to wreak the vengeance of the Lord upon them, until every last one of them is dead--then the Middle East will have peace, and freedom, and democracy, and McDonald's, and Coca-Cola, and Enron, and Halliburton!

And who knows? Maybe in the end screwing will bring virginity. After all, everything is possible in the Lord!

Monday, November 29

2004-11-29T07:24:00.000-06:00

When there are terrorists to be killed, blue-state liberals wimp out and piss and moan about the Geneva Conventions; we red-state conservatives know that God wants us to do what has to be done to rid the world of these unbelievers once and for all

Jen at Para-Bellum has taken some kind of survey that shows she is a "religious Republican" who helps "make up the conservative, Christian, dedicated core of the Republican Party," believes "it's important for religious people to stand up for their beliefs in politics," and counts among her "pet causes ... the sanctity of life, school vouchers, and prayer in school." And like most red-state conservatives, she doesn't extend the sanctity of life to Muslims:

Hoo-ah. See I knew George and I had something in common other than the fact we both like to see every terrorist get their asses kicked. I'm not ashamed about the idea of having deep Conservative beliefs and I don't pray to God asking Him to forgive sinners (ie - murders) but to deal with them in his own way when they are delivered to the gates of Heaven.

I know that those who are Islamist killers, ala extremists or radicals will not be accepted into Heaven because they killed dozens or thousands of innocent civilians who did nothing wrong but exist.

I believe justice should be carried out swiftly and if we have to play "their" game then they should know that we will be coming to restore democracy to their lands with the same amount of force and more than what they took away.

See? She wants God to "deal with" terrorists in His own way in the afterlife; but in her heart of hearts she knows that He won't let them into heaven, won't forgive them, because they killed innocent people.

And if stopping them means that we have to become just like them--play "their" game--and kill thousands or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people too, well, so be it. That's a true red-state conservative attitude, right there! We have God on our side, so we can play "their" game and kill innocent civilians and still be welcomed into heaven with open arms! So when blue-state liberals whine that Osama bin Laden only killed 4000 innocent Americans and we've killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis in retaliation, they're missing the point, which Jen spells out clearly: our killing is justified because we're "coming to restore democracy to their lands with the same amount of force and more." Same thing when liberals complain that we're violating the Geneva Convention by torturing POWs and deliberately bombing and dropping napalm on civilian targets: it's all justified, because we're restoring democracy to Iraq, and that's what God wants us to do. (Besides, it isn't really napalm; it's Mark 77, a much improved form of jellied gasoline that is much harder to put out than napalm ever was.) And what are the Geneva Conventions, anyway? Aren't they just some namby-pamby liberal gobbledy-gook that says you have to be nice to terrorists?

Blue-state liberals can't make up their minds about things, are always quibbling about complexities and circumstances; we red-state conservatives see things as either black or white

Jeff Blanco at Louisiana Conservative has posted a poll, asking his readers to choose whether he should repost a collection of his own favorite blog posts from the last nine months in January, "as a '2004 year in review,'" or in March, when his blog turns one year old:

And he comments:

You may have noticed that I put a special answer just for liberals. They don't see things in black or white so they need a "special answer". I thought about trying this in a poll question "Is Bush the Greatest President ever?" with a "Yes" answer and "I only see shades of grey" answer.

Excellent red-state conservative thinking, Jeff! There really is no gray area between "Bush is the greatest president ever" and "Bush is the worst president ever." It is absolutely impossible that he could be only pretty good. In fact, his father George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, too, are either the greatest presidents ever or the worst. There CAN BE no middle ground! Because here in the red states, life just IS that simple!

Tellingly, I showed Jeff's poll to a liberal colleague, and he DIDN'T GET IT. Liberals are so determined to see complexity everywhere that they don't get the simplest things! "How exactly," this colleague complained, "are January and March 'black' and 'white'? And why should anyone give a shit?" What this poor liberal doesn't realize, of course, is that in the red states EVERYTHING comes down to a simple yes-or-no question, black or white, one or zero. There really are only two possible answers to any question you can possibly ask.

For example, if you ask "Should I loan money to friends?", there can only be one answer: yes or no. If you start quibbling, saying it depends on the circumstances, or the amount, then you're opening the door to moral relativism and rampant liberalism. There has to be a single rule that you apply rigidly in all situations, regardless of the complexity of the case. If you've decided that it's a bad policy to loan money to friends, then you MUST NOT loan a friend 35 cents to make a phone call, or $500 to move to another state to start a new job after two years of unemployment. And if you've decided that it's a good policy to loan money to friends, then it doesn't matter how many times your alcoholic best bud wants to borrow $20 to go get wasted on, without ever paying you back once, you have to loan it to him every time.

Seriously, folks: life is simpler here in the red states!

Sunday, November 28

2004-11-28T06:54:00.000-06:00

Blue-state liberals hate the family and want to destroy it with equality for women and gay marriage; we red-state conservatives love our families

Jonas Luster of jluster.org recently went out of his way to stomp all over a good red-state conservative blog that we commented favorably on in a previous post, by Michelle Potter. Here's Jonas's comment:

After another evening of weblog surfing, I do have to ask - what is it that makes some of those weblogging conservatives such opinionated, unilaterally dismissive, zealots? I’ve run across the weblog of some girl, must be 24 by now, christian mother of two, who basically married the guy she cheated on her fiancé with, while he was living separated from his wife and his two children. Who has issues with “homoseksuals” and gay marriage, which is a sin and an erosion of that holy institution called marriage.

I hate to break it to you, kiddo, but you and your husband have done more damage to marriage as an institution than any faithful gay couple could do. And, guess what, every single one of my gay friends is more in tune with being faithful and respecting partnerships than you do.

Typical blue-state liberal point-missing! To spell it out for you, Jonas, the point you're missing is that Michelle writes about cheating on her fiance before she found Jesus. This is something that liberals never get: that all the stuff you do before you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior is wiped away and no longer counts, except of course as evidence of how much you've changed since you were saved.

Here is what Michelle writes:

let's start in november 2000. i was 19, and not unlike most other people i knew. a college drop-out, atheistic, liberal, poor morals, suffering from depression. i lived with my then-fiance and spent my free time at the rocky horror picture show. and cheated on my fiance. a lot, with pretty much anyone. i really had no clue why, either.

in december i met mark. he didn't seem too different from most of the people i knew. a little strange, with pink hair and random piercings. he was older, seperated from his wife, and had two kids who lived with his parents. to tell you something about me, i was mostly attracted to the fact that he tied to me a chair with twine. he, however, apparently fell in love with me.

at first i resisted. not that he was putting pressure on me at all, but i both really wanted him and really wanted to not cheat on my fiance again. but it wasn't long before we started a month-long affair that ended with me moving out of my fiance's house to "live on my own." and i really meant to do that, it's just that i didn't want mark to go home, yet. he never did go home...

by august i was pregnant. in december we got a bigger apartment and aryanna and aoghdan moved in with us. in april seamus was born. by may i was a basket case. (ok, maybe i was a basket case long before that.) going from a carefree life with my cool boyfriend in the "artsy" part of town to suddenly being a mother of three was a lot to handle. and then we decided to homeschool! my long-term, ongoing depression started to get really bad.

mark was a christian (kind of lapsed, obviously), and he had these christian parenting books. i read them, but i totally missed the point. i kept saying that they were really good, "except for all the god stuff."

when we got married the following september, we went to pre-marital counseling at a church pastored by one of mark's friends. not long after we got married we started attending that church. meanwhile i kept searching for a way to cope with my new life. eventually i ran smack into god.

i finally realized that i couldn't do this on my own. i needed god. and once i accepted that, it really helped. it wasn't a magic pill or anything, but as mark and i started becoming deeply involved in our faith, and changing our lives to fit a biblical model, things just clicked.

The important thing here, Jonas, is the sequence:

1. first she's depressed and sleeps around, cheating on her fiance and watching wicked movies, a liberal atheist with poor morals (BAD)
2. then then she meets Mark, with his pink hair and random piercings, and he ties her to the chair for purposes of extramarital sex, but she is (obviously!) still depressed (BAD)
3. then she moves in with Mark and gets pregnant (BAD), and even though she homeschools Mark's kids (GOOD) she's still depressed and living in sin (BAD)
4. then she and Mark get married and start going to church and find Jesus, and all is forgiven (VERY GOOD!)
5. and then she hates gay people and thinks that two men or two women living faithfully in holy matrimony will destroy the sacred institution of marriage (EXCELLENT!)

That's the difference, right there: once she's found Jesus and been transformed into a Daughter of Light, there's no contradiction between her earlier heterosexual promiscuity and her current conservative Christian homophobia. Do you see now, Jonas?

Of course, Rome wasn't built in a day:

i still suffer from depression, and i have to take medication for it, but god has been faithful. he's carried me through even when i thought he'd abandoned me.

God's been faithful, and so has Michelle--but unfortunately, all that fidelity is still no match for her depression. However, her ongoing depression through all five stages does not mean, as cynical blue-state liberals would no doubt want to make it mean, that her life in Christ is just as big a shambles as her life in sin. Every good red-state conservative knows that main thing isn't actually being happy in Jesus; it's believing you're happy, or at least believing that you'll be happy after you die and live with God in heaven!

Blue-state liberals care about original ideas and critical thinking; we red-state conservatives care about getting right with God

Art Green at Conservative Eyes believes strongly that "Democrats Hate People With Strong Beliefs." He explains:

When I say people with strong beliefs or convictions, that usually translates into people of faith. Usually, that is someone that is a Christian conservative. Well, why is it that way? What is it about Christians that make Democrats hate us?

How dare they believe in a Creator! How dare they believe that there is an after-life where we will meet God in Heaven! We should secede and disassociate ourselves from these 'bigots.'

Lawrence O'Donnell on the McLaughlin Group, called the red states "welfare" states and urged the blue states to secede from the red states. Geraldine Ferraro, a former Vice Presidential Candidate said on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes that if the blue states seceded from the union, the red states would have no colleges or universities and that all the creativity would be in the blue states.

Well, first off, both of them are off their rockers. Secondly, when did Democrats care if people were on welfare? Aren't they the champions of the poor, exploited and underprivileged? Thirdly, where would these "creative" people get their food from? Lastly, there is plently of creativity that comes from the red states. They just now happen to live on the left coast or in New York City.

These are three very good points, and we here at Red State Rah Rah wanted to see how your typical people-with-strong-opinions-hating Democrats would respond to them, so we conducted some telephone interviews with people on the "left coast" and New York. Here are some of the answers we got (and we must apologize in advance for the strong language; blue-state liberals often use profane and vulgar terms quite freely):

"We don't hate Christians. I'm a Christian myself. We hate fucking idiots like this clown who give Christians a bad name." (Bob Wanthrax, Yonkers, New York)

"Wait, read that first part again. People with strong beliefs 'usually translate into conservative Christians'? What the fuck does that mean? Is that some kinda weird morphing shit, or something? Whoosh, people with strong beliefs, whoosh, Christians, whoosh, conservative Christians, whoosh, here comes the blue-state hate?" (Thor Jespersen, San Fransisco, California)

"Oh, poor boy. He wants so desperately to sound intelligent, doesn't he? But it just isn't working. It's kind of adorable, don't you think, how earnest he is? Write him a comment from me, could you do that? Say something encouraging, like 'Keep working on your debating skills, and one day you'll really come up with some good strong arguments!'" (Sandra Baber, Seattle, Washington)

"Hey, Art, I got a strong belief for you: you're a retard! Jesus Christ, where do these people come from?" (Pat Elster, Eugene, Oregon)

"Ha! So the big argument in favor of the red states is that they produce our food? Goddamn, that's wonderful. I love it. Seriously. All the smart creative people born there move to the coasts, and leave behind the poor mouth-breathing farmers who vote for Bush despite everything his administration has done to crush family farming: that's his attempt to make the red states look good? I mean, sheesh: what's he trying to do here, prove that red-state Bush-supporters are dumb as a sack of hammers?" (Jamal Hook, Hollywood)

"Here's the way it works, Art: Democrats are people with strong beliefs. We believe that America is a democracy where everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--even Arabs, atheists, and gay people. We believe that the Christian Right's zeal to legislate morality is a direct assault on core American democratic values. We believe that our strong beliefs in democratic freedoms and equal human rights are more life-affirming than the Christian Right's strong beliefs in theocratic leaders, puritanical censorship, and strict punishment for moral infractions. Democrats don't hate people with strong beliefs. Democrats hate people who want to force others to live according to one extremist group's narrow strong beliefs." (Patricia Manley, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

See how these things go, folks? No substantive argument from any of these arrogant elitist blue-state liberals. Just ad hominem attacks. They can't find anything solid to attack in Art's post, so they pick at his language, his argumentation, his intelligence--all incidentals. Because really, what difference does it make what anybody says or how intelligent anybody is? What matters is that you love Jesus and support George W. Bush. Everything else is just blue-state liberal elitism.

Friday, November 27

2004-11-27T08:21:00.000-06:00

Blue-state liberals hate the family and want to destroy it with equality for women and gay marriage; we red-state conservatives love our families

Dragonfly at A Dragonflys Life knows that God wants her and her family to be in a good red state like Tennessee, even though they don't have health insurance and she has run out of the medications that keep her chemically balanced:

I ran out of my chemical balancing Meds. I need them, I used to think that I could "get over this" on my own. But unfortunately, or fortunately how ever you want to think of it, I realized about 4 or so years ago that I need to stay on them. And strangley enough it took my almost 3 more years before i went to the Dr about it. Any way before we left and moved here. my DR had written me a 90 day supply so "I wouldn't run out", well I ran out and now i am very nervous, and feeling physically sick at the thought of not having Health, Life or Dental Insurance...... I need to have these back, not just for me but for the whole family. I still truely believe that the Lord wanted us here, man sometimes in my weak human state I get soooo F-ing scared that we made yet another mistake..... Even if we did, god knows that in our hearts we truely thought we were doing his will. So I know He will take care of us, we just need to be patient ................. I guess. It is soooooooo hard to be patient.

At least she can be sure that the Lord's Chosen Instrument on earth, President George W. Bush, is hard at work making sure that the government doesn't start handing out health insurance to poor families like unearned candy!

Dragonfly is also thankful for her family in this Thanksgiving season:

Well we went to Red's Mothers house. its about 2-hours away. We left at 10am, had to make a pitstop at Starbucks (yum!). I got the Venti, hey if i had to deal with the MIL I was going to be fully awake for it.

SIL #2 and family, and SIL #3 and family was there. That part was fine. It was the MIL from hell, and the BIL from Hell that was the Prob. Toe and his Cuz curls (they are 6 months apart, Toe the older) are close, but not gross. anyway BIL is a total freak and started talking about how he had some cousin in WV that had ended up getting married. Oh MY!!! I told him not to talk to them like that. he stopped for like a sec. Then I told Toe just to leave. he did, then came back. And BIL from Hell started in again. So I walked out of the room, and told SIL #3 that she needed to do something about her Brother. Anyway finally the kids stayed away from him.
I had Sweet Babe on my lap, I was the only one that could get her to sleep yes i am patting my self on the back. Anyway. BIL started in again, but not about gross cousins, he started in on how he didn't think that he were ever going to control Tooty. Then he started in on how it was a shame and he hated to see it how we had broken down Toe's Spirit.... I almost said and you with the son that you didn't raise him and the daughter out there some where that wasn't raised by him either. YIKES!! I mean I gave up drinking 14 years ago, but man did I want a jack and Coke yesterday, more jack than coke please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am totally paraphasing, there is not enough room to go over all the crap that happened yesterday........ I am very glad that we will not be all getting together until next thanksgiving. Yeah I am thankful this only happens once a fricking year.......... :)

Note that smiley at the end: that signals to us that she doesn't really mean her bitter attacks on her in-laws seriously. She's a good Christian woman who is just letting off steam in a humorous fashion.

Blue-state liberals care about original ideas and critical thinking; we red-state conservatives care about getting right with God

MInTheGap at MInTheGap's Web Journal addresses the Scriptural basis for males and females dressing so as to make the difference in sex obvious to everyone: "In essence, God created them male and female and He wants them looking the part. (Contrast this to current society's desire for genderless bathrooms, crossdressers, etc...)." He goes through a plethora of Bible passages, which suggest many complex things--such as that men should wear skirts, ha ha!--and then concludes: "There is a good principle in there, though, which I've alluded to before. There should be a difference in your dress than the opposite sex." This is a good principle, despite what cynical blue-state liberal carpers might say about "difference in your dress than"! You should be able to tell at a glance that a man is a man (no long hair! no drag! no jewelry!) and a flat-chested narrow-hipped woman is a woman (no short hair! no jeans!). He explains:

Having attended a conservative Christian University whose dress code was for women to wear skirts/dresses most of the time, I can attest to the fact that going to the mall was quite the adventure "women in jeans!" Does this have an effect on men? Sure.

And don't listen to blue-state carping about punctuation its not that important the main thing is being right with God does this have an effect on Christians? Sure. What effect? Well if it isn't obvious you shouldn't be calling yourself a red-state conservative Christian.

MInTheGap also cites another blog:

M. Thaxter Dickey talks about modesty in his web article. He has five reasons for being modest in dress:

1. It is unfair to men
2. It is a dangerous threat to Chastity
3. It is unfair to women
4. It is an indicator of uncertain character
5. It reflects poorly on one's vocation as a Christian

See? It really is unfair to men when women are modest in dress: we can't see their breasts and buttocks! Modesty in dress is also a truly (or, as Dragonfly writes, truely) dangerous threat to Chastity and is totally unfair to women. How is a woman to land a good Christian man if she has to dress modestly? Of course, this doesn't mean she should sleep around: sex is for marriage only. But modest dress is unfair because it keeps women from giving their future husbands a visual foretaste of the splendors that await them once the minister says amen! Modesty in dress also indicates uncertainty of character: only shy, timid, uncertain girls hide their assets from potential suitors!

Now blue-state liberals, who are so obsessed with clarity of expression, might object that MInTheGap didn't really intend for Thaxter Dickey's list to be five reasons for MODESTY in dress; he meant, in fact, the exact opposite, and merely messed up his introduction to the list. MInTheGap and Thaxter Dickey, the carpers might claim, really LIKE modesty, and MInTheGap should have written something like "He has five reasons why immodesty in dress is bad." But this is evil-minded nit-pickery and second-guessery. MInTheGap clearly wrote that Thaxter Dickey (a good red-state name if ever I saw one) wrote AGAINST modesty, and we should learn to stop second-guessing our betters! They are our betters because they KNOW better!

Thursday, November 18

2004-11-18T06:02:00.000-06:00

Blue-state liberals hate the family and want to destroy it with equality for women and gay marriage; we red-state conservatives love our families

Daria at Daria's Life describes how red-state conservatives have fun in the middle of the night:

Last night around 2am Brigs woke up totally inconsolable. I took him downstairs finally, tucked him under a cozy blanket and turned on a quiet Care-bears show for him to watch. When I went back up to bed Nathan was totally giggling away. I wondered what I had done that was soo funny to him. He then jokingly saying “Anybody wanna go for a Swim?” and starts laughing hysterically. I had no idea what he was talking about at all, was he using this as some strange pick up line on me? I decided to use my brilliant powers of reasoning and deduction and asked “What?!!!”

He then says “Hey don’t look at me, you designed the Protocol!!" (followed by more giddy laughter). I was laughing too, I had no idea what my husband was talking about but the fact that he found himself so amusing was hilarious to me. Then I said “Honey, is this one of your 1/2 asleep, 1/2 awake conversations?”

To which the reply was “Well, it’s not anymore you wacko!!” Then he giggled again and rolled over snoring before he could say anything else.

Um - yea and I’m the WACKO!!!

Eat your hearts out blue-state liberal theater people: this is the true heartlands theater of the absurd!

Blue-state liberals care about original ideas and critical thinking; we red-state conservatives care about getting right with God

Robin Christian (there's a great red-state name for you!) at Edifying the TRUE feminine spirit writes good advice for good red-state Christian women whose last names are NOT Christian:

Men are simple: they want respect from their women, they want us to love them and they want us to feed them. You have feelings - men have feelings too. They just don't express them like we do. I guarantee you (from experience) that if you start going out of your way to please him then he will walk through fire for you. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Submit to your own husbands as you would submit to the Lord. If the Lord lived in your house in the flesh, and He wanted something done a certain way you would do it, wouldn't you? You'd want Him happy, right? Why don't you want your husband to be deliriously happy?!

Remember that list of what simple Christian men want from women: respect, love, and food. Not sex! That's what corrupt blue-state liberal men want from their cold Hillary Clinton professional wives and girlfriends (sometimes both at the same time). They also don't want to cook for us girls, because it's in the Bible somewhere, "wives, cook for your husbands." Do all the cooking and cleaning, take care of the kids, and do everything in your power to please the man of the house, because he is your Jesus. Don't just make him happy; make him deliriously happy! But, you know, a kind of quiet and calm delirium, not the kind of out-of-control ecstatic delirium that blue-state liberals go in for. A heartlands kind of delirium.

Blue-state liberals care about spelling and punctuation and grammar; we red-state conservatives care about having our hearts in the right place

Bear at How You Daaahhh" writes an impassioned Alabaman blogger's manifesto, throwing caution and spelling and punctuation to the winds:

I'm not mad or frustrated I'm just voicing my opinion. I don't think that I've ever been told how it was by a Right Wing-Nut. They deffinently voiced their opinion a time or two , but none of them have ever told me how it was because they don't all know for sure. To my good buddy OSJ.....My friend you have exemplified what this sight is all about....The freedom to speak one's mind and creating conversation.

A website is, after all, a sight for soar ice! And while most red-staters would spell definitely "defiantly," because they do so adamantly defy the liberal elite and activist judges that would impose stupid restrictive spelling rules on them, Bear goes with "deffinently," because he's into rap and likes to be deff to blue-state liberal voices.

Bear is also a strong red-state proponent of evasive vagueness: you can't pin us down with invasive liberal demands for clarity of thought! That's a sure-fire recipe for disaster right there. "I don't think that I've ever been told how it was by a Right Wing-Nut": see how "it" works there to distract any liberal attacker's attention from the prize, so that the red-state conservative can squeak through unseen? "They deffinently voiced their opinion a time or two , but none of them have ever told me how it was because they don't all know for sure": just try and pin Bear down on this one, liberals!

Wednesday, November 17

2004-11-17T06:52:00.000-06:00

Blue-state liberals care about original ideas and critical thinking; we red-state conservatives care about getting right with God

Paul at Paul's Ponderings ponders pleasure: "One of the great lies the human race has believed from the Beginning is that pleasure is found outside of morality. It is this idea that pleasure is found in breaking the rules and living the moment." Morality is a great corral, people; and like many cattle we huddle inside the fences and start imagining that there is pleasure OUTSIDE. This is a lie--as Paul says, one of the great lies that we've believed from the Beginning, which is to say, the Garden of Eden, 6000 years ago. He goes on:

Morality seems to stand in the way of pleasure. Morality tells us not to get drunk or high. Morality tells us that sex should be between a man and a woman, and then only within the bounds of marriage. Morality says to be a servant to other people, even though it sacrifices your personal time and money. Morality seems dull compared to the party. How can pleasure come through doing the right thing?

The trick is, though, to find pleasure in dullness! It's not just morality that says be a servant to other people; it's pleasure too! Morality (I think that's the "it" Paul's talking about) sacrifices your personal time and money, but don't think of it as a sacrifice; think of it as a pleasure! See how that works? If you have homosexual longings, and every time you have sex with your wife (in the missionary position in the total dark no more than once a month) you fantasize about the hard abs and tight buns and raspy cheeks of that tennis instructor down at the club, convince yourself that your truest pleasure comes in the tedium of marital sex with a woman--a woman who happens to be your wife! Don't take pleasure in getting knee-walking drunk and singing Norwegian whaling songs in some seedy sailors' bar while some toothless floozy spends your money; take pleasure in singing hymns in church on a Sunday morning, dressed up in your best clothes and with nowhere in particular to go after the service!

This is the true red-state morality: taking pleasure in life inside the corral! If you can't find pleasure in doing the right thing, over and over, you shouldn't be feeling pleasure at all! That impulse you feel toward novelty, excitement, liberation from the grind is from Satan: suppress it! Think of the grind as the greatest thing of all!

Blue-state liberals hate the family and want to destroy it with equality for women and gay marriage; we red-state conservatives love our families

Desi at Bipolar Diary writes that her depression has been aggravated this last weekend by a bout of bronchitis:

I spend the entire weekend coughing, sleeping and feeling sick. I have acute bronchitis. It looks like it'll take a week before I am back to normal. I missed church and the membership class on Sunday. I was very sick and I didnt go out anywhere. Hmm, so I guess I wont get baptized before Christmas. I guess thats the Lord's will.

I didnt speak with my parents this week. Hubby has disconnected the webcam and doesnt allow me to login to the instant messanger. His rationale - I get more depressed after I speak with my parents. I am not sure not speaking with them is the answer though.

Hang in there, Desi! And remember what Paul wrote to the Ephesians (5:22): "Wives, obey your husbands." Hubby is your head, just as Jesus is the head of the church. If he has made decisions about what you will and will not be allowed to do, don't you start questioning his judgment: he is your Jesus, the head of your household! And above all, don't listen to those carping sneering blue-state liberals who go on and on about how women's depression is caused by this Scriptural submission to their husbands in everything, and that since the women's movement depression--once the number-one complaint among American women--has dropped way down in the statistics of women's disorders. That's just pseudoscience, Desi! It's atheistic Freudianism, not good straight-up Biblical creationism! There is absolutely no way on God's green earth that your husband's concern for your welfare and willingness to make the big decisions about your life is causing your depression! Put that thought right out of your cute little head! After all, remember: your husband is your head!

Redbird at The Light speaks up against the slow destruction of marriage in this fine country of ours:

Hollywood is winning the losing battle - the battle of destroying the insitution of marriage in America. It severely bothers me to watch the news and see another hollywood star getting a divorce or annulment after just a few hours, days, or months. I am married, and I know that marriage takes commitment and work. It is not something to be entered into lightly. I don't believe in pre-nuptial agreements because if you need a pre-marriage contract, then you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Marriage is meant to be a life-long commitment between a man and a woman. Anything else goes against the designs of God. Unfortunately, a liberal court system and has forced the issue of homosexual marriage upon us all. I will not have morality dictated to me by unelected, unaccountable officials. I voted against homosexual marriage here in Georgia. Besides homosexual marriage, the hollywood sham marriages that take place so often are doing a huge dishonor to the institution of marriage because they are highly visible people that set examples for many people in America. Its sad that they choose to live their lives so openly in defiance of strong morals.

This is good red-state morality, brothers and sisters! It's not just gay marriage that's against God's design--it's divorce, annulments, and prenuptial agreements, too, and the liberal court system that is ramming these things down our throats! Think about it: if it weren't for unelected judges forcing their liberal agenda on America, men and women would get married and stay married till death did them part. They would have no choice but to live their lives in accordance with strong morals! And homosexuals either wouldn't exist or wouldn't think that it's okay to strut their immorality in front of God and everybody. The courts are essentially legislating immoral freedoms, which is to say license--without due representation!

In this connection I can't help but remember the wonderful remark I heard a good conservative woman make in church here in Mississippi a few months ago. "If we legalize gay marriage," she said, "where will the next generation come from?" Think about it, brothers and sisters: all that keeps us all from the immoral horrors of homosexuality is the ban on gay marriage! If we let activist liberal judges take that protection away from us, we'll all go gay!

Tuesday, November 16

2004-11-16T07:12:00.000-06:00

Blue-state liberals hate the family and want to destroy it with equality for women and gay marriage; we red-state conservatives love our families

Rachel at Bitchalicious Chicks for Bush loves her husband Gary. This is what she wrote to him in a post entitled "Dear Gary":

I love you Baby. Thankyou for being an absolute wonderful husband while me and mom run around shopping here and shopping there and you're just taking it like a champ.

You didn't even argue about giving up that nice comfy bed for mom. You didn't argue when we sat down to watch chick flicks and sob.

You're the best. I never want to lose you. I love you so much. :)

Rachel does a lot of shopping, in fact. Most of her posts are about what stores she went to with what friend and what they bought there. Recently she has been to Tuesday Morning, IKEA, and Lori's, and spent hundreds of dollars. Way to go, Rachel! That's what makes this country great, spending money on consumer items! It doesn't really matter what you buy--whether it's a crystal punch bowl, a cat food dish, or Laura Ashley slippers--so long as you're out there circulating the currency! Keeping those ones and zeroes hopping! And look how understanding Gary is about all this--of course, because he knows that women have to shop! He must have the Lord in his heart too. This is the kind of red-state conservative who votes for George Bush, because George Bush is on the side of big business!

Blue-state liberals care about original ideas and critical thinking; we red-state conservatives care about getting right with God

Michelle Potter at #!/usr/bin/mom attended a rally at a Planned Parenthood clinic the other day. She didn't want to go in, because she found it creepy that inside that building people were killing fetuses just like the one in her womb. So she stayed outside and thought the following thoughts, which, you'll notice, are not obsessed with originality or complexity like blue-state liberals would be, but are focused on the old important issue of getting right with God:

most of the people there were standing in a group praying the rosary. i stood with them for a minute, but it wasn't really working for me. if i was going to pray i wanted to have a conversation with god, not just say the rosary. but i'm sure they did some good, because prayer is prayer.

i ended up standing by a man who had a sign that said "the baby leaped in her womb" from luke 1:41. i didn't have a sign, but he said the witness of just being there, especially with my babies, meant something.

so we stood there and watched women walk into the clinic, and one woman stood by the gate and prayed for each one. eventually the boys were cranky and we had to leave.

lord, i pray that our witness made some difference and was good in your sight.

See? Prayer is prayer, and is bound to do some good. The witness of just being there, especially with your babies, means something. What more basic wisdom is there than that? What profits the blue-state liberal who thinks critically about such ideas, who sneers at the "vague weak-mindedness" of "do some good" and "means something"? Nothing at all.

Blue-state liberals care about spelling and punctuation and grammar; we red-state conservatives care about having our hearts in the right place

Sebastin at Sebastin's Site exudes sincerity on an issue close to the hearts of red-state conservatives: love between a man and a woman. He is so caught up in his sincerity, in fact, that minor things like plurals and possessives become overwhelmingly unimportant--as they should be! The only possessive that matters in the end is the emotional one that makes sure your special someone isn't stepping out on you! And the only plural that counts is the two that a man and woman make when joined in the bonds of holy matrimony:

I have been asking this question for the past few month's, I am stilll unable to conclude, I have even tried plucking petal from a flower asking "I am in Love, I am Not", the last petal is always left in the flower.

I might be the only one guy on earth who has not even asked the girl wheather she likes me or not, and make plans about everything else. Yes I know that its a mistake, but I dont have any other way to go. Each ane every moment in my life does not go through without her thoughts, yes there are times when I have never thought of her. When I am sleeping.

Will I still have her, when I have made my desicion?

Let's See.

God wants you to have her, Sebastin! Remember, no matter what a loser you are, or even what a loser she is, God has given her to you--so as the Beatles sang, go and get her!

Monday, November 15

2004-11-15T13:57:00.000-06:00

Blue-state liberals hate the family and want to destroy it with equality for women and gay marriage; we red-state conservatives love our families

I Whined at Wedding Thoughts is getting married. Congratulations, I Whined! That's the kind of thing we red-state conservatives love to hear--another marriage! We know what blue-state liberals would think: another divorce in the making! Because they're so negative. But listen to I Whined's simple Christian love for her hubby-to-be:

He was all right yesterday, he was all right today until when we were on our way to dinner with his parent. There is something wrong with his car which something it feels like dying it engine, but this has been occuring quite often.

His car feels like dying it engine again. This time, he bang his hand so hard on the steering wheel that my heart beat stop for a second. Then his face turns black all the way through the dinner. My face was black too. I hate to remind myself that I got to marry this man with sudden mood swing in another 1 months, 2 weeks time.

You just stick to it, I Whined! Don't let Satan or liberals stand in the way of your wedded bliss! You can make it--it's only one months and two weeks! Keep your eye on the prize, and forget about all those little typing booboos! They don't matter one little bit!

Blue-state liberals care about original ideas and critical thinking; red-state conservatives care about getting right with God

Tim at Broadcasting Daily Via the World Wide Web is dedicated to "putting the fun in fundamentalism." And we in the red states agree: fundamentalism can be fun! This is something that blue-state liberals just don't get. Tim is a thinker, but note that he isn't a blue-state liberal original or critical thinker: he devotes his brain cells to the familiar, the conventional, the orthodox. This is good red-state thinking, Tim!

First he takes us through a dictionary definition of "witness"; then he really gets down to brass tacks:

Having examined what a witness is, I realize I have been hypocritical, for, as we just saw, an effective witness must also have a consistent life. If I want to be a good witness I need to avoid not only writing about such things, but also avoid exposing myself to them. Perhaps if I am watching those movies and shows I should just write about them rather than hide them away and pretend I am above them. It is difficult being a good witness and it is easy to become pharisaical about it. Yet God calls us to complete purity – partial purity still involves some level of impurity that discredits our witness.
God make me pure, so I can be the most effective witness for You!

Go Tim!

Blue-state liberals care about spelling and punctuation and grammar; red-state conservatives care about having our hearts in the right place

u-set at Ask Questions Get Answers shows liberals how irrelevant the mechanics of writing are:

A bunch of churches are shutting down due to the scandals of those pedifilers..Well they brought it on themselves..One priest been raping little boys since the 70's...for this kind of behaviour i don't see how people are even Christian...i don't here about buda monks molesting children or a rabbi having little boys in there chambers or muselms suck on little boys penises...i think its sick to use the lords name to manipulate children's minds on having sex with these men...this world is sick and the Christians on top of the food chain...i haven't done a study but i bet you a million or so if i had it that the majority of sex crimes and murders are done by christians...prove me wrong fellow jesus followers...Morals..Remember that word christians..thats what this election was all about..what kind of f#$%ing Moral value do you really have when you have constant priest raping your little boys and girls them sick f%^*ers. I have to stop, this is pissing me off..anyway prove me wrong and go with god.

p.s. if i spelled pedifiler wrong oh well..i tried to look it up on google and they act like the word does not exisit..hhhmm, i wonder if google are christian followers....hahahaha...

A blue-state liberal would probably spell that "pedophile"--they care about things like Greek roots, and whether the word refers to children or feet! And, of course, whether there's an R on the end of that word at all. We here in the red states LOVE words like "pedifiler"--they're closer to the ordinary values of ordinary people than big fancy Greekified words like "pedophile."

We were so impressed by u-set's attitude, in fact, that we contacted him. He replied:

Thanks for the correction but im not concerned with my spelling as long as you get it that's all i need...i failed all my english courses and it shows but you know what else i speak 2 languges so the enlish language can kiss my ass...i also build computers and deal with the nerdiest sh%$ you will ever mess with when it comes to computers...everyone is a critic...i guess you've proven that. Anal is anoying

Yes it is, u-set! I'll bet it's even annoying when building computers! Who cares about all the piddly shit, right? What goes where, whether all the tiny little parts are in their right places. Screw mechanics--that's our motto here in the red states. If you start insisting on putting everything tiny little thing in its right place, then you're talking government regulation--and then, you know, it's no longer possible for ordinary folks to blog or build computers, because you have to have some kinda LICENSE to do anything, and that's tyranny!

Do the "Best of"
	for your blog birthday in March
	as a "2004 year in review"
	I don't see black or white, only shades of gray.

Free polls from Pollhost.com