Senator McCain, please concede…and work WITH Barack for a democratic win in the upcoming presidential election, PLEASE! Your people need you to support Barack now, and not ruin our future.

McCain Should Concede

As I predicted, the mathematics are now clear. Unless he wins Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, and Colorado, the electoral college race is over. The only way John McCain can save his legacy is to face reality and concede for the benefit of the nation. John has severely damaged his legacy by introducing smears into the race. John still has a political future as a Senator with a possible minority leader position. It is now time for Americans to unite.

The Electoral College Battle

Like everyone here at Alas and elsewhere in lefty Blogsylvania, I’ve been struggling to understand the actions of John McCain and his supporters as the electoral season winds down. After all, the math is the math: he can’t win the nomination unless the Electoral College overturns the wishes of the voters. And it’s been that way for quite a while now.

And yet, he and his campaign staff and surrogates have offered one rationale after another about how he could actually pull it off. As Obama continues to pile up safe states, though, the rationales have become thinner and less credible.

McCain’s Grim Scenario

If this campaign goes on much longer, what will be left of John McCain?

A man uniformly described by his close friends as genuine, principled and sane has been reduced to citing Barach’s distant association with a man who committed crimes when Barack was seven as a reason to stay in the race — an argument that is ungenuine, unprincipled and insane. He vows to keep pushing, perhaps all the way to the election in November. What manner of disintegration is yet to come?

It’s Time To Put Country First

The country can’t afford another month of being torn apart by a divisive and unnecessary political campaign — not when the math makes it clear that Barack has won. There is only one reason for John to not concede at this point, and that one reason is ego, nothing but ego. Ego and spite. And hubris as well.

Concede, John, Concede!

Alex Felipe writes on what he thinks is the biggest problem facing the Philippines today:

Poverty drives the sex trade. Poverty results in less children going to school. Poverty has a clear link to poor health. And poverty spurs rebellion to the existing order—called “terrorism” by the ruling class—which then results in violent government repression of that rebellion.

On Friday September 26, a chemical/gas was sprayed into a Dayton, Ohio mosque room where children and babies were kept while their mothers prayed during a Ramadan service. A ten-year-old girl was sprayed directly in the face.  Coincidentally or not, this attack came at the end of a week in which thousands of copies of the Islamophobic DVD Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West were distributed in Ohio through the mail and local newspapers. The media is all but entirely ignoring this story. And the one main news source that is reporting on the story is heavily implying that bloggers are exaggerating the situation.

Is there any reason to doubt that if this had happened to the day-care room in a Christian church, during services, it would be a huge news story?

This is a core argument of fat acceptance: that it’s possible to be healthy no matter how fat you are and that weight loss as a goal is futile, unnecessary and counterproductive — and that fatness is nobody’s business but your own.

Many fat-acceptance activists prefer a new approach to dieting that focuses on nutrition, exercise and body image. A new book out this fall, “Health at Every Size,” by Linda Bacon, a nutritionist and physiologist at the University of California at Davis, outlines this approach, which is less about dieting than a lifestyle change that emphasizes “intuitive eating”: listening to hunger signals, eating when you’re hungry, choosing nutritious food over junk. It encourages exercise, but for its emotional and physical benefits, not as a way to lose weight. It advocates tossing out the bathroom scale and loving your body no matter what it weighs. […]

Several studies suggest that if the aim is getting healthier rather than slimmer, then in the long run the “Health at Every Size” approach works better than dieting. In 2005, Bacon led the only randomized control trial to date that tested this hypothesis physiologically. She randomly assigned half of the 78 subjects, all women, to a “Health at Every Size” group; while they lost no weight, their healthier behavior led to lower blood-pressure and cholesterol levels, which stayed low even two years later. In the weight-loss group, more than 40 percent dropped out before the six-month low-calorie diet ended, and at the two-year follow-up, the average dieter had regained all her lost weight, and the only measurement that dropped was one for self-esteem.

Scientists who study obesity at the cellular level say genetics determines people’s natural weight range, right down to the type and amount of food they crave, how much they move and where they accumulate fat. Asking how someone got to be so fat is as meaningless as asking how he got to be so tall.

Another thing I liked about this piece: the illustration that went with it was not a photo of headless fatties. What next, an article about comics that doesn’t use “Pow! Bam!” in the headline? (Is that even legal?)

It’s pretty funny - and not just the parts with Palin, they also did a good job making fun of Biden. (There’s a bit I liked making fun of Biden’s faux-equality position for same-sex couples.) Considering how unfunny SNL’s McCain/Obama debate sketch was, compared to how good this and the previous two sketches with Palin in them have been, I’m wondering if Tina Fey is script doctoring her sketches.

Under my plan, we’ll make sure insurance companies cover evidence-based, preventive care services – weight loss programs, smoking-cessation programs, and other efforts to help people avoid costly, debilitating health problems in the first place.

“Weight loss programs” and “evidence-based… services” are mutually exclusive sets. There is no weight loss program which has been shown to bring about substantial, long-term weight loss in a peer-reviewed study.

A real evidence-based approach would lead to the conclusion that “weight loss programs” are useless, and in some cases can even do great harm.

That said, I think Obama’s health plan might be beneficial to fat people on the whole, because it includes “outlawing insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.” If being fat is considered a “pre-existing condition,” then this would do an enormous service to fat people who are typically turned down by insurance companies.

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama’s character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat’s judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain’s team has decided that its emphasis on the senator’s biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan’s campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

“We’re going to get a little tougher,” a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. “We’ve got to question this guy’s associations. Very soon. There’s no question that we have to change the subject here,” said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

To that end, Sarah Palin has been dispatched to…well, lie, evidently:

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of “palling around with terrorists” because of his association with a former 1960s radical, stepping up the campaign’s effort to portray Obama as unacceptable to American voters.

The terrorist in question is Bill Ayers. “Wait,” you say. “You mean the Bill Ayers that Larry Johnson, Gun Counter Gomer, and the Cornerites have been claiming would destroy Obama’s campaign for 15 months now? The one that Obama isn’t actually close to, much less ‘pals’ with?” Yeah, that one. Now, Ayers was an idiot forty years ago, and while his existence did occasionally get my parents out of college classes as professors went to Chicago to attend Weatherman-related trials, well, that’s the main positive contribution he made. Still, it was the late ’60s, and if you were alive to remember that time, you know that the wheels had pretty much come off the wagon. If, like me, you’re not old enough to remember the ’60s, then you probably don’t really give a damn about what a guy did before you have a memory.

For the record, Ayers did some stupid, dangerous things, and while the only people his group killed were members of his group, he probably should have ended up in jail. But he didn’t, and the government has made its decision on that, and in the end, he’s now a professor at the University of Chicago, and he’s worked with Mayor Richard M. Daley, D-Chicago, as such, he’s crossed paths with former University of Chicago professor and Chicago politician Barack Obama. Were they best friends? Compatriots? Comrades? No. Ayers is Obama’s terrorist pal in the same sense that G. Gordon Liddy is John McCain’s terrorist pal.

Of course, Palin didn’t mention Ayers by name, and no doubt that’s intentional; if you mention that Obama knows a college professor who used to be a ’60s radical…well, hell, who doesn’t? But say Obama knows terrorists, and you’re implying that he’s buddies with Osama bin Laden. No doubt, McCain knows this, which is why he had his campaign give Palin that particular cue card with that particular phrasing.

My suspicion is that this won’t work, and may even backfire. Palin’s approach today was anvillicious to say the least, and the fact is that while Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko will inevitably surface yet again, their juice was exhausted long ago. (Incidentally, Democrats who wanted Hillary Clinton to drop out early: you owe her a big thanks for ignoring you. If Clinton’s campaign hadn’t pushed these things in the primary, they’d be news now. Instead, they’re “old news,” stuff everyone knows, and just as John McCain’s role in the S&L crisis isn’t being rehashed, neither will Wright, Rezko, or Ayers draw media scrutiny.)

But the GOP will start slinging mud, all the mud they can find. I expect it will get ugly, and the racist subtext will become overt racism by the time we’re done — because I have no faith whatsoever that McCain will behave honorably. He hasn’t thus far.

Jesus Christ once asked, in Matthew 16:26, “For what does it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” John McCain won’t know. For while he is assiduously giving his soul away with each passing day, he will not gain the presidency from it. He will just lose all that he once claimed to hold valuable.

That said, there’s a limit to what I want my daughter exposed to. And I can state without hesitation that my daughter would never set foot in this man’s classroom again:

The day went as usual at Marianna Middle School, but one thing is different: 7th grade teacher and coach Greg Howard is no longer an employee. He was suspended without pay for 10 days starting Thursday for making racial slurs at presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Our source told us Howard asked his students what “change” stood for and proceeded to write out the acronym “change”- come help a n(word) get elected.

Jackson County’s Deputy School superintendent says he’s received conflicting reports, but he can confirm change and the n-word were used.

Crystal Dragon Jesus, are you kidding me? How big a racist buffoon must this guy be to think that was appropriate to write in a classroom? With six African-American students in it‽ I find it difficult to type the n-word even when quoting it directly from another source. I don’t say it — ever. And if a friend used it in private conversation, I’d be stunned and reproachful. I can’t imagine being so sanguine about it that I’d use the word in front of kids.

Unfortunately, Jackson is keeping a job — though he’s being kicked over to adult education. That’s not good enough. A teacher who is comfortable using racist epithets is not someone who should be teaching in 2008.

(Via CPL)

While Madia is young — just 30 years old — his military record is enough to allay doubts about patriotism, and his calm, reasoned campaign has him in good position to take the district in what should be a good year for the Democrats.

Madia lives in an apartment in Plymouth, where he grew up as the son of poor immigrants from India. He’s not married yet — he’s 30, which is not that old in the grand scheme of things. If you wonder why I mention any of this, it’s because the state GOP has. They’ve sent out flyers noting that Madia is unmarried and lives in an apartment, and GOP chair Ron Carey has said, “I’m just saying from a demographic standpoint, Erik Paulsen fits the district very well,” that Paulsen is “One of them.” And, evidently, that Madia is not.

Asked the obvious question — is this about Madia’s race? — Ron Carey issued a non-denial denial:

Now, if you’re accused of racism, you don’t respond “that’s for the voters to decide,” unless, of course, you’re hoping the voters will be okay with it.

And of course, there’s some good old-fashioned classism at work here too. Madia doesn’t have a mortgage and therefore is evidently somehow unfit to lead; never mind that a whole bunch of Americans, even in the fightin’ 3rd, don’t have mortgages. Only those living the American life as one is “supposed” to can represent that district. And choosing not to disqualifies you, especially if your skin color isn’t white.

I’d say this reflects shamefully on the Minnesota GOP, but Carey long ago showed his capacity for shame is minimal at best. More accurately, this will reflect shamefully on the 3rd, if my fellow Minnesotans in the 3rd let it.

1. Democratic-Farmer-Labor, the Minnesota imprint of the Democratic party, because of the 1944 merger of the Democratic Party and the Farmer-Labor Party. For even more fun, for about 20 years following Nixon, the Republicans in Minnesota called themselves “Independent Republicans (I-R)” to emphasize that they didn’t suck. They dropped the “Independent” at the end of the term of Gov. Arne Carlson, who not coincidentally was the last Republican statewide office-holder who didn’t suck.

So says Alex at FirstShowing.net. And the weird thing is, he intended it as a compliment.

Ms. Krish blogs:

It wasn’t always like this. From 1998 to 2003, female rappers such as Lauryn Hill, Eve, and Missy Elliott were among the genre’s most bankable artists. But nearly all of their successors — including Lil Mama, Kid Sister, Ms Dynamite, and Jean Grae — have struggled to connect with listeners. And it’s harder than ever to launch new talent. ‘‘Hair and makeup is killing female hip-hop,” says a source. ”The grooming cost to break a female rapper versus a male rapper is 10 times as much per appearance. That tends to have an adverse effect on a record company’s willingness to even entertain a female rapper.”

So let me get this straight: there aren’t any women MCs out there because they don’t want to foot the bill for a glam squad? But, somehow, Hollywood tends to make a killing suiting and booting these white girls while their careers, talented or not, skyrocket?

1. There are at least two named female characters, who
2. Talk to each other
3. About something other than a man

The test is not a pass/fail on a work of art, of course, but it’s a good lens to analyze how female-friendly a work is. And it can be startling just how many films, books, and TV shows fail the test — from Star Wars to Forrest Gump to My Best Friend’s Wedding, female characters are often shunted aside, there as window-dressing. If they chat about anything, it’s men. Because, you know, women don’t talk about anything else.

The novel I wrote — The Valkyrie’s Tale — passes the Bechdel Test with flying colors — as it should. With a female lead, a female sidekick, and a quest that involves fighting a powerful enemy, the two end up talking about quite a lot of things that have nothing to do with men.

But one thing that struck me upon revising the work was how rarely the men in my book talk to each other. That’s not a surprise, I suppose — my lead is a woman, and the story’s told in Third Person Limited Omniscient, and by that fact any discussions between men are going to have to either be overheard by Lorelei or related to her.

I began to think of this as a sort of Reverse Bechdel Test — a way to measure the reality of my universe. Because, of course, there should be conversations between men when there are a bunch of them in the story. They shouldn’t drive my story, but they should exist. And they did, just not as much as discussions between women, or between a man and a woman, did.

What this drove home to me was simple: many of the Bechdel Test failures are a natural consequence of the gender of the protagonist, combined with a failure of imagination regarding secondary characters. If your lead is a man, most of the conversations will involve a man. That’s natural, and not necessarily evil.

The reason so many films and novels fail the Bechdel Test is not that writers are evil, sexist jerks. It’s because so many films and novels focus on men.

If there was a balance in protagonists, the Bechdel test would be less important. There would still be films, good films, even feminist films, that failed Bechdel because they had a male lead. But they would be balanced by the good films that featured a female lead, where two male characters don’t talk to each other, or at least only talk about women. And nobody would mind much, because there might be three films at the multiplex that fail Bechdel, four that fail reverse Bechdel, and another one that passes both — and it wouldn’t be as out of kilter as it is.

But the underlying message the Bechdel Test continues to expose is simply that we do not have enough works of fiction focusing on women. Given that more than half the population is female, that’s inexcusable.

(Via The Valkyrie’s Blog)

Palin’s physical attractiveness is, for feminists, a null issue. She’s pretty? Fine, but will she be a good vice president? A good president?  She’s not going to be able to negotiate better with Putin because she’s pretty — but it won’t be a handicap, either. No, her mind is the part of her anatomy we’re most interested in.

This is not the case with her ideological cohort:

I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.

Now, physical attraction is what it is; if you’re not asexual, you find someone attractive, somewhere. Probably more than one person. And it’s okay for Rich Lowry to find Palin attractive.

But that is not her raison d’etre. Quite frankly, Lowry’s purple prose is demeaning to a woman who is only the second to serve on a national ticket. His argument for her is simple: she’s hot. Therefore I want to vote for her. Her mind? Issues? Whatever, dude, she winked at me!

It’s sexist, pure and simple, to view the vice presidency as another place for eye candy to be. By all means, find Palin attractive — or Obama, or Dick Cheney (hey, some find evil to be sexy). But have enough respect for Palin to argue for her on her merits as a leader. That her merits as a leader are wanting is no reason to reduce her to her sexuality.

(Via John Cole.)

For the most part, the debate played out as I expected; Biden pulled his punches for the most part, knowing full well that the only way he could lose would be to turn Palin into a sympathetic figure. Palin was big on glittering generalities and short on specifics — we need to “reform education” and “stop Wall-Street greed” and “Maverick!” — but primarily because the format of the debate limited follow-up questions, she didn’t have a deer-in-the-headlights moment, just a few times when she began rambling a bit, and as Jim Henley notes, during those times she sounded most of all like George H.W. Bush talking about a thousand points of light and “message: I care.” A bit disjointed and weird, and nothing really helpul per se, but nothing catastrophic either.

Frankly, there was only one real zinger in the debate, and it wasn’t a zinger in the classic sense. The moment of the debate came after Sarah Palin touted her mom cred:

But it wasn’t just that experience tapped into [sic], it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn’t have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? We’ve been there also so that connection was important.

Biden responded from the heart:

Look, I understand what it’s like to be a single parent. When my wife and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured, I understand what it’s like as a parent to wonder what it’s like if your kid’s going to make it.

I understand what it’s like to sit around the kitchen table with a father who says, “I’ve got to leave, champ, because there’s no jobs here. I got to head down to Wilmington. And when we get enough money, honey, we’ll bring you down.”

I understand what it’s like. I’m much better off than almost all Americans now. I get a good salary with the United States Senate. I live in a beautiful house that’s my total investment that I have. So I — I am much better off now.

But the notion that somehow, because I’m a man, I don’t know what it’s like to raise two kids alone, I don’t know what it’s like to have a child you’re not sure is going to — is going to make it — I understand.

I understand, as well as, with all due respect, the governor or anybody else, what it’s like for those people sitting around that kitchen table. And guess what? They’re looking for help. They’re looking for help. They’re not looking for more of the same.

It was a devastating moment, because it was true. At age 29, just after the unbelievable professional triumph of being elected to the Senate, Biden went through what any parent would readily identify as the most awful experience possible, losing his daughter and wife in a car accident, having his two sons hospitalized from the same accident. He was sworn in at a hospital in Delaware, and he seriously considered resigning his Senate seat, and was convinced to stay by then-Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, Jr., DFL-Minn., who assured Biden that his colleagues would help him with his loss.

Biden choked up in that moment, as I think one would forever. He wasn’t grandstanding, and he wasn’t attacking Palin, he was simply making a point: that dads, too, know about household fears. That just as Palin is not disqualified from talking about the statehouse just because she’s a woman, Biden is not disqualified from talking about his home life just because he’s a man. It was, ironically, the most feminist moment of the debate.

Who won the debate? Well, early returns suggest Biden did, and I think that’s probably true. Palin didn’t hurt the McCain campaign, and maybe helped rehabilitate her chances for 2012, but at this point, with the clock ticking, the McCain campaign can’t simply get through the day unmolested. They need to start making up ground. I doubt this debate will move the needle much. But if it does, it will be primarily because Biden was able to land some sharp jabs at McCain without coming across as arrogant — indeed, while coming across as very, very human.

The right spent a long time working to turn the hardhats against those who believed in social change, a lot of time working to get the union rank-and-file to vote against their own interests on economic ground, to instead vote on social issues. It’s been a long journey, but there are times when I dare to hope that the Southern Strategy has finally run aground on its own moral bankruptcy, and that while social issues retain their salience for some, they are no longer as divisive as they once were. It is easy to forget that we are, perhaps, but a month away from electing our first African-American president — and but two generations removed from a time when African-Americans could not vote freely, could not patronize institutions reserved for whites, could not attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, or even pick their own seats on a bus. We are a long way from equality in this nation, but we have come a long way. And I dare to hope that when this election is over, and Barack Obama is president, we will have taken a large and meaningful step toward the day when we are a truly egalitarian society. His election will not take us there by itself, any more than Hillary Clinton’s election would have eliminated sexism. But it will be a step forward on race relations after a generation spent dancing around the issue. And that cannot help but be a good thing.

 Let the record reflect that Barack Obama made the approach to John McCain tonight.

As the two shared the Senate floor tonight for the first time since they won their party nominations, Obama stood chatting with Democrats on his side of the aisle, and McCain stood on the Republican side of the aisle.

So Obama crossed over into enemy territory.

He walked over to where McCain was chatting with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida and Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. And he stretched out his arm and offered his hand to McCain.

McCain shook it, but with a “go away” look that no one could miss. He tried his best not to even look at Obama.

Finally, with a tight smile, McCain managed a greeting: “Good to see you.”

Obama got the message. He shook hands with Martinez and Lieberman — both of whom greeted him more warmly — and quickly beat a retreat back to the Democratic side.

Add this to McCain’s surliness in the debate and his bitter interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, and it’s pretty obvious: John McCain is a total jerkface.

He’s an asshole. Oh, he has his moments, and like all people, he’s not all black or all white, but when it comes to interpersonal skills, McCain is a bully, a jerk, the guy who thinks he’s too good to talk to a moron like you. I’d say he’s the classic stereotypical jock, but I knew too many jocks in school who were nice, decent guys, certainly nicer and more decent that McCain.

Now, McCain’s personality issues are not necessarily disqualifying. Lyndon Johnson was a horrible misanthrope who was certainly capable of leading the government. McCain being a jerk is not the end of the world. But it does argue against McCain’s main selling point: that he’s a maverick, post-partisan figure who can reach across the aisle to get things done. Instead, we see a guy who bristles when an opponent dares to reach across the aisle, who does not show a fellow senator any more respect than custom dictates; indeed, he shows quite a bit less. For a backbencher in the House, that’s to be expected — I misdoubt that Michele Bachmann and Keith Ellison don’t spend a lot of time hanging out. But for a man who is supposedly capable of dealing with friends and opponents alike to Get Things Done, McCain seems remarkably incapable of doing so.

1) The efforts of the left to occasionally let poor people (Some of whom were probably black, can you imagine?) buy some homes is a big part of what lead to the current financial dire straits we find ourselves in.

2) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a big part of the problem, and since they were government-sponsored, this is certainly not a failure of the free market and there’s no need whatsoever for more regulation and everything’s fine with our economic theories and oh look a bird.

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, of all places, Thomas Frank lays that crap to rest.

First, Fannie and Freddie:

I asked Bill Black, a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and an authority on the Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980s, what he thought of the latest blame offensive. He pointed out that, for all their failings, Fannie and Freddie didn’t originate any of the bad loans — that disastrous piece of work was done by purely private, largely unregulated companies, which did it for the usual bubble-logic reason: to make a quick buck.

Now, of course, that’s not to say that they weren’t part of the problem . . . certainly they were, but they didn’t create the problem. They just, like virtually everyone else, made it worse.

But what about ‘the greed of the borrowers’?

So when we have dispatched this first canard, we learn from other conservatives that it is the sub-prime people who are to blame; that by taking out loans they couldn’t possibly pay off, these undesirable borrowers have ruined us all.

There is no way to measure the number of people who took out mortgages they knew they couldn’t afford, of course, but for what it’s worth, a 2007 report by the Mortgage Bankers Association reports that the FBI estimates “80 percent of all reported fraud losses arise from fraud for profit schemes that involve industry insiders.” That means the lenders, not the borrowers.

Huh. Now, that’s fascinating. I wonder who Professor Black thinks actually is at fault?

Most of the mistakes for which we are paying now, Mr. Black told me, were actually made “by four entities that under conservative economic theory should have exercised effective market discipline — the appraisers, the originators of the mortgages, the rating agencies, and the investment banking firms that packaged the subprime mortgage-backed securities.” Instead of “disciplining” the markets, these private actors “served as the four horsemen of the financial apocalypse, aiding the accounting fraud and inflating the housing bubble.” It is they, Mr. Black says, who “turned a crisis into a catastrophe.”

Weird.  I totally wouldn’t have guessed that an army of rational private actors acting in their own self-interest would have lead us directly to the brink of financial ruin in the absence of strong government regulation.

I guess you learn something every day.

Don’t comment unless you accept the basic dignity, equality, and inherent worth of all people.

Thanks, Mike! (And thanks to Dylan for thinking of inviting Mike!)

(If you have no idea what wedding I’m talking about, well then, read Mike’s strip. But you can also read this blog entry.)