More MoCo wingnuts:

A six-year battle over the content of a new sex education curriculum in Montgomery County schools came down to two questions posed yesterday in a Rockville courtroom: Can the school board legally teach students that homosexuality is innate? And can the lessons discuss sex acts other than copulation?

Montgomery educators are defending the new curriculum, approved by the school board last summer, which addresses sexual orientation as a classroom topic for the first time. The lessons place the county at the fore of a trend among some of the nation's public schools toward more candor in discussing homosexuality. But they have prompted a strenuous challenge from religious conservatives who see the curriculum as a one-sided endorsement of homosexuality.

...

Opponents object to language in the condom lesson about oral and anal sex. Bolling said those passages violate a state prohibition against material that "portrays erotic techniques of sexual intercourse."

Jonathan Frankel, an attorney for the advocacy group Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. Area, offered the judge further perspective. "There's a big difference," he said, "between the condom video and the Kama Sutra."

What a dilemma. On the one hand, they're clearly not going far enough. I think everyone's life would have been a lot better had we learned Sky Foot and Congress of a Herd of Cows just a few years earlier. On the other hand, Mr. Frankel should really keep his mouth shut lest he give MoCo School Board any ideas. It's a slippery slope from a condom instructional to the day when it will be impossible to find wank material that you didn't already see in high school.

If the fundies really want us to cut out the pleasure stuff, they should put porn in schools. Trying to rub one out while being unable to rid yourself of the image of Mrs. McKee dilating on the finer points of Suze Randall's lighting techniques will make even the most perfunctory procreative act seem like a tour of duty.

Courtesy of The Fixin's Bar:

From his latest piece in Rolling Stone:

The hilarious thing is that while Obama and Huckabee were blasted for not providing the press with enough boxing-metaphor material, Clinton was getting the business for being too feisty. IS SEN. CLINTON WARM ENOUGH TO WIN? wondered Slate. Just like the others, Hillary quickly proved her willingness to eat as many worms as we could dish out, hilariously releasing a whole Web site where Friends of Hillary lined up to swear on a stack of Bibles, that despite what you might think, the candidate isn't a crabby old battle-ax in private.

...

How did one of the most genuinely interesting primary contests in American history devolve into a Grade-D smack-down that even Vince McMahon would be ashamed to promote? The real story of the campaign has been its unprecedented unpredictability — and therein lies the problem. On both tickets, the abject failure of media-anointed front-runners to hold their ground was due at least in part to voters having grown weary of being told by the press who was "electable" and who wasn't. Both the Huckabee and Ron Paul candidacies represent angry grass-roots challenges to the entrenched Republican party apparatus, while the Edwards candidacy is a frank and open attack on his own party's too-cozy relationship with corporate America. These developments signaled a meaningful political phenomenon — widespread voter disgust, not only with the two ruling parties, but with a national political press that smugly enforced the party insiders' stranglehold on the process with its incessant bullying of dissident candidates.

But there was no way this genuinely interesting theme was going to make it into mainstream coverage of the campaign heading into the primary season.

I cannot support the candidacy of Griz. I'm disturbed that you have all been swept up in the excitement. We need to think about this clearly.

Here are some reasons why Griz cannot possibly be as worthy of our support as some of his fellow candidates:

1) Griz shits out of his asshole, not his mouth.

2) Griz shows a disturbing proclivity for the genitals and/or assholes of other dogs, and even of non-canine mammals.

3) Because of point (2) and because of certain medical procedures Griz underwent in his youth, the heterosexuality of Griz is in doubt.

4) Because dogs cannot, by definition, be Jews, there is reason to suspect that Griz's supporters are guilty of latent anti-Semitism.

5) The name "Griz" is of indeterminate ethnicity. It reminds me of the name "al-Zawahiri." Is Griz an Arab?

6) Having watched television in the presence of Griz, I have no choice but to conclude that Griz is not interested in, or even aware of, televised mass-murder events.

7) Griz is capable of spending long periods of time in bags and boxes--enduring what John McCain might call "imprisonment"--without being driven as crazy as a shithouse rat.

These are my preliminary reasons for refusing to give Griz's candidacy my support. Are there are other reasons why Griz cannot be president?

Courtesy Cornbaby:

They totally misspelled "rapist" on that guy's torso! Fucking idiots!

New posters up at History is a Weapon

National polls:

Pres '08
Jan 13 Rasmussen

McCain (R) 48%
Clinton (D) 39%

Pres '08
Jan 12 CNN

Obama (D) 49%
McCain (R) 48%


CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 9-12, 2008. N=995 registered voters nationwide.

"Do you think most people you know would vote for a presidential candidate who is black, or not?"

65 Would
21 Would Not
14 Unsure

"Would you personally vote for a presidential candidate who is black, or not?"

90 Would
6 Would Not
4 Unsure

"Do you think America is ready to elect a black president, or not?"

54 Yes
31 No
15 Unsure


"Do you think most people you know would vote for a presidential candidate who is a woman, or not?"

56 Would
34 Would Not
10 Unsure

"Would you personally vote for a presidential candidate who is a woman, or not?"

81 Would
15 Would Not
4 Unsure

"Do you think America is ready to elect a woman president, or not?"

54 Yes
39 No
7 Unsure

I've been out of interweb range for the weekend, but evidently didn't stay away long enough to avoid finding this "headline" on the New York Times homepage, under "More News":

Bush Urges Unity Against Iran

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever."

-- Walter Elias "Walt" Disney, 1984



via Incredimazing