Osama-Obama versus Huck the Hick. Argh. But, what the hey, Huck is better than Paul. Though when Ron Paul fails to get the nomination he might just go indie, split the GOP vote, and hand the White House over to the Democrats.
This ABC news piece discusses a push-poll in Iowa that slammed Obama and Edwards. Hmm...now which three Democrat candidates were the front-runners, and which one is missing from that list? Oh, but the Clinton campaign said it had no connection with that poll.
Sure. And Santa Claus is my uncle.
The San Francisco chapter of Planned Parenthood demonstrates its understanding of decorum, dignity, and--oh, I can't keep this up and discuss the final link in today's digest with a straight face. This is insane.
How can a 10-year-old have "gender identification" issues?
It's a symptom of a larger problem, though. The linked article goes on to discuss sex education in public schools these days. I can't help but think that plays a role in the "gender identification" issues that prepubescent children have.
An "artist" demonstrates his mastery of class. Apparently this is one of the "artists" who specialize in pornographic images. So he made a statue of Jesus with a boner.
[...waits for Christians to riot and burn and kill, also for the Pope to issue a Fatwa...]
While I'm waiting, let's go on, shall we?
The alleged artist is the same guy who got Elton John in hot water over an image which was thought to be child pornography. Okay; so he makes a statue of Jesus sporting wood--the obvious statement he is trying to make with that is, "Look at how shocking and daring I am! I can make fun of Christian beliefs like every other so-called 'avant garde' artist in the freaking universe!'"
Gits like this guy Yoh do this because they get an easy rise out of Christians. They desecrate a holy image, Christians react, and the buttheads snicker with glee. "Ha ha, we got them mad!" It has all the intellectual and artistic content of schoolyard teasing and they do it because they know Christians won't do anything about it. (Such as, I don't know, issue a religious edict demanding the artist's head on a platter?)
As for me, I think that if these people were all that "daring" they'd be depicting Mohammed with a stiffy and splattering his image with dung (yes, I'm talking to you, Ofili) and putting him in jars of urine. (Wait, Mappelthorpe died, didn't he? Nevermind.) I'd consider these left-wing pantywaists a lot more "daring" if they were dodging fatwas.
But by this time, Christians ought to be used to this kind of stupid crap. They should yawn, shake their heads, shrug, and say, "What can you do about stupid people?" And then move on without saying anything else. Don't protest; don't boycott; don't even notice that some moron has done something stupid because he can't help himself. Don't give the asshat the satisfaction. Go home and rant about it but don't do it there and don't say a word to the museum. Why? Because the doofus will be disappointed: "I thought for sure... What the hell went wrong? Wasn't it shocking enough?"
My own deconstructionist interpretation of this piece of "art" is a little different, anyway. I figure that the artist regards an erection as something so special that only special people get them. He's projecting his own life experience into his art.
Yoh? It's called "Viagra" and many people have had excellent results from using it....