In fact, there’s even a poll on Facebook about it: “Should the United States President be allowed to do a nationwide address to our children at school, without prior parental consent?”

*facepalm*

Are you fucking shitting me?! People are actually getting all up in arms because, oh noes, the PRESIDENT is acknowledging children in his speeches, against the children’s parents’ wishes.

I can’t even count everything that is so messed up here. I’m speechless. What the hell do the parents think Obama is going to do, flash his penis?! Or, no, they think he’s going to brainwash their innocent children with socialist propaganda. You know, because it might interfere with them already trying to indoctrinate their children with ignorant redneck conservative propaganda. If the kids hear an opposing viewpoint they might *gasp* actually be able to form their own opinions! And nothing scares a parent, particularly a wingnut parent, more than their kids forming their own opinions.

Seriously, though, I just can’t facepalm enough here. It’s not like the speech is from some celebrity whose personal life or other issues might make them not the most morally upstanding person to be speaking to kids (not that that should matter either). Or the spokesman for some fringe radical group. It is the goddamn President of the United States! But because he’s not the guy the kids’ parents wanted to win, then the kids must be hidden from his apparent hypnosis.

In fact, as a youth rights supporter, I’m glad the President is taking the time to actually address kids, as if they’re, you know, PEOPLE. True, the speech is expected to contain the usual generic bullshit about staying in school and doing homework and whatnot, but the idea is that he’s still speaking to the kids themselves, as if these things are in their own hands and that they have the ability to make these decisions. He’s speaking to the kids themselves, as if the kids are, just like adults, still citizens of this country. We should be applauding politicians for taking the time to address kids, not acting like doing so is inappropriate or evil somehow. You know, God forbid these kids have any exposure to the leadership of their country, the country their idiot conservative parents claim to love so much.

Think they’d feel this way if George W. Bush had done this? Or if John McCain had won the election and were doing this same thing? Doubt it. But in my case, I’d still support it, because, as I said, kids watching a presidential speech where they are being addressed is a damn good thing. One reason young people tend to be apathetic about politics, alongside not being able to vote anyway, is that so often the politicians never acknowledge they exist, at least not as people, but rather like just extensions of their parents. So young people tune it out since it rarely if ever involves them in any meaningful way. In this case though, despite the expected generic bullshit nature of the speech itself, the idea is still that kids are being addressed, which is a very nice step in the right direction and I hope this sort of thing continues.

SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!

What in the hell is with these people who always scream and cry that, oh noes, somebody who is currently in the United States is speaking in a language (gasp!) that is not English? How dare they! This is an English speaking country and must stay that way. And the very good reason for this is… we say so. Yee haw!

Sigh. Here we go again. A bunch of so-called proud Americans have sewn an infallible fabric based entirely on how they were raised by their ignorant families and have decided that and only that is the proper way for all Americans to live and think. The basis for this belief, of course, is just simply that’s how they specifically were raised, and it must have been important because their parents beat the shit out of them if they so much as uttered a word contrary to these beliefs, so all others must obey these rules as well because, shit, their parents couldn’t possibly be wrong, could they? (Another example of how youth rights is always somehow present in just about any situation.)

Of course, I’m speculating, but that’s all I have to go by since I just really don’t understand how anyone can feel so threatened by the presence of non-English speaking people. Perhaps just general fear of anything different from oneself or at least what one is used to, just like the people who fight tooth and nail to maintain Christianity’s dominance, in that it makes no sense in the grand scheme of things but they do it because it is what is familiar and comfortable to them and thus must be enforced. Or perhaps it’s also the irrational fear that if English is not the only acceptable language, then it will be phased out completely and they’ll be forced to speak something else. Which, of course, is pure paranoid bullshit.

But it is typical behavior of those who occupy what is dominant when faced with something non-dominant seeking an increased status. It’s no different from white people feeling like they’re being attacked simply because non-whites were seeking rights. It’s no different from men thinking the idea of women wanting to be free from subordination and rigid gender stereotypes was an affront to them somehow. It’s no different from the homophobic assholes who think same-sex marriage is in any way, shape, or form a detriment to opposite-sex marriage. It’s no different from adults thinking youth rights will hurt them somehow.

That’s right, English speakers. Aww, did the mean ATM have a button on it for people who want to make their transactions in Spanish? Aww, are there signs on the bus with translations in Spanish and maybe even Chinese? Does the Indian family next door (gasp!) speak Hindi to each other? Oh, wait, guess what, idiot. It has absolutely NO effect on you!

English will always be a dominant language in the United States, regardless of how many other dominant languages there may be. There are like 300 million Americans and the vast majority of them speak English, so to seriously think English will somehow be phased out or even forbidden in favor of Spanish or Chinese or whatever is, as already said, pure paranoid bullshit and not even remotely possible (at least not within the lifetime of anyone around right now). And if the idea of having a lot of Spanish speakers around you makes you fear that no one will understand you, then maybe try learning Spanish, you ignorant assjob!

Oh, wait, forgot. Can’t do that. Instead of learning another language, a very nice way of bettering yourself, you want thousands of other people to change for you, because what’s familiar and right to you is right for everyone else whether they like it or not. And should someone suggest that maybe, just maybe, your way of living and thinking isn’t the only acceptable way and shouldn’t be considered superior, then they must be hating and persecuting you somehow.

Then again, when the English defenders are looking like this and this and this, maybe Spanish speaking immigrants are far from the ones looking to destroy our native tongue.

This has been Day 68 of the 100 Days of Summer, Round 9.

We’ve all seen it. If a teen commits a horrible crime, then the question is not about that individual teen but a question and often assumption that this horrible behavior is common in teens. If the perpetrator were 35, that would not be an issue. The 35-year-old would rightly be treated as an individual, and other 35-year-olds would be spared having to carry that person’s guilt just because they were born the same year. Why? Because middle-aged adults are the standard and thus privileged age demographic while youth (and senior citizens for that matter) are marginalized and considered the “non-standard” group, the “other” group.

Trouble is, even in today’s society, a middle-aged, middle or upper class, able-bodied, cisgendered heterosexual white Christian male is considered the “standard”. Anything he does he does on his own. When someone tries to point to him, they would probably say “that guy” instead of “that white guy” (depending where he is, but usually anyway) because it may sound redundant to most people to point out that he’s white, as if whiteness is expected, that if he were black, you’d have to call him “that black guy” because being black is a sign of being “other”, being non-standard. If he is walking down a street, minding his own business, pretty good chance nobody is going to assume just by looking at him that he may mug someone at any moment. There is a pretty good chance that nobody is going to harass him or beat him up for being with his significant other. There is a pretty good chance he will not be considered a disgrace or somehow impure because he had sex. There is a pretty good chance he can go just about anywhere alone at any time of day and not have people wondering why he’s there and that he’s supposed to be somewhere else. There is a pretty good chance he would be taken seriously if reporting an incident of some kind.

I’m not saying life is just peachy for these “standard” guys, hell no. They can’t just look standard. They have to act it. If he actually wants to deal with kids, he is more likely to be assumed to be a pedophile, because dealing with kids is considered “for women” and because of that, due to quietly lingering misogyny, it is considered a “lesser” job, and, goodness, why would a man choose a lesser, womanly job unless he’s some kind of pervert, right? If he gets sexually assaulted, he’ll be considered a loser or a sissy, because getting sexually assaulted just “doesn’t happen to men” and that he’ll be expected to have liked the assault and not to consider it a violent crime. He can’t wear pink because that’s just for women and gay men. He can’t listen to rap because that’s for black people. He can’t watch an animated movie or play certain video games because those are just for kids. He can’t want to eat kosher or halal foods because those are just for Jews and Muslims respectively. So basically, most of these discriminatory rules against members of the “standard” demographic are rules to not “lower” themselves into acting or living like a member of one of the “lesser” groups. And it’s fine for a “non-standard” demographic member to want to act and live like the “standard” because they’re supposed to want to “better” themselves (though often not supposed to actually succeed in doing so).

So, going back to the original topic, if you’re a member of a “non-standard” group, suddenly you and everyone like you is put under the microscope, because you’re a strange population and the “normal” people want to know what you’re like and how they can cope with your existence.

Look at Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, for instance. It’s all about her being Latina, and people (read: conservatives) going off their nut about that and screaming bloody murder over her taken-out-of-context comment apparently asserting that a “wise Latina can be a better judge than a white man who hasn’t lived that life” or whatever. Which, since I mentioned it, there’s nothing wrong with that comment, because white men and Latinas usually live different lives and because of that they’ll have had different experiences and thus different perspectives that the other may not think of due to not dealing with certain issues as much. (I mean, when Adam King was campaigning to be a student representative on his school board, the idea was that as a student he’d be better suited to help run the school than the adults, but were we being ageist against adults by saying that?) That’s not an insult to anyone, just a sign of lifestyle differences caused by racial lines in our society, an issue that needs to get fixed. The conservative idiots whine that she’s a racist for that remark, though, ignoring that they’re pretty fucking racist themselves for disagreeing and thus basically saying that, no, a Latina can’t ever be smarter than a white man and how dare she think otherwise! Not to mention the endless whining that “she only got nominated because she’s Latina!” Again, more looking only at her otherness, that she’s Puerto Rican and female, and accusing her and her supporters of racism in that even though their assumption right there is incredibly racist and sexist. Like it’s unthinkable that she could possibly have been nominated based on merit. So to these accusers, who claim to be against racism, of course, would only be absolutely sure that there were no racist intentions in a nominee choice if all Supreme Court justices were white and male.

Similarly, on the NYRA forums not too long ago, someone claimed that Clarence Thomas had only been nominated to the Court for being black, because George H.W. Bush “needed another black person to replace Thurgood Marshall” or some stupid shit. While, if that’s even true, is of course a racist move, it’s ALSO racist to assume that’s true based entirely on the fact that Thomas happens to be black.

And now I’m fucking annoyed. For one, it should already be clear that focusing too much on race is bad, mmmkay. Also, because of these idiotic racist assumptions, I’m sitting here actually defending Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas from attacks on their race and any supposed benefits they may have gotten, when the truth is… I fucking HATE BOTH OF THEM!!! Thomas is a raging anti-youth asshole and probably wakes up terrified in the middle of the night because he had a bad dream that someone, somewhere, was treating a teenager like a human being. I mean, he voted against Savana Redding, for fuck’s sake! He thinks Tinker v. Des Moines should be overturned. It just frightens me that someone like that is sitting on the bench. As for Sotomayor, she made that boneheaded ruling in Doninger v. Niehoff, ruling against a student who had been penalized for calling her school admins douchebags on her LiveJournal. Other than evidence that she most likely would have ruled in favor of Savana Redding, hard to tell how she’d be with youth rights issues in general. I take issue with these judges because of, you know, their actual stated opinions and rulings, and, hard as it may be to swallow for some people, it has absolutely FUCK ALL to do with their races!

I’m not annoyed with black people or hispanic people due to the rulings of Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. I’m annoyed with Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor because of the rulings of Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

But sadly, with anyone even as high up as a Supreme Court justice, if anything about you deviates from the “standard” demographic, that is going to be called into question. Just a bit ago I read an absolutely horrifying news story about a 17-year-old girl who cooked a cat to death in an oven. She’s all proud of it, too. Thinks it’s funny. I wish so hard she were in front of me right now, because I would pummel the shit out of her until she stops squirming. Then light her on fire.

But I saw that number again. The number 17, which ends in “teen”. And I just know what’s coming. Cat torture and murder is now going to be a teenager crime. Something teenagers do for fun. You know something like that is coming. That train is never late. Because being 17 makes her “non-standard”, as does being female and any other factors not mentioned which won’t help either, then her being 17 is all anyone will look at, and she will be seen as representing all 17-year-olds. Seen as giving reason to ageist adults to hate teens even more than they already do, and causing us well-meaning youth rights supporters to groan that she is a discredit to her age-group. And simply because I would still find it unacceptable to blame her age for this or to treat her in any other anti-youth fashion, I might be seen as defending her, which as my aforementioned desire to pummel her and set her on fire should indicate, I do NOT want to do! It was not 17-year-olds in general that tortured that poor kitty. It was one very evil individual.

So what must be done about these assumptions that one member of a “non-standard” demographic is representative of all of them? Simple. Integration, of course! Well, it’s not that simple really, since people’s ingrained comfort levels can get in the way. While there aren’t laws anymore that prevent women and people of color and others (well, except young people) from getting any jobs they want or getting involved with anything they want or whatever, in many cases there are still lingering beliefs that certain jobs aren’t “for” certain people. Every company I’ve worked for had an entirely white male board of directors and management. I’ve never had a black coworker since I’ve been doing lab jobs, and I think only one hispanic, so it almost looks like working in science is only for whites and Asians. I haven’t seen very many or any female construction workers or truckers (and yes, there are plenty of women who would be physically capable of doing those jobs). There are any number of guesses as to why a lot of these jobs tend to be occupied by only one or a few groups and very few of others. Could just be something that will fix itself over time. Could be discriminatory hiring. Could be, as already mentioned, the belief that certain jobs aren’t for certain types of people. Such as, for example, going into law and becoming a judge, which might be seen as only a white man’s thing, thus perhaps putting off perfectly qualified black and hispanic people, so they might choose a different career that feels more fitting, thus limiting choices of black and hispanic judges to the unappealing options of Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. Maybe? And if there were more situations where teens and adults could interact on a more casual level, situations where the adults do not have the authority as with parents or teachers, then there would be a lot more intergenerational understanding and less need to stereotype and hate teenagers and assume they’re all cat-torturing monsters. Maybe?

This has been Day 54 of the 100 Days of Summer, Round 9.

Don’t blame me. I voted for the AMERICAN.

Go ahead. Let that sink in for a moment.

I mean, for a minute I wasn’t even sure which candidate it was referring to, until the obvious factors of Obama having been the one who won and that this was, after all, a pickup truck, which I think is only sold to people who would fellate Ronald Reagan if given the opportunity. And it is probably asking too much of any conservative to recognize that Hawaii is part of the United States while Panama is not.

This has been Day 47 of the 100 Days of Summer, Round 9.

Here’s to You!!!!

So I raise my glass and say, “Here’s to you, President Barack Obama!”

I have two songs floating around in my head. One of them is “Wind of Change” by the Scorpions. The other one is “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by the Who. I’m somewhere in between.

So today at work most of us were on CNN.com streaming the inauguration, not getting much work done but no one really cared.

In the minutes before the oath, you have to really think “I’m so glad I’m not him right now!” Can you imagine that kind of anticipation? What probably doesn’t help is that there are a lot of people under the foolish notion that practically by tomorrow Barack Obama will just flip a switch and everything will be cool. No more wars or economic strife or any of that bad stuff. Uh, yeah, as much as I very much believe he can improve things, and that his election is good news for the youth rights movement (as opposed to McCain, that is, I’m not including any of the long shots in that assessment), no one can just snap his fingers and fix everything. It will take a while. Accept that. Don’t go crying a month from now when things are relatively the same and start screaming that Obama lied. You’re just stupid.

Oh, and Dick Cheney in the wheelchair? At first I was thinking “aww, must be from his health issues”. But when I heard it was because he pulled a muscle while packing up to move, I LOL’d.

And, gee wiz, Ted Kennedy, can’t they get through an inaugural luncheon without it turning into what could be an intro to House?

Also, the whole “ZOMG! Black President!!!” thing is getting a little tiresome. I mean, yes, it is a great thing that we’ve broken the white mold (and even then, pretty much only those of English, Scottish, Irish, or German descent). I’m even proud to have seen such a milestone occur. But a black man is not all Barack Obama is. He’s the guy we elected to, among a fuckton of other things, pick up Bush’s mess. The fact he’s black never even enters my mind. Well, except for when he was walking during the parade and I had the lingering fear that in the crowds was some KKK asshole ready to make Obama beat William Henry Harrison’s record.

I’m happy about this. I mean, I just know I’ll head to the NYRA forums after this to find a bunch of the people there all like “waaah, I hate Obama, I want Ron Paul!” because everyone there is a whiny butthurt idiot, but whatever.

A lot of his ideas are good. Some of them scare the hell out of me. Some of them I would need to look more into since I’m far from having a set opinion on every or even most political issues. But there is one thing about him that is consistently irritating. That thing, of course, are his die-hard supporters: the Paultards.

The Paultards love their candidate and will fight tooth and nail if you say anything close to a disparaging word about him. In other words, they need to learn how to fucking work. They seem to be far more interested in boasting about how they are smarter than everybody else for supporting the “best” candidate than actually making people want to join them and also support their candidate.

Your candidate and ideology could have the best ideas ever thought of, but no one will want to align with you if you’re nothing but dickholes. You know why most people are Democrats or Republicans? Hint: it has little to do with platforms. It has almost everything to do with what sort of people you feel like you fit in with.

Paultards never seem to grasp this concept. They somehow believe that if you insult people enough and ridicule them that they will decide “hey, you’re right!” You can’t make yourself out to be a radical, but rather make people think they have to change as little as possible. Contrary to the infectious slogan that won the presidency for Barack Obama, people are terrified of change. They just think they want it. See, Obama knew how to work with that, and that’s how he won. He led an all-around feel-good campaign. Was it just empty political bullcrap? Of course it was, but that’s what works. Paultards make themselves out to be elitist headstrong nerds, and that just isn’t appealing to very many people.

You catch more flies with honey, you know. In other words… stop being a dick!

[Some redneck]’s backing John McCain because the Arizona senator “thinks murdering little babies is not a good idea”.

Ah, we saw this four years ago. And eight years ago. And so on. Many Republicans’ persistent belief that if an anti-abortion president takes office, abortion will become illegal and never be done again. You know, I wonder what life is like to live in such a strong delusion, for these people seem to completely ignore that even though we’ve had anti-abortion president George W. Bush in office for the past eight years, abortion is still legal. I’ve got news for you. John McCain is not going to make abortion illegal. He and Sarah Palin may talk all the time about how bad it is, but the fact is, it won’t be made illegal even if they are elected. So you Republicans thinking the McCain-Palin team is going to be the saving grace of embryos and fetuses from women making an excruciatingly difficult decision, and you Democrats thinking the McCain-Palin team will take away a woman’s inalienable right to kill her unborn child, you’re living in a serious fantasy world.

A lot of people seem unable to separate their personal opinion on something from their political opinion on something. Plenty of people believe abortion is wrong yet do not believe it should be illegal, for example. Not to mention the many online idiots you’ll find that, any time you mention you don’t like something or think it’s wrong or whatever, they’ll pipe up with “why should that be illegal?! how dare you push your opinions on others?!” to which you say “uhh, I never said anything about it being illegal.” So this concept is lost on a lot of people. Legal versus illegal and right versus wrong are two very different concepts, and would remain so even in the most libertarian of societies.

Funny thing about Republicans, though, is they hate abortion and won’t shut up about how bad it is (citing “religious” reasons of course and leaving the very many real reasons unused). But other than pissing and moaning about it, they aren’t doing much to actually reduce it. In fact, other Republican policies seem to be explicitly trying to increase the number of unplanned pregnancies. Then again, if these people think John McCain will outlaw abortion, it’s no surprise they also believe that if you never let anyone under 18 know what condoms are, they’ll never have sex. Not to mention their insistence of shaming anyone who gets pregnant outside of marriage. Or their opposition to any kind of assistance for the needy, which often includes pregnant women. So, yeah, these people seem to be the types who play with matches all the time but are pissed and surprised when there’s a fire.

While you’re putting that McCain-Palin sticker on your pick-up truck, right next to your “God Is Pro-Life” one, your 14-year-old daughter is first learning about sex from her horny 20-year-old cousin. Your grandchild/grandnephew is about to have a date with a coathanger, and you’ll be burying your daughter after she succumbs to septic shock after the home procedure. But you thought this was impossible. I mean, your sticker does say that God is pro-life!

Anyway, so we all know Hillary Clinton just won the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. Kind of expected. In any case, Barack Obama, as some suggest, pretty much screwed himself in a comment he made about small town Pennsylvanians. Here’s a quote from the Lexington column in the Economist:

He told a group of fat cats in San Francisco that the reason why he is finding it hard to appeal to blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania is because they are “bitter”. They have suffered from so many broken promises that they prefer to “cling” to God, guns and xenophobia rather than reaching out for a helping hand from the government.

Anyone else think that comment just alienated practically the whole country? Haha. Or is essentially saying those blue-collar Pennsylvanians are… Republicans? I mean, I can understand, as a Democrat, he’d at least mildly fault them for the guns and xenophobia thing, but God? Since when to politicians act like “clinging to God” is anywhere near a bad thing?

But those are amusing observances here. There’s also an implication in there that concerns me. It’s that last part about “reaching out for a helping hand from the government”.

So, basically, he faults these blue collar Pennsylvanians for being too bitter to request help from the government? I mean, I may be taking this out of context, but if they don’t want help from the government, shouldn’t that be fine? If they want to just help themselves, isn’t that a good thing? But apparently not. They’d rather not have government help, so that just means they’re bitter over whatever conservative stereotype.

Admittedly, I don’t really know the economic conditions of the people he’s talking about. I’m guessing they’re victims of NAFTA type stuff or whatever. Also don’t know what kind of help Obama thinks they need that he’s offering and they’re refusing. I guess that’s the trouble with these newsworthy quotes; you don’t really get the whole story and oftentimes are too lazy to look it up.

Even so, the message is still there. They’re bitter because they don’t want help. Maybe help should just be for those who want it, or at least those in such dire immediate need for help that their refusal is just retarded, as if someone is sitting on the tracks when there’s a train coming but refuses to budge so you finally just tell them to STFU and yank them off the tracks anyway. Yeah, in THAT case, I can see the contempt for someone who doesn’t want assistance. Are these Pennsylvanians in any such predicament?

I mean, don’t go thinking I’m conservative or anything. I’m quite moderate. I’m not one of these types who thinks the government should help no one, hell no. Plenty of people do need help, and they ask for it, and as such they should get it so long as they really do actually need it. But if you don’t want help? Fine. There’s other ways. So long as you’re not forcing your children or other dependents to suffer because you refuse help, that’s your right.

I could be reading too much into this, sure. Just seems to me the idea is that we all should be expecting to get help and should avoid trying to solve our own problems. One of very many reasons I’m the ardent youth rights supporter I am is that the many restrictions placed on young people are essentially teaching them to never figure things out for themselves or solve their own problems, but to expect some higher authority, be it a parent or politician, to take care of everything for them. And if you don’t want to live your life in this “safe” little cradle, then you’re just bitter.

Well, I still like Obama better than Clinton anyway, but I said my piece about her a while ago. Obama is more the “youth” candidate, which with that as his label, is a good enough reason to support him since it’s a roundabout way of supporting the youth in this election. He insists he doesn’t want to lower the drinking age, which sucks, but of course, saying he does would be political suicide right now, as, sadly, lowering the drinking age isn’t a popular enough opinion yet. Doesn’t sound “good” to enough people. It IS good, but few are patient enough to sit around reading NYRA’s Drinking Age FAQ to find out why. In any case, not too worried about that. Especially since I heard through some people working on his campaign that he’s open to lowering the voting age!

And he’s not Osama bin Laden’s brother, you fucking Jonesville church idiot!

Don’t vote for Mitt Romney!

So what’s my problem with him? He’s a Republican? Don’t care about that. He’s a Mormon? REALLY don’t care about that. He’s against medical marijuana? Pfft, not a priority for me. So what’s so wrong with him?

The man who has been his biggest fundraiser until recently? Robert Lichfield. Do you know who that is? Go to a search engine and look up the name, and see what you find. If you don’t feel like doing that, then he’s the man in charge of an organization called WWASPS, which is a collection of many “schools” and “camps” around the country where “troubled” teens are sent to be straightened out.

What are some of these places? Academy at Ivy Ridge. Provo Canyon. Tranquility Bay.

I could swear I’ve heard these names before… oh, yes. Now I remember. I’ve mentioned them before in the Listen Carefully entry. Reread that and come back here.

Lichfield runs the abusive behavior modification facilities, where teens are tortured and killed and it isn’t illegal. Their shortsighted parents believed the WWASPS propaganda, and decided to just ship their kids off without a second thought. That’s all the legal leeway the facilities need to starve, beat, overexhaust, and even rape the kids so unfortunate enough to be sent there.

Now how do you feel thinking about how this man is funding the campaign of a presidential candidate? The blood of these abused teenagers is financing Mitt Romney’s campaign. Every dumb parent who thinks shipping their son or daughter off to some faraway camp they know nothing about, and paying like fifty thousand dollars to do so, is the way to cure the kid of whatever behavior they don’t like, they are funding a man who could possibly be our next president. Seriously, the next man in the White House could be one who got there by stepping over the graves Michelle Sutton, Roberto Reyes, Paul Choy, and countless other young victims of the behavior modification industry.

Or not. That could be prevented if you, you know, DON’T VOTE FOR HIM!!!!

A vote for Romney is a vote for torturing American kids. Plain and simple.

While significantly lower than those who said Yes, there were quite a lot who said no! Perhaps one out of every seven respondents said no.

You mean people like that actually still exist? I mean, I can understand people saying no specifically because they don’t like Clinton, but that wasn’t the question. It was just in general, if there were anything inherent about all women that made them unfit for presidency, some way that isn’t an issue for men.

President must have a penis? Something about that determines how the commander in chief handles foreign policy and other important matters? Something about having a vagina hinders this?

I don’t get the logic. Feminism has come a long ass way, but there is so much more that must be changed still. Can’t people just learn already? It is exhausting giving the human race any credit and being so continually disappointed.