Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Thanks, WingNutDaily!!

Normally, I'd be ranting and raving about something those lovable little nutcases over at WorldNetDaily had written. Today, however, I'm turning their article listing companies who are 'gay-friendly' into something positive...or trying to, at least.

The 2006 report from the Human Rights Campaign, which
advocates for homosexual issues, was released yesterday and notes that "an
unprecedented" 138 major U.S. corporations earned the top rating of 100 percent,
up from 101 last year.

Wow! So, based on the HRC's 2006 Corporate Equality Index, 138 major corporations received perfect scores for their policies concerning GLBT employees. I realize that the folks over at WND had very different intentions, but their publicizing this list of companies is actually a very helpful thing for the GLBT community. Rather than demonizing these companies, WND has given us a wonderful list showing us exactly who we need to give our business and support. I'll come back to that point later.

When I first read this article, I wondered how significant the HRC's findings were. More specifically, I wanted to examine what portion of corporate America was represented in this index. Looking soley at the Fortune 500 listings (and recognizing that this isn't the only index available), some interesting statistics involving the companies listed appear. First, this 'unprecedented' number of gay-friendly companies would comprise a whopping 13.8% of the entire Fortune 500 index. Interestingly enough, 46 of these companies aren't on the Fortune 500 list, so the actual figure is 9.2%. Keep an eye out, folks...the sky should start falling at any moment!

Before you get discouraged, here's the second thing I noticed. Five of the companies on HRC's list are in the top 10, and a total of 40 are in the top 100. Those two stats are encouraging, as they show that more and more truly 'major' corporations are creating workplace policies that are beneficial to GLBT employees.

Here's where we can try and use this list to our benefit...

I tried to take note of which companies' products I had in the house, and had the idea of listing as many as I could, giving them links and challenging others to do the same. If WND and their various readers plan to launch a boycott, we should counter it with our own advertising campaign. Here's my example:

Sitting here in my Levi's jeans, Nike tennis shoes and freshly
spritzted with my Estee
perfume, I've pondered whether I need to reorder my prescriptions
(one manufactured by Eli Lilly) from Walgreens. As I'm writing
this (on my Dell computer which has an Intel processor), I'm sipping a Diet Coke and munching on some dry Honey-Nut
. I was recently speaking with Wells Fargo (the bank that holds
my mortgage, lol) using my home phone service provided by AT&T, while I
perused HRC's report (which is an Adobe Acrobat file).

Well, you get the idea. It's amazing how many of these companies are regular fixtures in our daily lives, and knowing that they are also advocating equal workplace benefits makes them all the more appealing. So, thumb your noses at all those wingnuts and show them that their hateful rhetoric won't be a discouragement.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Hillary's October Surprise?

Another day...another WingNutDaily article that'll make you scratch your head and wonder what, exactly, these writers had for breakfast. Rusty Humphries has honestly outdone himself with this little journalistic gem, in which he suggests that Hillary Clinton has not only forfeited the presidency for herself, but doomed the entire Democratic party to remain the minority in Congress. How did the junior Senator from New York manage to do this, you ask? Read this...

The Gay City News reported on the
evening of October 25 (mark down this date), Sen. Hillary
Clinton dropped her long held opposition to gay marriage. That is to say,
Sen. Clinton will not be defending the institution of marriage.

*Insert audibly exasperated sighs here*

Anyone who knows me well knows that I have never been a fan of Hillary, and Mr. Humphries does discuss her various attempts to appear more moderate than she really is...but to assert that embracing the idea of marriage equality is basically political suicide? It's almost too ridiculous to believe. What follows his inital assertion is even more perplexing...

This is a political blunder of the highest magnitude.
Trading a bedrock principle – that marriage is between a man and a woman – for a
block of votes is not shrewd. It is deeply misguided, short-sighted and in no
way in the best interest of the country.

I'm starting to feel and sound like a broken record, I'm sure, but it is baffling to me how so many journalists are ignoring history when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. In 1954, the Supreme Court ignored what was then a bedrock principle - that blacks and whites couldn't share the same schools - and ruled in favor of integration. Amazingly, the country didn't collapse or tumble into a second civil war following that ruling. For all the pundits who ran around shouting that the sky was falling, integration was not the end of the world.

Humphries gives a bit of background on the recent changes within the Democratic party, including the naming of Howard Dean as chair and the party's connections with organizations such as, The Daily Kos and the like. His references and dates are quite accurate, but I'm not sure what point he's trying to make. If it's wrong for Hillary or any other politician to alter their beliefs to appeal to 'the center,' why was it wrong for the Democratic party to take a wider step to the left with the changes it made? Honestly, Mr. Humphries, you can't have it both ways. In his concluding paragraph, Humphries says...

That's what it takes in 2006 to win the support of today's
movers and shakers in the Democrat Party. Hillary's evolution is a bombshell. It
affects voter turnout for 2006, it completes the Howard Dean makeover of the
Democrat Party, it probably secured her nomination for president, and made
impossible Hillary Clinton ever winning the presidency.

I suppose that Americans should all migrate to the political center aisle in order to fit Rusty's vision for America. For the time being, however, I'm just going to pull out my badge and say to Mr. Humphries..."Ignorance Police. I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to run you in for being stupid!"

*If you find yourself with time to kill, check out some of Rusty's other WingNut specialties:

Radio host's CD pokes fun at terrorists, 10/27/06
'Papa don't preach - I'm keepin' your baby,' 10/16/06
The NFL wouldn't stand for it, 10/9/06
Hillary flunks her history lesson, 10/2/06
A stained dress, a TV mini-series and a glimpse of narcissistic rage, 9/25/06
Tortured logic, 9/18/06
Karl Rove: The real 20th hijacker? 9/11/06
Democrats declare war...on themselves, 8/28/06

"Scandalous" Video Game?

In all honesty, this story should be marked for the 'most ridiculous' pile, but it's worth discussing. The makers of the Grand Theft Auto games have come out with a new role-playing game entitled Bully.

Set in a boarding school, the main character has a series of missions to navigate and obstacles to overcome, including cliques, fights and teenage romance. Sounds harmless, right?

Here's where it gets interesting...and where the "scandal" begins, lol. Seems that the main character (who is male, btw) has the option to...gasp...kiss another boy! Almost on cue, fundies are coming unglued over what's being deemed as the latest in a string of attempts at indoctrinating the youth of this country into becoming gay.

*Insert dramatic eye rolling here*

Sidestepping the obvious absurdity of that whole overblown conclusion, let's take a look at a couple of other facts about this game. First, the game was given a teen (T) rating. If parents are doing their jobs, this game shouldn't get into the hands of a child who's too young for sexual scenes of any description. Second, where was the uproar over the hidden sex scene (entitled Hot Coffee) that was included in the game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? Could it be that it was more acceptable because it involved a hetero couple?

It's truly amazing to me that a hetero sex scene raises eyebrows while a scene involving two men kissing gets the title, "scandalous." As with anything else, though, if you don't like it or don't think it's appropriate for your kids...Don't buy it...and don't tell me what I should or shouldn't buy.

Monday, October 30, 2006

'WingNutDaily' Strikes Again

Some mornings when I sit down and begin to sift through email, blog posts and my newsgator feeds, I find myself struggling to decide which issue will get my attention. This, however, was not one of those mornings, as I came face to face with the latest, fascist drivel that managed to pour out of WorldNetDaily.

It's always a treat to read what those lovable little nutcases have to say, but today's little gem of journalism was, well...a barn-burner! Let's just take a look at what Matt Barber has to say...

You can put a pig in a mini-skirt, high heals and lipstick
and call him Angelina Jolie, but he's still a pig just the same. That's just
what pro-homosexual activists are trying to do this election season in Colorado.
No, they haven't partnered with PETA to raise awareness about the systematic
discrimination of "transgendered" farm animals; but what they have done is enter
into a clever and disingenuous game of political semantics relative to the
so-called "gay-marriage" debate

Since when did the discussion of gay-marriage become something 'supposed?' Is there or is there not an actual debate occuring on this very issue? Perhaps Mr. Barber, lost somewhere in his astute Angelina Jolie-pig analogy, deluded himself into thinking that this wasn't a real issue.

On Nov. 7, Coloradans will vote on Referendum I.

What is Referendum I? Well, opponents say that it's a clear attempt by
homosexual activists to circumvent Colorado's marriage protection laws and
legalize "gay marriage" through sleight of hand, while calling it something
else. They assert that it's a not so thinly veiled attempt to pass off
counterfeit marriage beneath that innocuous pseudonym we've all come to know –
"Domestic Partnerships." (The bill associated with the referendum is the
"Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act.")

Proponents claim that the referendum doesn't codify "gay marriage," but
rather, simply grants certain legal protections to homosexual couples that they
cannot otherwise obtain.

So, who's lying?

First and foremost, take a look at what the Referendum is all about. Nothing in the language of this legislation suggests that same-sex couples would be able to 'marry,' but, rather allows for the 'common sense' rights and obligations that would be expected for any committed couple. Some excellent 'real life' examples are included in a Denver Post article.

One can derive the answer by looking at the unequivocal
language of the referendum itself: The Colorado Legislative Council's "Blue
Book" analysis of the ballot initiative states that Referendum I "creates a new
legal relationship, called a domestic partnership, providing same-sex couples
the opportunity to obtain the legal protections and responsibilities granted to
married couples by Colorado law." The text of the Referendum indicates the
bill's intent "to extend to same-sex couples in a Domestic Partnership the
benefits, protections and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to

So the verdict's in, and the jury wasn't out long –
guilty as charged. "Domestic Partnerships" as defined under Referendum I, are
very simply "gay marriages" by another name.

Funny that Mr. Barber left out that the "Blue Book" anaylsis is actually more or less a projection of the fiscal impact if this bill were to pass. But what I find even more unreal is this constant likening of domestic partnerships to marriages. They absolutely are not the same thing...just try going to your local bakery and ordering a 'domestic partnership' cake!

We've all heard the old adage "give 'em an inch and
they'll take a mile." Well, in this case, If Coloradans pass Referendum I, it
will be the first time that "domestic partnerships" will have been approved by
the voters of a state, and it will require thousands of changes to existing
Colorado state law, at a high cost to the taxpayer.

Under these circumstances, that old "give 'em an
inch" adage will be inverted. Colorado voters will have essentially given 'em a
mile – and with little effort, homosexual activists will take the last inch.

We've seen it time and time again. Liberal activist
courts are all too happy to accommodate the very vocal and very motivated
homosexual lobby. If Referendum I passes, then in very short order the courts,
under the guise of equal protection under the law, will require that the term
"marriage" be included among the "benefits, protections, and responsibilities"
now afforded to "domestic partners." And what difference does it really make?
What's in a word, when one already enjoys the substance of what that word

Referring to the anecdotes provided by the Denver Post, can Mr. Barber honestly say that it's not worth the state's trouble to enable committed couples in obtaining what should be considered basic rights? If I were to engage in the same slippery-slope argument made here, then I would find myself needing to point out that allowing writers who are obviously bigoted to comment publicly on this issue would inevitably lead to the downfall of journalism as we know it.

Mr. Barber's commentary gets more and more angry, as he continues to assert what he believes are the goals and motives of every homosexual who wants the privilege to marry. Of the many things I still shake my head and wonder about, this is still the one that makes me want to slap people the most...why should it be difficult for two people who love each other and who are committed to one another to obtain the basic rights that heterosexual couples enjoy? More than that, does having those basic rights pose a threat (real or perceived) to anyone else?

If the debate is starting to seem familiar to you, it should! The arguments made by Matt Barber and the other wingnuts are very similar to those put forth by such prestigious groups as the KKK and by equally intelligent world leaders like Adolf Hitler. Fortunately, civil rights managed to become the rule rather than the exception in this country...perhaps equal rights for same-sex couples isn't far behind.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

GOP Desperate in Tennessee

Democrats in Tennessee are crying foul over an ad being run against Harold Ford. The ad, financed by the Republican National Committee, attempts to link Mr. Ford to a variety of issues...most notably a Playboy party.

What I find most humorous about this ad is the fact that of the many issues presented by the RNC, the one that seems to have 'caught fire' is the fact that Mr. Ford likes...gasp...women. The whole Playboy party issue wasn't handled tastefully, and was, frankly, beyond stupid...but I'm more surprised that Democrats aren't more outraged over the other points brought up in the ad.

Generalizations, obviously intended to inflame and exaggerate, were thrown out and seemingly overlooked in the face of Ford's apparent heterosexual tendencies. I'm a bit disappointed that more wasn't made of the rather far-fetched assertions (however obviously erroneous they were) put forth by the GOP. Honestly, if you can't come up with anything better than that...shut up and go home!

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Take Your Sympathy and Shove It!!

In Maryland today, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings began a summit on school safety with a discussion of crisis response plans. In reporting some of the details related to this summit, Fox News (via AP) says...

"Bush is expected to offer sympathy at the event, being held in this Maryland
suburb, and to encourage people to ask questions at home about whether their
schools are prepared for emergencies."

Sympathy? I don't know about the rest of you, but I know I'll sleep much better knowing that Dear Leader will be offering his sympathy on this that has been thrust into the spotlight due to recent events. Honestly, he can take his "sympathy," fold it in five corners and stick it where the sun don't shine!

That ridiculousness aside, the whole idea of having this summit is somewhat confusing...and convenient. It's convenient because Bush is now able to talk about something politcally "safe." No one will challenge him on issues of education or school safety. The problem with that, though, is that education issues...including school safety...are largely governed locally. The federal government has very little to do with the day-to-day operation of local schools.

Sitting together discussing the problems seems to do two things...1) Give Dear Leader a chance to escape from the hell that is Iraq, NoKo and Foley, 2) Give everyone attending the summit a case of "warm fuzzies."

At the end of the day, it's just a group of people pacifying themselves by talking...with Bush's heartfelt "sympathy," of course.

Monday, October 09, 2006

A Domino Effect?

US News and World Report is reporting that the GOP was worried that Hastert's resignation would cause a domino effect in Washington. The "discreet political calculation" was made based on speculation Reynolds, Boehner and any other republicans touched by the Foley story would be forced to resign as well.

Here's my question...what's wrong with that? Obviously the GOP is trying to stop the bleeding and retain as many seats as possible, fearing loss of control come November. But honestly, what's wrong with demanding that those who had knowledge of Foley's behavior and in any way contributed to a cover-up

Resignation is really much too easy a punishment for those involved with this entire scandal. Perhaps a domino effect is exactly what Congress needs right now to flush out anyone else who either are involved in this scandal or share Foley's pattern of behavior. Once exposed, I hope we hold them accountable and do more than require them to resign their precious seats in Congress.

**Read the entire article at:

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Washington Ethics?

I know, I know...a contradiction in terms, right? Apparently, that's what we're all expected to take comfort in, though...that all our hard-working representatives in Washington will be taking a close, hard look at the various ethical violations that occurred with the whole Foley debacle.

Honestly, I had a hard time typing that sentence without vomiting halfway through it. As more details funnel through to the public and more heads start rolling, I find it very hard to believe that we are supposed to relax in knowing that the our leaders will be investigating this now. It's being reported today in The New York Times, and many other major media outlets, that a House subcommittee will be investigating to see what ethics violations may have occurred.

"The chairman of the House committee, Representative Doc Hastings, a
Washington State Republican, said his committee had already moved to issue more
than four dozen subpoenas for documents and testimony from House members and the

So, it would seem that this little committee is on the right track...ready to gather the info and start kicking some asses, right? Keep reading...

“The investigation will go wherever the evidence leads us,” Mr. Hastings

I would have expected anyone heading an investigation like this, regardless of party affiliation, to have said something more difinitive than that. Something that gave me some assurance that everyone responsible for allowing Foley to keep his seat after seeing evidence of his behavior would be swiftly and harshly punished...would have been a start. The more it appears that Hastert and other GOP leaders wanted the story to disappear thirty seconds after Foley resigned, the more I question the legitimacy of any House investigation. I believe that an independent investigation is definitely called for in this instance...otherwise, we may never get to the truth of what really went on behind closed doors.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

And the other shoe drops...

I was really wondering how long it would take for one "wingnut" or another to start linking lesbians with the whole Foley mess. Seems I didn't have to wait long, lol. According to the wonderfully sarcastic Pam Spaulding, Mission America's spokeswoman Linda Harvey has issued yet another ridiculous manifesto in the wake of the latest Foley developments.

Harvey begins with a sort of, "well, duh," statement, in which she restates that Foley is a homosexual and then makes the link between being gay and being a pedophile. She even uses the phrase, "sexual fascism," to describe any attempt to leagalize same-sex marriages...all leading up to what she really wants to tell us poor, unguided souls...

"...Open or suspected homosexuals should never be elected. The problem with
homosexuals is that they frequently don't have common sense and don't
acknowledge appropriate boundaries. Weird sex, public displays of "affection"
and nudity, and sex with youth are built into the "gay" sub-culture. Witness any
pride parade, stroll around any predominantly "gay" neighborhood, or visit
"GLBT" websites and you quickly see the problem. "

**Suspected homosexuals? I suppose a return to the Salem era, complete with 'bitch' trials and public executions is next. While the thought of Ms. Harvey "reducing" herself to visit the parades, neighborhoods and websites mentioned is somewhat amusing (rolling my eyes...yeah, that happened), her suppositions are so sophomoric that they defy common sense. And, speaking of people not having common sense, I would venture to say that the same behaviors and practices she lists can be found in the "straight" sub-culture as well.**

"...We are insane to allow suspected or open homosexuals to assume positions as
public officials, pastors, teachers, camp counselors or coaches. Then there are
the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. The Girl Scouts have caved on this, as lesbians
now are common among leadership."

And there you have it, ladies...lesbians are now child molesters too. Looking beyond the Girl Scouts, the implications of what this imbecillic being is spouting here are incredibly far-reaching. I suppose that if you're a parent who happens to be gay, forget coaching little league. Oh, and if you were interested in becoming a teacher one day...forget that too. You'd be endangering far too many poor, impressionable young minds.

**If I roll my eyes any more emphatically, I just might throw myself out of my chair.**

Honestly, though, we should thank Ms. Harvey for sharing her drivel with the rest of us. How else would we be able to prove that such ignorance exists?

**

This just in...

Finally, a voice of reason amidst all the Foley insanity...the HRC has decided to condemn the actions of the politician they once endorsed. In a statement released by HRC president Joe Solmonese, the organization finally said what needed to be said of the scandal surrounding Mark Foley...

"Gay or straight, Democrat or Republican, it is completely inexcusable for an
adult to have this kind of communication with a minor. Congressman Foley brought
shame on himself and this Congress by his horrible behavior and complete lack of
judgment. We strongly condemn his behavior.” (source

Now, if we could just get the politicians to speak on this subject with the same focus and sense. Hastert has given a few interviews since I blogged yesterday, the last of which almost caused me to throw my television out of my window. After spending the day yesterday convincing everyone that he is, in fact, one of the stupidest people on the face of the earth, he actually topped his own stupidity by making the statement, "Well, I've always thought that he (Foley) was gay." That statement confirmed what I feared would be the inevitably drawn conclusion... gay=pedophile.

**Yes, Mr. Hastert...that's the point. It just doesn't take a wealth of intelligence to see that it makes absolutely no difference whether the minor in question was male or female. No adult should be engaging in this type of behavior with any minor...period.**

Then there was the revelation that the Republican leaders who apparently knew more than Hastert (go figure, lol) chose to call the congressional pages into a meeting to "warn" them about Foley. That was followed with Hastert's telling the media that the parents of the 16 yr. old wanted the situation to go away...attempting to explain why no one did anything about Foley earlier.

**Because telling the children to watch out makes so much more sense than forcing the adults they're working around to behave in an appropriate manner, right? And, if the truth does come out...blame the child's parents? I suppose that sounds better than the actual truth...that they sat with their thumbs up their asses so they wouldn't risk losing a precious seat in Congress.**

The Washington Times is one of the most conservative news sources in the business, and this morning (in their op/ed section) they've called for Mr. Hastert to resign as speaker.

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his
speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red
flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even
remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he
deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply
blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions
of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the
confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary
coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept
performance. "

**Read the entire piece at...

While I agree completely with this article, I honestly think that Hastert is poised to become a scapegoat in this scandal. Inept and irresponsible? Sure he is/was...but he isn't the only person responsible for looking the other way on this one. As things stand right now, if Hastert resigns the Republicans will suggest that enough blood's been shed over this one, and the underlying issues will be tossed right back into the proverbial closet.

The statement from Mr. Solmonese at the HRC said it the best, and I would love to see Congress echo his position...that it makes no difference who the predator is or whether that person is gay or straight...this behavior won't be tolerated by anyone. Unfortunately, I think that the focus will continue to be Foley's sexuality, once again lumping every gay/lesbian person into the pedophile category.

A New Kind of "Defoliating"

Anyone remember the mid-term elections of 1994? Tom Foley (D) was ousted from congress, along with many other Democrats, in what Republicans touted as the "defoliation" of Washington. The news that has come out about Mark Foley (R) and his alleged relationship with a teenaged congressional page seems to be lacking one key element...outrage.

First, the Republican leadership....couHASTERTgh... knew about Foley and his predatory "issues" in 2001 ( Apparently, the Republican party is only really worried when the nemesis of the week is involved in some sort of scandal, and protects its own...regardless of the cost. If the person in question had the surname "Clinton," Republicans would have been crying foul 5 years ago.

Then there's the various gay groups, namely HRC, who have refused to comment on the scandal despite the usual inferences made by media outlets that homosexuality and pedophilia are inevitably linked ( HRC had endorsed Foley because of his voting record on gay equality and marriage issues. Groups like HRC have been working tirelessly against groups like Focus on the Family and the like to debunk the idea that all homosexuals either are pedophiles or have some predatory leanings. To me, the decision to keep quiet on this story casts some doubt on the organization's political credibility. I know, you're sitting there saying that I'm going off the deep end with this one, lol, but hear me out. Any political group, whether conservative, liberal or stuck-on-a-fence-post undecided has to be willing to take responsibility for the endorsements they give. By remaining quiet, the HRC is really no better than the Republican leadership.

Foley has resigned (hence the new defoliation I mentioned in my title), but I think this entire scandal has raised some interesting questions. 1) Will anyone involved with any political party or group ever learn the value in saying, 'oops, we screwed up?' 2) Will any political group learn to rise above party politics and stand for what's right instead of what's convenient?

The answers...Nope, and least, that's what it looks like now. I suppose that we'll all have to wait and see if anyone learns anything from this.

Condi, Condi, Condi...

Seems I'm on something of a roll today, lol, so I decided to take a swipe at the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

Over in the offices of The Washington Post, Bob "Watergate" Woodward has been putting together another best seller in which he points out that Sec. Rice knew as early as July of 2001 that Bin Laden, et al. were planning attacks. Woodward takes it a step or two further by suggesting that not only did Rice know about the plans, but that she chose to ignore or 'shrug off' George Tenet and other CIA officials. In concert with just about every other Republican (this week, that is, lol), Condi emphatically denied any prior knowledge...

"What I am quite certain of, however, is that I would remember if I was told --
as this account apparently says -- that there was about to be an attack in the
United States," Rice said. "The idea that I would somehow have ignored that I
find incomprehensible." (source...

Here's where the story gets really interesting...

Following the attacks, the 9/11 commission heard testimony from Sec. Rice, in which she not only acknowledges the existence of a briefing dated August 6, 2001, but she also provided the title of that document. In what was an impressive show of confidence and intelligence, Dr. Rice gave this testimony under oath with no notes before her and no advisors to assist her. You can see the declassified document using the following link...

**August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US,

So, it would seem that one of two possibilities exist here. Not unlike Mr. Hastert, Sec. Rice has either suddenly developed a case of amnesia that has so impaired her ability to speak and behave in a manner which can only be described as inept, or someone's lying.
Condi's gonna have a tough time selling her story as it stands now, especially since Michael Moore used video of the very testimony she gave to the commission in his film, Fahrenheit 9/11.

It looks as though two Republican figures have, in the course of a couple of days, assumed that the American people are just too stupid to figure out when we're being lied to. To quote Julia Sugarbaker (Designing Women),

"I've been around compost all my life. I've seen it loaded onto wagons and
tilled and hoed and spread across fields far and wide. But until today, I must
say, I've never seen it tied up and gift wrapped in quite so neat and tidy and
"pretty" a package. Congratulations. You're a very clever girl. But it's still
compost. Now if you'll excuse me, I leave you to dig your way out. You do know
how to dig, don't you? You just get down on your hands and knees -- and shovel. "

I just couldn't have said it any better myself, LOL.