Here's What Happens When A Transgender Person Goes To The Bathroom

Here's what happens when a transgender person goes to the bathroom:

They go into an empty stall.

They do their business.

They wipe and flush.

They wash their hands (hopefully, for the doctor-recommended 30 seconds. Stay healthy y'all!)

They dry their hands (hopefully, not with one of those Dyson airblades).

They leave the bathroom.

This is all very difficult for Ted Cruz, and apparently, Republican state legislatures to understand:



For comparison, here's how a sexual predator dressed as a woman goes to the bathroom:

They lie in wait for a female to enter the bathroom.

They peek over top of the stall, or into it.

They shove the door open.

They grope, grab, force themselves on the woman.

They run when screams attract attention.

They do not wash their hands, certainly not with a Dyson airblade.

They're arrested when caught by police, or a good Samaritan, and charged accordingly.

No law on the books (or not on the books) allows these predators to get away with preying on women in bathrooms. If some predator thought the law would be on his side... well, they're going to discover that sexual assault, voyeurism, illegal detainment, and any number of other laws on the books exist to punish him for his crimes.

Then there is the very undeniable fact that there's no reason for a predator to dress up as a woman to assault a woman in a women's bathroom. It's not like that makes it any easier. Ben Roethlisberger wasn't wearing a dress when he did it. A man could attack a woman in the bathroom before North Carolina's bill, and they can do it after. It was illegal then, it's illegal now. A bill that says you need a vagina to be in the women's restroom isn't going to make a predator go, "Oh gee, I guess I won't be raping today!!"

Sure, a caught predator could claim to be transgender... but even if that were true, it wouldn't excuse any crimes committed while in the bathroom. It could also be easily refuted by any number of witnesses. Saying you're transgender isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

These "bathroom bills" don't keep anyone safe from predators, but they do make "pissing while transgender" into a criminal offense. If it's anyone at risk of sexual assault, it's the transgender person, part of a group that has often been abused and even murdered because of their orientation.

If you're really worried about protecting "your daughter," imagine what would happen to her if she was forced to use the men's bathroom.

That's what North Carolina's bill, and others like it, aim to do--to anyone born into a gender that their brain is not wired to be.

Every Republican Announces Presidential Bid

WASHINGTON, D.C.-- In a stunning announcement, every current and former Republican elected official has decided to join Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Lindsay Graham, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and John Kasich in a bid for the party's 2016 Presidential nomination.

"Today I officially announce my candidacy for President of the United States!" tweeted thousands of center-right politicians at around 11:01 AM Monday morning. Candidates ranged from distinguished senators on Capitol Hill like Lamar Alexander, to Duxbury, Vermont dogcatcher Jebediah Whitman.

"I didn't want to get left out," Whitman, told the Associated Press. "I figured, hey, I got as good a shot as anyone else."

Republican National Convention chairman Reince Priebus issued a statement welcoming the new field of contenders. "The people are fed up with the Democrats failed leadership. The Republican Party believes America is ready to make a different choice. We've just given them 363,201 real leaders to choose from."

So far, none of the new candidates have explained how their platform differs from the others. All would seek to overturn the Affordable Health Care Act, pursue bans on gay marriage and abortion, and cut spending on the poor in favor of tax cuts for the rich.

"We have plenty of diversity competing for the ticket," Priebus said. "We've got at least a dozen women I'm aware of. And that black guy."

Asked whether the crowded field might turn into a self-defeating bloodbath, Priebus pretended to have received a very important phone call, despite the fact that his phone didn't ring or vibrate, and left the press conference through a side door.

For now, the biggest questions appear to be logistical-- how many candidates can be included on the Republican primary ballot? How big a room would be required for the Iowa caucus or the primary debates? Who will be managing the responsibilities of all these candidates as they spend time on the campaign trail?

Whitman, for one, isn't sweating the specifics.

"I'm already counting on three votes from my wife and kids," he says. "With this many candidates, that might be enough to win."

Deporting 5 Million People Makes No Sense

You were brought to the U.S. as an infant. You grew up here. You speak no language other than English. You know no one in the country your parents left behind. You consider yourself an American. Yet, Republicans want you to "go back to Mexico or wherever you came from." This, my friends, isn't "compassionate conservatism," it's xenophobia.

But hey, punishing children for the "crimes" of their parents makes total sense, right?

Today, a federal judge suspended an executive order by President Obama that would have, among other things, made sure that someone who grew up in America could not be pulled from their home, locked in a cage, and shipped to a country they've never seen. It also made sure no child born in America (and therefore a citizen) would lose their parents to deportation. Obama's order was apparently wayyyy overstepping, according to Republicans, because hey, "once a wetback always a wetback," right?

It's not that Republicans haven't considered the economic impact of suddenly removing 5 million people from the country-- they believe that every single one of these people is a drain on our economy, and removing them will suddenly open up 5 million jobs for good, hardworking white folk.... er.. real Americans. There's just one problem with this economic analysis-- it's simple-minded and wrong.

The Center For American Progress points out, and I'm paraphrasing here, that no nation in the history of civilization has benefited from the sudden loss of 5 million people. Mainly because these 5 million people don't only take-- they give. Like every person ever, they spend money in addition to earning it. And the money that 5 million people spend has a ripple effect throughout the economy.

The Center made this handy infographic to show the economic difference between legalizing these undocumented workers and deporting them:

Even if you don't buy the Center's methodology, or believe them to be commie pinko lesbian freedom-haters, it doesn't take a liberal ideology to do a Google search and find out that uprooting 5 million people is a project that has only been undertaken by the Nazis, Stalin, Genghis Khan, and the most brutal despots of the Roman Empire (also, that thing we did to the Native Americans). While some Republicans may believe these are historical models that America should totally follow, most human beings would agree that there might be a better way of solving the problem of undocumented workers than simply shoving them into cages and removing them to places where many are likely to suffer.

After all, what makes us so special? Because we were born here? Whoop-de-fuckin-woo. You know who else was born here? Charles Manson. The Unabomber. Kim Kardashian. Being born here doesn't make you a good American or a positive contributor to our society. The biggest crime committed by the majority of these immigrants? WANTING TO WORK. Oh no! Oh no!!!!

Sure, they've taken our jobs. How is a real American supposed to get a dangerous, disgusting, degrading, minimum wage job that no one wants? The immigrants have taken them all--like they have since our country's inception. Back in 1776 we gave those kinds of jobs to slaves and indentured servants. Then that free labor dried up (thanks alot, Lincoln), and we turned to the influx of Irish, Italians and Jews that came to our shores from Europe. Then those people joined the middle class, and the next wave of immigrants filled those roles. THIS IS THE WAY ITS ALWAYS BEEN. The previous generation of immigrants moves up the ladder, the new immigrants work their way up from the bottom.

The only difference now is that the oligarchs in charge of America have decided they want to hold on to a greater percentage of America's money than any generation of upper class fatcats in our nation's history. As a result, the middle class is finding less and less money available to sustain a comfortable lifestyle. And the oligarchs, realizing that middle class voters may not like that, have looked around for a powerless group of people to blame... like those "damn Mexicans."

Of course, as more legal immigration occurs, "those damn Mexicans" are getting less and less powerless. Don't think the Republicans don't see this coming. Defenders of the fabulously wealthy for the last three decades (at least), they see their precious "white power" constituency shrinking as a percentage of the population. They see more and more brown and tan faces, and they realize the prospect of winning a national election is becoming increasingly doubtful. The only solution they have is to stem the tide--remove as many of "those people" as possible from the country. The undocumented workers are the low-hanging fruit, the easy sell-- they "don't belong here." But this is not rooted is sound economic or humanitarian policy. It's all about the fear that 5 million people could become legal... and vote for Democrats.

That's it. That's the only reason it makes sense to deport a group of people en masse.

By all means, deport those who commit crimes. Deport those who abuse government services. Deport the layabouts who aren't working, aren't contributing to the American economy. And sure, make it harder for future illegal immigrants to come here, by tightening border security and enforcing laws against employers who hire new undocumented workers. Do more to direct these desperate people toward legal pathways of immigration. Heck, you can even set a deadline at which this "amnesty" will no longer apply. This is all essential for maintaining security and healthy population growth. No one is advocating for opening the floodgates.

But for those who are already here? Who slipped the net long ago and have established themselves? They're not the enemy. Neither are the kids who grew up here, who have little ties to the homeland their parents fled many years before. All Obama did with his executive order was acknowledge that it's too late to get rid of these people without destroying our economy and causing a large-scale humanitarian crisis. This isn't overstepping. It's being realistic.

These people are no longer Mexicans, or whatever. They're Americans, whether the Republican Party likes it or not. Fearing their potential voting power is not a valid excuse for unconscionable cruelty.

And when you uproot families and separate parents from their children, what else can you call it?

What If The Republicans WANT Us To Fall Off The Fiscal Cliff?

Pretty much everyone has been wondering how congressional Republicans can be so boneheaded as to allow this country to "fall off the fiscal cliff," i.e., allow the Budget Control Act of 2011 to take effect that would raise taxes on all Americans and massively cut government services. Economists unanimously agree: this would have a devastating effect on our nation's economy, possibly plunging us into another recessionary period. Look at the effects of Greece's austerity measures, which have resulted in chaos and the rise of Nazi-like fascism.

Jonathan Chait of New York magazine writes, "we are not dealing with rational people here. We are dealing with House Republicans." He, and others have argued that the Republicans have nothing to gain by letting us go over the fiscal cliff. Taxes rise, which is every Republican's nightmare, and then Obama has all the leverage he needs to maintain high taxes on the rich while cutting taxes for middle class Americans, which is the plan he prefers. Republicans wouldn't dare to oppose a tax cut for the middle class just because it doesn't include one for the rich. Such a move would be unpopular. Chait argues that the Republicans have nothing to gain by holding out.

But there's a hole in this logic. And its a big one. What if the Republicans secretly WANT to go over the fiscal cliff? Is there something in it for them?

Hear me out. It makes sense.

Ignore the taxes for a second, and look at what else happens when the Budget Control Act goes into effect January 2nd:

"According to Barron's, over 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget and Medicare are in line for "deep, automatic cuts."

Think about this for a second. Sure, Republicans are big national defense boosters, and they don't want cuts to our war machine. According to the White House, Army operations and maintenance would lose nearly $7 billion next year, the Navy more than $4 billion, and diplomatic programs and embassy security would lose $1.2 billion. 12.2 billion. That's not pocket change, and Republicans will not be happy about that part.

But what else will be cut? "Over 1,000 government programs and Medicare." To the tune of $87.8 billion. $87.8 billion!!!!!!

Now we're talking about something Republicans want, badly. They've wanted to cut those programs for decades. As my friend Robbie Republican puts it, "It's time to stop giving those communist hippie freeloaders money for their drugs, their spinning shiny rims and ghetto subwoofers. Let them work for a living. I hear McDonalds is hiring." One huge part of the Republican platform is smaller government, cutting "entitlements." And this would be the largest cut in government programs for lower-income Americans in history.

Let's enumerate some of these cuts...

-Most domestic programs would be sliced by 8.2 percent

 -Total payments to hospitals through Medicare would be cut by more than $5.8 billion next year, while prescription drug benefits would be trimmed by $591 million.

-The Library of Congress stands to lose $4 million for its books for the blind and handicapped.

-The National Institutes of Health would lose $2.5 billion. Rental assistance for the poor would fall by $2.3 billion; nutrition programs for women, infants and children would lose $543 million.

-Inquiries and investigations, a mainstay of the Republican House, would lose $11 million. Salaries and expenses in the House of Representatives would drop by $101 million. However, under the terms of the budget law, salaries for lawmakers would be exempt. 

And these are just the bare bones detailed in The New York Times article. The list is much longer. Billions longer. Maybe even Big Bird isn't safe.

I repeat-- these are things the Republicans have been trying to cut for decades. And they get it all, in one fell swoop. They don't even have to lift a finger.

Yes, taxes go up. Yes, defense spending is cut drastically. But both of these issues are temporary, and everyone knows it. It's very, very easy to cut taxes. It's very, very easy to justify defense spending with the global threats America faces. If no deal is struck by January 2nd, taxes will rise and defense budgets will be cut, sure. But by next January 2nd, it's very likely that taxes and defense spending will be restored to somewhere near their current levels.

The other programs? Programs for the poor and middle class? Programs for the arts and sciences? Programs for education? The Democratic desire to restore funding to these initiatives will be met with fierce resistance from the Republican caucus, and the public support behind them will not be strong enough to overcome it. Many of these programs were created back in the salad days of the Clinton Presidency or other Democratic administrations, and have had their funding slowly stripped during the Bush years. It will be very hard to get that funding back with the current makeup of congress.

Obama could try to save these programs, refusing to lower any taxes until the Republicans agree to end or reduce these doomsday cuts, but the Republicans will then argue he's holding Americans hostage, making them pay more unless he can increase the size of government. And they'd be right. That would be a tough position to be in.

When viewed in this way, it makes perfect sense for Republicans to sit on their hands and wait for January 2nd. They get all the cuts they've always wanted, and the things they don't like--higher taxes, lower defense spending-- can be and will be fixed within months. Once taxes are lowered again (even if taxes remain on wealthy Americans), Republicans believe that the "entitlement" cuts won't significantly impact the economy--THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THEIR BELIEF. So they look forward to rolling into the November elections being able to say they took a stand against big government and won. And if the economy doesn't crash and burn, the Democrats will be hard-pressed to argue they're wrong.

Of course, if these spending cuts do have a devastating effect on the economy, as the Democrats and most economists say, the plan goes awry. But even then, Republicans will pivot, and argue the fiscal cliff wasn't to blame. They'll say Obama got the tax plan he wanted. They'll point to billions in government savings, helping to move toward a balanced budget (even if a slow economy has hurt government revenues and isn't reducing the national debt). They'll sell any downturn as a continuation of the previous recession, and you know what? Enough people will believe it to help the Republicans remain relevant.

It's a gamble, but what's the alternative? Make a deal with Obama and give him everything he wants? That's not flying with this group of "boneheads."

Democrats agreed with the Budget Control Act because they thought there was no way it would ever be put into action. To me, this seems to be a very bad miscalculation. They've played a game of chicken with the Republicans-- but the Republicans are willing to get hit by the train, if it means getting what they want in the long run.

Hope you've saved up a nest egg and packed a parachute. Because we're going over this cliff, and it's going to cost a lot to climb back up again.

UPDATE: It appears that I was right.

Why The Republicans Are Losing

From the New York Times... August 28, 2012:

One party platform stated that Hispanics and others should not “be barred from education or employment opportunities because English is not their first language.” It highlighted the need for “dependable and affordable” mass transit in cities, noting that “mass transportation offers the prospect for significant energy conservation.” And it prefaced its plank on abortion by saying that “we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general — and in our own party.”

The other party platform said that “we support English as the nation’s official language.” It chided the Democratic administration for “replacing civil engineering with social engineering as it pursues an exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit.” And its abortion plank recognized no dissent, taking the position that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”

No, they are not the platforms of the Democratic and Republican Parties. They are both Republican platforms: the first from 1980, at the dawn of the Reagan revolution, and the second the 2012 Republican platform that was approved on Tuesday afternoon in Tampa, Fla.

Not so hard to see why Republicans may have lost Hispanics and women, no?

The Republicans' election day disaster wasn't a Mitt problem. In many ways, Mitt was the perfect Republican candidate for an election day that now hinges on a handful of swing states that demographically, geographically, and philosophically lean towards the Democratic party: A business-side moderate from a blue state. The problem was the rightward shift in the Republican party's platform, a shift brought on by the party's decision to rely on the evangelical vote, regarded as a key to victory in Bush's 2004 election.

The party's platform shift aimed to galvanize its supporters on the far right, a historically apathetic voting block that demonstrated what it could do in 2004. But it came at a cost the Republicans didn't seem to anticipate: alienating the socially liberal or moderate Republicans that made up a portion of their party. According to a 2012 PEW Research poll, 23% of Republicans FAVOR gay marriage, as do 58% of independents. 30% of Republicans and 60 percent of independents believe abortion SHOULD BE legal. And a majority of Republicans and Independents believe the government should invest in clean energy like wind and solar. These percentages are not insignificant--when your candidate fervently goes against all of these, you will ostracize voters who factor these issues into their decision. Someone who dislikes Obama tremendously, but loves their gay son will be hard-pressed to vote for the guy who's angling for the bigot vote.

According to exit polls, Obama beat Romney among the 41% of voters who identify themselves as "moderate"-- by 15 percentage points!

Abortion and gay marriage bans may help win local and state races--although Akin and Murdock found out the perils of being too far right--but at a national level, it's hard to see how an adherence to far right social views is beneficial. For the vast majority of Americans, putting these issues on the ballot is akin to putting out an opinion poll--they're not impacted by the results, but they make their voices heard. It's a cheap trick from Karl Rove's playbook that worked well in the past, but is starting to cost the Republicans--because the beliefs of Americans are changing as rapidly as our demographics, perhaps even faster. There was a time in this country when the majority of people thought owning slaves was okay, when people thought that denying women the vote was perfectly natural, when people believed that "separated but equal" was fair. The vast majority of Americans have "evolved" concerning these beliefs, and there's a clear trend future Americans will repudiate the ideas that gays shouldn't marry and abortion is murder: 56% of young Americans support abortion rights (compared to 30% who don't), 70% support gay marriage. Will these young voters change their minds when they get older? Doubtful. And their kids will be even more likely to resist the social conservative viewpoint.

The far-right's war is already lost. Fighting it will only hasten the Republican party's demise.

If You Don't Believe In Jesus, Don't Live In Alabama

The new governor of Alabama was sworn in yesterday. As governor, it will be his responsibility to make sure everyone in his state is protected equally under the law. Except those damn Jews, Buddhists, Muslims,and Atheists.

"[I am] governor of all of Alabama — Democrat, Republican and independent, young and old, black and white, rich and poor," Robert Bentley told the crowd at Montgomery's Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, according to the Birmingham News. "If you're a Christian and you're saved... it makes you and me brother and sister... if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister..."

So if his wife is Christian, does that mean he's committing incest?

UPDATE: The governor has offered a half-assed, non-apology apology:

"What I would like to do is apologize. Should anyone who heard those words and felt disenfranchised, I want to say, 'I'm sorry.'"

(emphasis mine)

How The Republicans Like To Win

I'm sure there's many good reasons why New Jersey's Governor Christie hates teacher's unions. But its hard to think of any.

It's not that they're overpaid. The pay they receive for the important job they do is terrible.

There's tenure, sure, and that makes them difficult to fire, but tenure exists for a noble reason. The fact is, there are parents out there who really hate facts like science and history, and if a teacher teaches something that is undeniably true but deemed incompatible with certain political or religious beliefs, those parents will seek to get that teacher fired. Schools are supposed to be about teaching facts and critical thinking, so tenure is a way to make sure that politics doesn't put the education of children at risk.

Wait... I think I just answered my own question.

Governor Christie hates tenure so much because it prevents him from replacing unbiased teachers with ones who will brainwash kids into believing that the Republican party is the one favored by God.

I suppose that's a reasonable goal... except it's not. But no matter. I'm sure Governor Christie believes in having a fair debate on the subject, hearing from both sides of the issue, and using facts to bolster his side of the argument.

Except he doesn't.

Because he's a Republican. And Republicans don't use things like facts to sway Americans. They use the politics of personal destruction.

Like this:
Hero teacher's life destroyed.

Because its not good enough to make reasonable appeals for education reform. Republicans don't like to win by making a solid argument. They like to win by bullying people, destroying lives, ripping people to shreds.

Even heroes.

If Superman was a Democrat, the Republicans would push for Kryptonite to be added to the water supply.

Ladies and Gentlemen Of Delaware, Meet Your Republican Nominee For Senate...



Is it just me, or is she totally eye-****ing that youth pastor?\

Also, according to Bill Maher, she's not only hot, but she's always got the chronic:

Just In Case You Still Thought Politics Was About "Issues":

Republicans reveal plan to scare, bribe people to support them.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?"

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”

-Republican Party PowerPoint presentation

Just to be clear, Democrats do this too (instead of socialism, its "fascism"). But they're usually not stupid enough to leave their PowerPoint presentations lying around.

Anyway, let the drill begin. First, disavow. Second, hint that its a fabrication. Third, accuse the other party of playing dirty politics. Fourth, carry out the plan anyway, but insist that you're not.

Followed by: an election win, corruption, stalemates, a disappointed base, and an election loss. Rinse and repeat.

One thing I like about Obama is that he seems to get that people are sick of all the BS, the scare tactics, the lies, the broken promises, the political maneuvering. He knows Americans want to get things done, make things happen. But unfortunately, all the people around him are acting like schoolyard bullies. And Obama, as hard as he tries, can't get them to act like adults. Which begs the question...

Is anyone on Capitol Hill qualified for their job?

Maybe instead of voting for people who vow to uphold our their beliefs NO MATTER WHAT, we should elect leaders who vow to weigh solid evidence and study issues closely to find workable solutions that benefit most Americans while not imposing hardship on the minority.

But we'd call that guy a flip-flopper, I guess.

What Is A Republican? What Is A Democrat?

The GOP is thinking about making its members take a test in order to qualify for party funding. They're given a list of the ten core principles of the Republican party, and if they disagree with 3 or more of them, then they will be fed to Rush Limbaugh, presumably.

Here's the GOP list:

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill

(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check

(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat

(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

I don't score too well. But what's interesting about this test is that all of these ten are given equal weight. Are you pro-choice and believe in Gay marriage? Well as long as you're okay with everything else, the GOP would still consider you Republican. Two of the biggest Republican issues right now, and you could safely take the democratic side without losing precious party funding.

What would the Democratic test be? I thought up this list:

(1) Oppose big-brother government initiatives like the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, and torture programs.

(2) Support a progressive tax structure that relieves the tax burden of middle and working class Americans

(3) Oppose drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, support environmental controls and renewable energy

(4) Support maintaining separation between church and state

(5) Support cultural diversity and immigration reform, including amnesty for current illegal immigrants

(6) Support removal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by shifting responsibility to locals and other coalition forces.

(7) Support a foreign policy of diplomatic engagement and working together with our allies.

(8) Oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and other efforts to strip homosexuals of their rights

(9) Support the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade

(10) Support government-run social programs as a means of ensuring equal freedom for all economic classes.

Sure, the Democrats have a big tent, but most people in it can get behind at least 8 of these ten.

In other news, the Greens are planning a purity test too, but nobody cares.

Stop The Madness


Stop Comparing The First Black President To Hitler, Please

Nazi Health Care Plan: Unless you're white, blonde haired, blue eyed and Christian, you're sent to a death camp, where you'll be told to take a shower. The shower will actually be toxic gas. You will be killed.

Obama's Health Care Plan: If you have health insurance, good for you. If you don't have health insurance, you'll be covered by the government's health insurance plan, which is good enough for most of the world's developed countries.

Now, these health care plans don't seem too similar. One involves Zyklon B and Nazi soldiers forcing emaciated Jews to dig trenches for their own soon-to-be-shot bodies. The other makes sure that if you get sick, you can be treated at a hospital and not worry about medical bills forcing you into bankruptcy. One aims to clear Europe of 10 million people... the other aims to provide free health care to 50 million people currently too poor to afford annual checkups. We're not exactly comparing apples to apples here, or even apples to oranges. This is more like apples to ostriches.

Yet, Obama's health care plan has resulted in this reaction:

Woman yells "Zeig Heil!" at Obama Heath Care supporter:


And this...



And this...


Courtesy of Glenn Beck

And this...

"This notion is fully in the spirit of the partisans of efficiency but came from a program instituted in Hitler's Germany called Aktion T-4. Under this program, elderly people with incurable diseases, young children who were critically disabled, and others who were deemed non-productive, were euthanized. This was the Nazi version of efficiency, a pitiless expulsion of the "unproductive" members of society in the most expeditious way possible."

And finally, this...



Look, I realize "liberals" got carried away too, when Bush was in charge. I'm pretty sure more than a few Nazi references were thrown towards the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay. But in those cases, we were talking about the government creating secret "camps" where people of a certain religion were being sent without trial to be tortured, and surveillance of citizens' lives without a warrant. The Nazi comparisons, however overblown, were at least apt.

But comparing a program designed to save millions of lower income or unemployed Americans from a lifetime of traumatic health issues to a program designed to slaughter innocent people? Comparing government provided health insurance to genocide? Painting a Hitler mustache on a poster of Obama? Yelling Zeig Heil, the Nazi salute (while apparently wearing an Israeli Defense Forces T-Shirt)!?! Have these people gone nuts?!?!?!

There are no death panels. And even if you horribly misinterpreted the end of life counseling provision in the bill, guess what? It's been erased. This is simple, people. If you have health insurance, great, you're good. Sit back and relax. If you don't, now you do. And it may not be perfect (those breast implants will still cost you), but its a damn sight better than what you have now. Which is nothing.

And if you're one of those people who worries about the pennies being taken from your paycheck, consider this. Those pennies are nothing compared to the billions the government already spends on healthcare (and already taxes you for)... money they have to spend because uninsured people never go to the doctor, so their minor ailments become major ones, and then their care ends up costing ten times more than what it would have. Most of the world's been having free health care for years, and they haven't collapsed. The for-profit system benefits huge insurance companies... and if you want to see how, just watch John Grisham's The Rainmaker for crying out loud. I'm not expecting you to watch Michael Moore's Sicko. Frankly, that guy freaks me out too.

So save the Nazi talk for Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. And start getting on board Obama's plan to save you money and save 50 million people.

Why Is The Media Still Reporting On Sarah Palin?

Since losing the 2008 election, Republican vice presidential nominee and (former) governor of Alaska Sarah Palin has been featured in Vanity Fair, her husband was profiled in Esquire, her daughter has been on the cover of People, and her former son-in-law-to-be was in GQ (also with her naked grandson). She's been on TV seemingly more times than President Barack Obama. Despite not accomplishing one thing in her entire political career, despite not even being a member of the government any longer, Sarah Palin is still very much in the spotlight.

Why?

The question becomes more baffling when you consider the contempt Sarah Palin has for the media establishment. Just check out these quotes:

“This is to provide notice to ... the Huffington Post, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law" -Palin's lawyer, in a letter to media organizations.

"It's a sad state of affairs in the world of the media today, mainstream media especially, if they're going to rely on anonymous bloggers for their hard news information. Very scary. Reporters, especially, not taking one extra step to get to the facts and report the facts, but instead continuing to spread things that are not true. Is it political? Is it sexism? What is it that drives someone to believe the worst and perpetuate the worst?" - Palin in an ABC interview

"The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans." -Palin on the reaction to her resignation speech

Okay Sarah, we get it. You hate the media. So... stop using them to spread your message. Whatever it is. Apparently, your only message these days is "I hate the media."

Or better yet... why doesn't the media just simply stop reporting on Sarah Palin? She doesn't like the media? Fine. The media will leave her alone. They won't report on her or her family anymore. Her press conferences will go unattended. Her photo-ops will go un-photographed. Palin thinks the media is a bunch of liars? Okay, so they won't say anything at all.

I'm sure Palin will love that.

The truth is, Palin loves the media. The media made her into whatever she is today. If it wasn't for the media, Palin would still be someone no one in the lower 48 states ever heard of.

No, rather, Palin can't stand criticism. She can't stand any bad words against her, even if they're true. It's something that Republicans seem to have in common. If you never criticize them, and accept every word they say as gospel, you're a patriot. But point out the sky is blue, and not orange like they claim, and suddenly you're worse than Osama Bin Laden.

Palin needs the media to survive. But if she keeps biting the hand that feeds her, how long until they tire of her and turn the other way?

Palin's Bailin'



After a busy 4th of July weekend, I'm back to comment on some recent news. No, not Michael Jackson. Nor the beloved Billy Mays (whom I met in person 2 weeks before he died). But rather, Sarah Palin. I had feared that somehow, with all the endless media attention, Republicans would actually take her seriously, and the mockery of the American electoral process that began when John McCain tapped her as his Vice Presidential nominee would continue.

Luckily, Sarah Palin did a great job of torpedoing her future and freeing up the Republicans to find someone actually qualified for the highest offices in the land. Although, they don't have a lot of choices.

According to Sarah Palin, she couldn't sit back and let the media tell everyone how unqualified she was to govern. So, to show everyone that she can govern, she quit being governor.

"It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down [and] plod along," Palin said. "That's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out."

Yes, Sarah. Doing your job is the "quitters way out." What do winners do? According to Sarah, they quit.

Now, I'm sure somewhere in Sarah Palin's comely MILFy skull, this logic makes sense. And maybe somewhere in America, there's a person drunk on moonshine and high on crystal meth who thinks, "Gee, that Sarah sure proved to me that she's presidential material." But in the rest of America, the America where people are struggling to find a job that pays $125,000 dollars a year (like Sarah's did), and can't afford to quit in order to prove they're not quitters, that sort of logic doesn't fly. And so ends the tale of Sarah Palin, public servant, and so begins the story of Sarah Palin, joke.

Of course, Sarah became a joke during the 2008 campaign. This merely adds punchlines. "Sarah took 'quit while you're ahead' a bit too literally."

The most insane thing is Sarah's primary reason for quitting. The media. Apparently, their criticism was too much to ignore from the statehouse in Alaska. And this woman wants to be President!?!?! The most powerful person in the world!?!?!?! The person who wants to become the most powerful person in the world QUITS when people say bad things about her!?!?!?!?!?!

Can you imagine....

November, 2012
PALIN: My fellow Americans. Since you elected me as your President two weeks ago, the media attacks on me and my family have been unending. Just this morning, I read an editorial in the New York Times saying that I should have been tougher on Kim Jong Il after he bombed Pearl Harbor, and my plan to distribute guns to schoolchildren was "deeply flawed." These elite media critics also say that my husband is unqualified to be appointed Secretary of Defense, and that my daughter Bristol is in over her head as my chosen Secretary of State. I can no longer keep my head down and ignore these vicious, baseless attacks. Therefore, I am resigning the Presidency of the United States, effective immediately. I'd like to wish good luck to your new President, my former vice president Bubbles the Chimp.

PRESS: Mr. Bubbles, care to comment?

BUBBLES: (sticks out tongue) Pbffft...

PRESS: Adorable.

I'd like to thank Sarah for stepping so gracefully aside. If only more terribly unqualified leaders would quit their posts and let somebody else give it a try.

How about it, New York State senators?

Will Bush Destroy The Country?

I know what you're thinking. Hasn't he already? Embroiled in a costly and stagnant war, with our economy on life support and a major city still as mangled as the day it was hit by a hurricane, our country is in deep trouble. But, sadly, it could get worse, and there's a good chance that president Bush will make it so, despite his limited time remaining in office.

Lost amid the hubbub over Obama's cabinet appointments has been a call by Obama and his newly-selected chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, for Bush to authorize a bailout plan for the auto industry. Bush has already helped out his pals on Wall Street, but so far, he's seemed reluctant to help an industry that is just as integral to the American economy's success. With unemployment already at a level not seen since just after 9/11, the economy cannot afford more job losses.

Time magazine reports:

It's now clear that GM can't survive as an ongoing entity without massive federal assistance. The company is burning through more than $2 billion each month. It has $16 billion left. As if they were aboard a dirigible losing altitude, GM's bosses have been frantically throwing all manner of stuff overboard — retiree health-care benefits, people, assets, new car design — to conserve $5 billion. That will get it through the year.

Furthermore:

The system — the domestic auto plants and their interconnected group of suppliers — is far bigger than GM. It includes 54 North American manufacturing plants and at least 4,000 so-called Tier 1 suppliers — firms that feed parts and subassemblies directly to those plants. That includes mom-and-pop outfits but also a dozen or so large companies such as Lear, Johnson Controls and GM's former captive Delphi. Beyond those are thousands of the suppliers' suppliers.

Although the Detroit Three directly employed about 240,000 people last year, according to the industry-allied Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Mich., the multiplier effect is large, which is typical in manufacturing. Throw in the partsmakers and other suppliers, and you have an additional 974,000 jobs. Together, says CAR, these 1.2 million workers spend enough to keep 1.7 million more people employed. That gets you to 2.9 million jobs tied to the Detroit Three... Shut down Detroit, and the national unemployment rate heads toward 10% in a hurry.

We saw what happened when the government chose to let one big banking firm, Lehman Brothers, fail. The entire financial community fell down with it. Now it seems Bush is content to do the same with the auto industry. Except the workers laid off by this collapse won't be as well off as those let go by Wall Street.

So far, the President has offered only to speed through Congress an already approved $25 billion loan to help Detroit create new fuel-efficient models. But GM needs an additional $10 billion simply to pay its bills next year and $15 billion more to close plants, compensate redundant workers and dump some of its lesser-performing brands.

Bush was apparently angry that details of his conversation with Barack Obama were released to the press. One of those details was that Obama had urged him to support an auto-industy bailout. Of course, Bush had other ideas in mind...

The president stressed that his main priority for any postelection action out of Congress is approval of a long-stalled free trade agreement with Colombia. -Jennifer Loven, AP White House Correspondent

Yes, Bush is worried about Columbia, while Rome burns.

It may just be the cynic in me, but it seems to me that the Republicans have little to gain by supporting a bailout of the auto industry. They already took heat in this year's election for supporting the bailout of Wall Street. And by allowing GM and others to go under, they assure that Barack Obama begins his first year as President in a very, very deep hole that's nearly impossible to climb out from. By doing nothing, the Republicans can let Obama and a Democratic congress take the heat for a dead economy in the next election. Meanwhile, if they do approve a bailout and it fails, then the Republican base, already pissed at large government spending, will have all the incentive they need to vote their incumbents out of office.

Already, the Republicans are showing signs that they could care less about 2.9 million jobs.

AP - House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Thursday he would oppose an auto industry bailout. "Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers' competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy," Boehner said.

If Bush uses his veto power to kill a bailout bill, it's hard not to figure he's doing so in order to deliberately hurt the country for the immediate future, creating a toxic environment for the next party in charge.

Given what we've seen so far, I can't say I'd be surprised.

You Know The Republican Party's In Trouble When...

Sarah Palin is being hailed as the party's future:

Is Sarah Palin the answer for defeated Republicans? After a historic rebuke at the polls, the Republican Party is staggering into an uncertain tomorrow with the White House and Congress in Democratic hands, no certain leader in sight and its membership divided over what it means to be a Republican.

Ever since her selection as John McCain's running mate in late August, Palin, the 44-year-old Alaska governor, was the star of the GOP ticket, though views of her vary wildly across the political spectrum. With the Republican brand corroded and the hunt on for the next Ronald Reagan, Palin could be one of many people competing to influence Republican ideas in the post-Bush era, maybe even as the party's leader.

"Conservatives are still looking for Mr. Right. And maybe Mr. Right turns out to be Ms. Right," said Bill Whalen, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.

Yes, the person "influencing Republican ideas" will be a former beauty pageant contestant who has no idea what a vice president does, who's never read a newspaper or magazine, and who's sole foreign policy experience is governing a sparsely populated state in sniffing distance of Russia.

Already, Republicans are in a tizzy, many blaming Palin for the GOP's losses this election:



Of course, others want to destroy the lives of those who would dare say anything bad about their beloved Sarah:

"We're tracking down all the people from the McCain campaign now whispering smears against Governor Palin... We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you'll see us go to war against those candidates."

At this rate, its going to be a long time before Republicans are in charge again.

Bush To Live In Cave Until Election

AP – WASHINGTON – It's no coincidence President Bush has been out of the public's eye in recent days — that's the way the Republican Party wants it. White House press secretary Dana Perino said Monday the incumbent's invisibility is by design — because "the Republican Party wanted to make this election about John McCain."
"The president knows there are people in this country who want change and are looking for something new," Perino said.

"We're realistic about the political environment that we are in," she said. "What keeps him going is knowing that he's done the right thing."

That's why Bush has, in recent days, moved into a cave in an undisclosed location somewhere in the southwestern United States.

"He has all the amenities there that he has at the White House," said Jan Fakebody, a senior Bush staffer. "He's got satellite tv, a personal chef, a king size bed. It's just a bit drafty, that's all."

When asked who is running the country at this tumultuous time, Fakebody replied, "The same person who's been running the country since 2000. Dick Cheaney."

As McCain and Democrat Barack Obama made their final pitches to voters over the weekend, Bush spent time drawing pictures on the cave's walls. "This one's a goat," he said, pointing at a crude stick-figure painted with a yellow highlighter. "I call him Freddie."

He has no public events on Monday or Tuesday, not even an Election Day photo op. Bush has already voted by absentee ballot and plans a small dinner in his cave Tuesday night with two purposes: celebrating his wife's birthday and watching old episodes of the WB cartoon "Animaniacs."

"Pinky and The Brain, now that would be a winning ticket," Bush said, in reference to two of the show's characters.

The White House said Bush is keeping up to date with the financial crisis, two wars and the upcoming transition to a new administration, despite being in a cave. "It's a very well-appointed cave," Fakebody said. "It's got Verizon FIOS."

In early September after Hurricane Gustav, Bush scrapped his planned opening-night speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., and instead spoke via satellite. But in recent days, Bush has declined to issue any statements using the cave's satellite link-up, preferring instead to record videos himself on a Sony Handicam and passing the videotapes to local shepherds, who then provide them to contacts at major news outlets.

"We expect his new video soon," Fakebody says. "Hopefully it includes fewer shadow puppets than in the first one."

The Anti-Education Republican Party

I've begun to notice a definite disdain among the leaders and pundits of the Republican party for so-called "intellectuals" and "elites." (actually, I noticed it four years ago). This behavior fits with their strategy of trying to woo the "common man," whom the Republican party believes is a plumber named Joe who downs a six-pack of beer every night before bed.

To the Republicans, Joe isn't very smart. Note how McCain, in the second, "town hall" debate, said "You probably never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac before this," to the African-American man who posed him a question about the economy. Some people thought McCain assumed the man wasn't informed because the man was black... I say, McCain was simply doing what the Republicans have become very good at: talking down to a populace that they think are idiots.

In the Republican Party's defense, they may be right. After all, Bush was re-elected. How smart can our country be?

But I digress. The Republican party continually paints science and progress as a bad guy-- enemy of religion, killer of babies, liberal poison designed to turn a generation of schoolchildren into Democrats. Need evidence?

Their support for school vouchers and homeschooling initiatives that take funding away from public schools and puts education in the hands of amateurs.

Support for creationism to be taught in schools.

Denial of global warming.

Deriding legitimate scientific research as "pork spending."

Cutting Pell grants and other ways to help people obtain a higher education.

Forcing medical doctors to adhere to politically-influenced scripts which make no logical, medical sense.

Anointing a VP candidate who doesn't read books, doesn't know the role of a VP, and who believes Alaska will be a final battleground of the apocalypse.

Slate has an excellent article here by Christopher Hitchens about this disturbing trend.

I'm not saying voting for Democrats makes you smarter than voting for a Republican. But if Republicans continue to pander to the segment of society which abhors logic and reason, its only a matter of time before the Republican party becomes the thing it covets.

A Little Monday Morning Hypocrisy

From NYPost's Page 6:

Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller's Megaplex Theatres refused to book the Weinstein Company's new R-rated comedy "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," starring Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks, saying it's too raunchy for religious, conservative audiences. "We feel it's very close to an NC-17 with its graphic nudity and graphic sex," the chain's Cal Gunderson told us. Asked why Megaplex has no problem showing the R-rated, ultra-violent "Saw V," which shows a man forced to crush his own hands to escape a pendulum cutting him in half, Gunderson said: "No comment."

Just In Case Your Were Fooled By Tina Fey... I Mean Sarah Palin


Sharing A Cover With Halibut

Sarah Palin gave a pretty riveting speech last night. I have to say, her speechwriters can sure turn a phrase. "In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."

Ooh! You get him Sarah!

Palin spoke a lot about family, seeking to counter perceived attacks against her brood. But as CNN contributor and Democrat Hillary Rosen points out, all of Sarah's talk about family doesn't change the fact that Republican policies are vehemently ANTI-family:

I don't care about how Sarah Palin or John McCain take care of their families. I care about how their policy choices affect my family and millions of other Americans.

McCain and Palin get their health insurance paid for by the government (hers in Alaska and his in Washington). Yet they oppose giving the nearly 46 million uninsured Americans the same access to affordable health care.

John McCain's kids don't have to worry about paying for college. Yet he has opposed every single education support program to help others.

McCain and Palin say they will stand up to oil companies. Yet the only energy policy they support gives millions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies to do more drilling and he has opposed every piece of federal legislation to explore alternative fuel sources.

McCain and Palin say they will revamp how Washington does business. Yet his campaign is filled with lobbyists and she has cooperated with Sen. Ted Stevens in funneling federal money for useless projects in Alaska for years. And McCain and Palin have no solutions for Americans worrying about their jobs in a fragile economy.

McCain and Palin want us to leave their families alone. Yet they want to make rules for our families by eliminating our right to make our own choices over abortion, eliminate our access to family planning education or domestic partner benefits, and our freedom from discrimination.

They want to control what our kids learn in school about sex and about science. In short, through the policies they promote and the judges they support, they want the government to have more control over our private lives than at any time in history.

McCain and Palin now say their campaign is about change, too. Yet the only real change they have proposed is a change from a suit to a skirt in the vice president's office and one man fighting a misplaced war for another in the Oval Office.

Well put. While the Republicans claim they want "less government," what they actually want to do is make the government MORE INVOLVED in the private lives of American citizens. Your every decision will be subject to a moral standard set by the Republican party. If you're cool with John McCain coming into your hospital room and telling you what to do, then vote for him.

Republicans define "big government" as a government that spends a lot of money. Um... have they been paying attention the last 8 years? The government is BIGGER THAN EVER. The deficit is climbing astronomically. The last time the Democrats were in charge, we had a balanced budget... and oh yeah, the economy was super. It didn't seem like the Democrats formed a goliath government back then.

Sometimes it seems as if the Republicans live in an alternate universe. One where the economy doesn't suck, where the war in Iraq is already won, and where America is safer, stronger, and smarter than ever. Of course, we who actually live in the real world know that none of those things are the case. The Republicans have had not 4, but 8 years to improve this country's standing in the world. Instead, they've pretty much trashed everything.

Don't let McCain, or Palin, or anyone else convince you that shit smells like roses.

Palin's right about one thing. Words are just words. Actions speak louder.

Unfortunately, the actions carried out by 8 years of Bush have left us all begging for earplugs.

Guns For Everyone

Should Students Be Able To Carry Guns On Campus?

Armed and Ridiculous
A short play by Adam

Scene: A classroom. Students mulling around, TEACHER prepares, writes some notes on the blackboard.

(bell rings)

TEACHER
Alright class, everyone take your seats.

They don’t respond. MICHAEL faces the teacher.

MICHAEL
Why don’t you take your seat?

TEACHER
Why I…
(is about to scold, thinks better of it)
Quite right, Michael. I must lead by example.
(sits in chair)

MICHAEL
Very good. Gold star for you!

The class laughs.

TEACHER
Well, if it’s okay with all of you… I’d like to begin class.

WILLIAM
Go ahead.
(sits at desk)

TEACHER
Good. Well, where were we? I believe we were on chapter six in your textbooks. Polynomials.

BRIDGET
Can we skip that?

SCOTT
Yeah I don’t want to do that.

MICHAEL
Me neither.

TEACHER
(laughs nervously)Who needs Polynomials anyway?
(tosses lesson plan aside)
Perhaps chapter seven? Combining complex equations?

MARY
Let’s watch a movie!

SCOTT
Night of the Living Dead!

BRIDGET
We watched that last week, Scott.

SCOTT
So?

BRIDGET
It’s a stupid movie.

SCOTT
You’re stupid, Bridget.

BRIDGET
Oh yeah?

They simultaneously reach down towards their sides. Teacher quickly stands up.

TEACHER
(tense)
Okay! Okay, everybody, settle down, settle down. There’s no need for that. Scott, I think Night of the Living Dead is an excellent, excellent film. But perhaps you’d be gracious enough to let one of your classmates suggest an alternative today?

SCOTT
(glaring at Bridget, removes hand from side)
I guess.

TEACHER
Good. Bridget?

BRIDGET
Legally Blonde.

SCOTT
I’d rather be shot in the head.

BRIDGET
Be careful what you wish for.

TEACHER
(nervous)Okay, okay. None of that talk. Nobody’s shooting anybody. Not today, no sir. How about this. Today, Legally Blonde, tomorrow, Enter the Dragon.

MICHAEL
Cool.

SCOTT
Fine by me.

BRIDGET
Okay.

Rest of class assents.

TEACHER
See what happens when we negotiate with words? Everyone can get along.

A gunshot is heard. Everyone takes out their guns. Teacher is terrified.

TEACHER
Class, please, calm down, probably just an accidental discharge, happens all the time.

MICHAEL
(moving towards stage right, the door)I’ll take point, Mary, you cover me.

MARY
You got it.

SCOTT
I’ll set up a flanking maneuver.

BRIDGET
Ooh! I finally get to use my new pink pistol!

TEACHER
Class, please, everyone, stay where you are!

More gunshots are heard.

MICHAEL
(points out a few of his classmates)
You, you and you. I want standard triangle assault formation. We engage on my count.

THREE STUDENTS
Got it. Sure. No problem.

TEACHER
Everybody. The police will handle this!

MICHAEL
(approaches stage right, the door, grabs handle)
Ready?

Michael's assault team nods.

MICHAEL
Go! Go!

Michael leads Mary, Scott, Bridget, and the three other students off stage right, out the door. More gunshots are heard.

TEACHER
(runs over, closes door, turns to face class)
Please, everybody, put the guns away. We’ll be safe in here.

STUDENT #1
Like those kids at Columbine?

STUDENT #2
Or those kids at Virginia Tech?

TEACHER
Those were two, isolated incidents. And the vast majority stayed safe by simply staying put.

STUDENT #3
My Dad says people who stay put are easy targets.

STUDENT #4
My brother said if you’re going to die, you might as well die fighting.

TEACHER
No one is going to die! It’s probably just… a car backfiring. Or a stack of books got knocked down. No one is going to die!

More gunshots. Suddenly, STUDENT #5 shoots STUDENT #1. He falls to the floor. Other students turn towards him.

STUDENT #5
I… I… didn’t mean to… I was nervous… My finger slipped.

TEACHER
Everybody… everybody.. it was just an accident…

The students fire in unison, killing Student #5. Teacher throws up his arms.

STUDENT #6
(turns angrily at student #4)
Ow! You shot me!

STUDENT #4
Did not, it was him!
(points at another student)

TEACHER
Please! The police will be here any minute and they’ll sort this out.

STUDENT #3
What if the school shooter isn’t out there… what if he’s in here?

TEACHER
That doesn’t make any sense.

STUDENT #4
Sure it does. Don’t you see? There’s two of them. Like Harris and Klebold. One of them is out there, shooting the people in the hall. And that guy over there is the other one, pretending to be one of us.

STUDENT #7
It wasn’t me! My gun isn’t even loaded.
My mom won’t let me buy any bullets.

The class laughs at him. He puts his head down, ashamed.

STUDENT #4
If he didn’t shoot him, then who did?

The students all train their guns on one another, eyeing each other suspiciously.

TEACHER
No one shot anyone. It’s all just a big misunderstanding.
The police will be here soon. I think I even hear the sirens.

The class strains to hear. The teacher covers his mouth, desperately tries to make a siren sound.

STUDENT #4
Enough of this. There’s only one way to find out who the shooter is.

STUDENT #3
How?

STUDENT #4
We all close our eyes, and fire. God will guide the bullets towards the killer.

STUDENT #7
Of course! God!

STUDENT #3
God!

STUDENT #6
(dying)
God...

TEACHER
Oh God… Please, don’t do this.

The class closes their eyes.

STUDENT #4
On my count. Five…

TEACHER
(gets down to the floor)
God help us!

STUDENT #4
Four… Three…

The door opens, everyone opens their eyes. BRIDGET limps in, holding her pink gun. Her leg is bleeding.

TEACHER
Bridget, are you alright? What happened out there?

BRIDGET
Oh, it was terrible. There was blood and guts everywhere.
It was like… Night of the Living Dead.

STUDENT #3
Did you get the shooter?

BRIDGET
There was no shooter. Just a car backfiring in the driveway outside. But Michael thought someone was shooting at us, so he shot at the car. And then the man in the car shot back. And then Mary went down. Some kids from the other class thought we were attacking the school, so they started shooting at us. Timmy, Jimmy and Kimmy all went down. And then Scott got mad at William because he started the whole thing, so he shot William. And then I shot Scott.

TEACHER
Why’d you shoot Scott?

BRIDGET
Well… everyone was shooting.

STUDENT #3
So there never was no school shooter?

TEACHER
(attempts to correct him)
“Never was any…”
(Student points gun at teacher, he zips his lips)

BRIDGET
No, I guess not.

STUDENT #4
No shooter out there. But somebody shot our friend. Someone in here.

STUDENT #6
I’m… dying…Please, someone…call a hospital.

STUDENT #4
We’re kind of in the middle of something.
(Student #6 dies)
Now where were we?

STUDENT #2
At three.

STUDENT #4
Right. Ready?

Teacher crawls behind desk.

TEACHER
Just like last semester…

STUDENT #4
Three… two… one…

The stage lights die as a fusillade of bullets and screams are heard.