Wrong.
A new study shows that HIV has no problem gaining access to a woman's body though completely healthy genital tissue, contradicting earlier beliefs that the virus was only capable of transmission through broken skin. The study suggests that the virus takes advantage of areas where skin cells have recently been shed, and reinforces the knowledge that, baring abstinence, condoms are the best way to prevent against HIV infection.
Aside from deepening our understanding of the virus and reconfirming the notion that a vaccine is our best hope in combating the disease, this new information helps to explain why women are more vulnerable to infection than men.
... and now it's time for me to run my mouth.
Hey, you feminist bloggers and talkers and activists. No, not all of you - not the rational ones, just the loud ones that pipe up with calls of gender bias at the drop of a vaginal ring. Yeah, you. You know who you are.
Remember when you were screaming about HIV transmission rates and how they were so much higher in women than they were in men? Remember how you were complaining that this obvious bias in services was being ignored because our "patriarchal society" didn't care about women's health? Remember how a few of you even went off the deep end and suggested that women weren't being protected from HIV as well as men were in order to punish them for having sex? Or about how the transmission rates were proof that men disregarded the comfort of women to such a degree that they routinely ripped the hell out of them during sex, leaving open wounds?
This new information regarding the transmission of HIV is a prime example as to why we should approach our causes with logic rather than knee jerking. Next time - sit down, shut up and think. When you're done thinking, look at all the evidence and think some more. Then, when everything has been processed and you actually have a case - THEN step forward and make it.
Seriously. You're not doing us any good, as a gender or a species, when you jump up and down and scream patriarchy every time a new statistic is reported. In fact, you're doing us harm. It's easy for the majority to dismiss the claims of fanatics, but it's hard to convince the majority that the fanatics don't speak for the rest of us when you're so freakin' loud about it. Yeesh.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Gods I love biology.
A Colorado infant, diagnosed with a brain tumor, underwent surgery to remove the growth a mere three days after birth. Upon opening the boys skull, however, the surgeon was caught quite off guard when a tiny foot "literally popped out of the brain". (Click here for a graphic photograph.)
Dr. Paul Grabb, the pediatric brain surgeon that performed the operation, also found parts of an intestine, and another developing foot, hand and thigh. The full story can be found here, and a million other places as the discovery quickly went global.
Dr. Paul Grabb, the pediatric brain surgeon that performed the operation, also found parts of an intestine, and another developing foot, hand and thigh. The full story can be found here, and a million other places as the discovery quickly went global.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
All right... so I missed National Coming Out Day
I came out of the Poly closet to my Mother this past Saturday.
My partner and I have been polyamorous for just over a year and until now we've kept this information from our families. Why hide it? Damn good question. We hid it for the same reason some homosexuals hide their orientation from their parents - a foreboding sense of "what if". With our commitment ceremony coming up in June however, and invitations having already been extended to our secondary partners and a couple of playmates, "coming out" to our families more sooner than later seemed prudent.
It didn't pass by me without notice that as I was preparing to explain my non-traditional relationship to my Mother, thousands of people across the country were protesting for the right to legitimize theirs.
What the fuck, "traditional" America? Why are you all so interested in who we fuck? Who we love? Who we partner with? What kind of supportive, loving families we choose to form in order to raise our children? What are we being protected from? Stable relationships? Lives filled with love and support? Intimate, even spiritual, bonds? When are you all going to grow up and realize that our relationships don't threaten society? That the only threat to your marriages are you and your spouse?
Love solidifies bonds. It breeds loyalty. It nurtures compassion. It supports communities. It teaches tolerance. It heals wounds. It builds bridges.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry that we're still too fucked up as a race to let consenting adults be happy in the arms of other consenting adults without imposing archaic limitations. There's good reason for hope though - the next generation is coming. A generation that has grown up seeing non-traditional relationships for what they really are - not a threat, not a sin, not a perversion - but an expression of love. Our parents were more accepting than theirs, and we're more accepting that they are. Our children will be more accepting still. I say we keep doing the hard work so that our children can sit back and reap the benefits.
My partner and I have been polyamorous for just over a year and until now we've kept this information from our families. Why hide it? Damn good question. We hid it for the same reason some homosexuals hide their orientation from their parents - a foreboding sense of "what if". With our commitment ceremony coming up in June however, and invitations having already been extended to our secondary partners and a couple of playmates, "coming out" to our families more sooner than later seemed prudent.
It didn't pass by me without notice that as I was preparing to explain my non-traditional relationship to my Mother, thousands of people across the country were protesting for the right to legitimize theirs.
What the fuck, "traditional" America? Why are you all so interested in who we fuck? Who we love? Who we partner with? What kind of supportive, loving families we choose to form in order to raise our children? What are we being protected from? Stable relationships? Lives filled with love and support? Intimate, even spiritual, bonds? When are you all going to grow up and realize that our relationships don't threaten society? That the only threat to your marriages are you and your spouse?
Love solidifies bonds. It breeds loyalty. It nurtures compassion. It supports communities. It teaches tolerance. It heals wounds. It builds bridges.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry that we're still too fucked up as a race to let consenting adults be happy in the arms of other consenting adults without imposing archaic limitations. There's good reason for hope though - the next generation is coming. A generation that has grown up seeing non-traditional relationships for what they really are - not a threat, not a sin, not a perversion - but an expression of love. Our parents were more accepting than theirs, and we're more accepting that they are. Our children will be more accepting still. I say we keep doing the hard work so that our children can sit back and reap the benefits.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Short Shots
Not only does Daylight Atheist offer up a very interesting article on Soul Making Theodicy the comments are both thought inspiring and courteous. Yes, I know it sounds impossible, but apparently people CAN disagree on the internet without acting the douchebag.
The Atheist Bus Campaign has not only reached, but exceeded their goal!
These are beautiful:
Did you pick up the very excellent How To Make Webcomics book? Wish there was more? Head over to Webcomics.com for yet another, though very professionally put together, webcomic community. Presented by Halfpixel, it's clearly not an amature endeavor and I really look forward into delving into this one.
And... one more excellent video to top off today's Short Shots:
The Atheist Bus Campaign has not only reached, but exceeded their goal!
These are beautiful:
Did you pick up the very excellent How To Make Webcomics book? Wish there was more? Head over to Webcomics.com for yet another, though very professionally put together, webcomic community. Presented by Halfpixel, it's clearly not an amature endeavor and I really look forward into delving into this one.
And... one more excellent video to top off today's Short Shots:
Someone please tell me this is a joke...
One would hope they were joking... but no... I fear they're really this deluded. InJesus.com member Jim Bramlett has posted a very special call for the warriors of god to protect McCain and Palin from the African Witchcraft Curses that Obama's family and friends are reportedly busy dolling out from their village in Africa.
In their defense, the "witches, warlocks and those involved in satanism and the occult" apparently get up at 3:00am every morning to release these curses which shows a great deal of dedication. Also, Senator Obama's grandmother apparently sacrificed both a black and a white chicken so the magic would convince both white and black folks to vote for him. Until now I had no idea sacrificial magic was so racist as to be segregated. While the article does explain that they're all false Christians for participating in witchcraft, it never explains how they can simultaneously be Muslim and participate in witchcraft as the two are also mutually exclusive.
In all seriousness, why are these type of beliefs given a pass in our society? This is the 21st century, not the 15th. We should all understand at this point that hearing voices and fearing curses are products of mental illness, not supernatural activity. It's not an "alternate theory", it's not a "spiritual warfare", it's a form of madness fed by a group of individuals who are either highly delusionary themselves or, more likely, keen on taking advantage of the highly suggestible. You are not warriors of god, you are nutters and you should be called out as nutters.
I don't like feeling like this. I don't like raging against a belief system because it's almost impossible to draw the line of acceptability. Are you still crazy if you only believe in a personified deity? What about if you actually hear this personified deity's voice? What if you believe this personified deity contorts the laws of physics to grant you wishes in the form of answered prayers? Where does it cease to be a remote possibility and start to become a threat? When an individual believes that I'm filled with demons? When they seek to indoctrinate my children for the good of their "eternal soul"? Do we wait until they stop merely trying to pray away the gay, and the curses, and the demons and take physical action?
At what point do we stop being politically correct and take a hard look at this? When do we begin to openly ridicule the ridiculous? I used to believe that screaming against faith as Dawkins so often does was just as intolerant as the fundamentalists screaming against us. But is it? Is screaming against uncontrolled schizophrenia intolerant? Is screaming against willful ignorance intolerant?
I just don't know anymore...
In their defense, the "witches, warlocks and those involved in satanism and the occult" apparently get up at 3:00am every morning to release these curses which shows a great deal of dedication. Also, Senator Obama's grandmother apparently sacrificed both a black and a white chicken so the magic would convince both white and black folks to vote for him. Until now I had no idea sacrificial magic was so racist as to be segregated. While the article does explain that they're all false Christians for participating in witchcraft, it never explains how they can simultaneously be Muslim and participate in witchcraft as the two are also mutually exclusive.
In all seriousness, why are these type of beliefs given a pass in our society? This is the 21st century, not the 15th. We should all understand at this point that hearing voices and fearing curses are products of mental illness, not supernatural activity. It's not an "alternate theory", it's not a "spiritual warfare", it's a form of madness fed by a group of individuals who are either highly delusionary themselves or, more likely, keen on taking advantage of the highly suggestible. You are not warriors of god, you are nutters and you should be called out as nutters.
I don't like feeling like this. I don't like raging against a belief system because it's almost impossible to draw the line of acceptability. Are you still crazy if you only believe in a personified deity? What about if you actually hear this personified deity's voice? What if you believe this personified deity contorts the laws of physics to grant you wishes in the form of answered prayers? Where does it cease to be a remote possibility and start to become a threat? When an individual believes that I'm filled with demons? When they seek to indoctrinate my children for the good of their "eternal soul"? Do we wait until they stop merely trying to pray away the gay, and the curses, and the demons and take physical action?
At what point do we stop being politically correct and take a hard look at this? When do we begin to openly ridicule the ridiculous? I used to believe that screaming against faith as Dawkins so often does was just as intolerant as the fundamentalists screaming against us. But is it? Is screaming against uncontrolled schizophrenia intolerant? Is screaming against willful ignorance intolerant?
I just don't know anymore...
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Short Shots
Richard Dawkins has generously agreed to match donations to the Atheist Bus Campaign up to £ 5,500. While the campaign has been lauded as "anti-christian" it is meant only to provoke thought and act as a counter-balance to the many religious adverts already featured on British buses. It simply reads "There probably is no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
To my list of things I very much want, but don't really need, and don't have the room to properly display I add Mad Science Alphabet Blocks.
There's an excellent article over at the Muslimah Media Watch on the topic of Shame Cartoons and the general notion that women are to blame for any harrassment they might receive. There's also a call for shame cartoons aimed at men who do not treat women with the respect. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
To my list of things I very much want, but don't really need, and don't have the room to properly display I add Mad Science Alphabet Blocks.
There's an excellent article over at the Muslimah Media Watch on the topic of Shame Cartoons and the general notion that women are to blame for any harrassment they might receive. There's also a call for shame cartoons aimed at men who do not treat women with the respect. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Short Shots
Gay and Lesbian Humanist is back. As homosexuality is so frequently discussed only through the filter of religious thought, it's nice to know there will again be some non-religious discussion of topics important to the GLBT community.
Cliff Goldstein has written a lovely little article over at Liberty Magazine (if you'd rather not give Liberty Magazine your click, the article can also be read on Professor Dawkins' site) on the horrible future that awaits should the "new atheist" adgenda be followed to it's "logical" conclusion.
I would have found the entire article intensely humorous if it weren't for the fact that I understand how deeply some segments of our society believe this drivel to be true. As an insight into such minds, the article is a brilliant work, as a factual representation of atheistic goals and ideals it's a load of rot... but worth reading either way.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee has joined in on the "Kay Hagan hates God" party with a new ad. All this because she had the gall to attened a fundraiser held by the Secular Coalition for America. Aside from the overly dramatic presentation, the ad is also patently ridiculous. Trust me, true believers, the big bad atheists are far too diverse and independant to have an "agenda". Would we like politicians who don't treat us as though we're anti-American simply because we lack faith in any personified deity? Sure. Would it be peachy with us if that whole McCarthy inspired "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" stuff was removed? Sure. Are we out to take your gods away? Of course not. If this ad is any indication, we're far less worried about your faith than you are about our lack of it.
In the spirit of gentle and humorous poking I say this - Keep your gods out of our yard and we'll keep our logic out of yours. *grins*
Fossilized brain? I... I... just don't even know where to start... Seriously, young earth creationists, you're embarrassing yourselves.
Cliff Goldstein has written a lovely little article over at Liberty Magazine (if you'd rather not give Liberty Magazine your click, the article can also be read on Professor Dawkins' site) on the horrible future that awaits should the "new atheist" adgenda be followed to it's "logical" conclusion.
I would have found the entire article intensely humorous if it weren't for the fact that I understand how deeply some segments of our society believe this drivel to be true. As an insight into such minds, the article is a brilliant work, as a factual representation of atheistic goals and ideals it's a load of rot... but worth reading either way.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee has joined in on the "Kay Hagan hates God" party with a new ad. All this because she had the gall to attened a fundraiser held by the Secular Coalition for America. Aside from the overly dramatic presentation, the ad is also patently ridiculous. Trust me, true believers, the big bad atheists are far too diverse and independant to have an "agenda". Would we like politicians who don't treat us as though we're anti-American simply because we lack faith in any personified deity? Sure. Would it be peachy with us if that whole McCarthy inspired "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" stuff was removed? Sure. Are we out to take your gods away? Of course not. If this ad is any indication, we're far less worried about your faith than you are about our lack of it.
In the spirit of gentle and humorous poking I say this - Keep your gods out of our yard and we'll keep our logic out of yours. *grins*
Fossilized brain? I... I... just don't even know where to start... Seriously, young earth creationists, you're embarrassing yourselves.
Friday, October 17, 2008
When did pro-choice become anti-special needs?
I was planning on calling it quits for the day, heading off to my game night and then home to rest up for tomorrow's 24 Hour Comic Challenge when I decided to glance through my blog list one last time.
Once again, as has happened so often in the last few weeks, I was confronted with the notion that Sarah Palin is a shining example of a brave woman spitting in the face of a heartless "pro-abortion" culture and refusing to kill her child because he was imperfect. Trig isn't merely a baby with Downs Syndrome you see. He's apparently a righteous stake in the heart of an abortion industry that wants desperately to see that children like him are destroyed before they take their first breath.
Uh-hem.
I am pro-choice. (That's "pro-abortion" to use McCain/Palin speak.)
I am also the mother of a child with Classic Autism.
To hear the radical right speak, I would have immediately and without hesitation aborted my son if I had known before his birth that he was Autistic. It would have been the only logical option my sin bathed mind could have processed.
Oddly enough, nothing could be farther from the truth. I won't say there is no scenario in which I might have chosen to abort my son, or my daughter for that matter... say, a foetus presenting with it's organs on the outside of it's body, or some other gross malformation that would have made the baby's survival unlikely and it's short life filled with pain. I will say, however, that a developmental disorder diagnosed prior to birth - such as Autism or Downs Syndrome - would have sent me rushing to medical sites to learn all I could about available therapies, not an abortionists office.
As with so many other trigger topics, I suspect the Pro-Life movement is simply resorting to mental masturbation and using Sarah's "brave choice" as a stimulus. I can't help but think, however, that there are thousands of mothers like me - pro-choice and happily raising special needs children - that not only see though this pitiful display of disingenuous piety, but find themselves offended both mentally and maternally.
Once again, as has happened so often in the last few weeks, I was confronted with the notion that Sarah Palin is a shining example of a brave woman spitting in the face of a heartless "pro-abortion" culture and refusing to kill her child because he was imperfect. Trig isn't merely a baby with Downs Syndrome you see. He's apparently a righteous stake in the heart of an abortion industry that wants desperately to see that children like him are destroyed before they take their first breath.
Uh-hem.
I am pro-choice. (That's "pro-abortion" to use McCain/Palin speak.)
I am also the mother of a child with Classic Autism.
To hear the radical right speak, I would have immediately and without hesitation aborted my son if I had known before his birth that he was Autistic. It would have been the only logical option my sin bathed mind could have processed.
Oddly enough, nothing could be farther from the truth. I won't say there is no scenario in which I might have chosen to abort my son, or my daughter for that matter... say, a foetus presenting with it's organs on the outside of it's body, or some other gross malformation that would have made the baby's survival unlikely and it's short life filled with pain. I will say, however, that a developmental disorder diagnosed prior to birth - such as Autism or Downs Syndrome - would have sent me rushing to medical sites to learn all I could about available therapies, not an abortionists office.
As with so many other trigger topics, I suspect the Pro-Life movement is simply resorting to mental masturbation and using Sarah's "brave choice" as a stimulus. I can't help but think, however, that there are thousands of mothers like me - pro-choice and happily raising special needs children - that not only see though this pitiful display of disingenuous piety, but find themselves offended both mentally and maternally.
Short Shots
First - a couple of little tidbits I gleaned from the web today:
Stop Jenny McCarthy
Here's a simple website that gives some of the basic reasons Jenny McCarthy's war on logic needs to be stopped. I'd like to see a section on the site devoted to letting people know exactly what they can do to see that her harmful "information" about autism gets squashed, but it's a good first step.
This gave me so many fits of giggles I nearly lost my lunch. Titled "Presenting 50 Facts About Homeopathy" I only wish the article was intended to be the brilliant work of comedy it actually is.
Secondly - It's very nearly 24 Hour Comic Challenge time! I hope that everyone who's participating this year is gearing up and getting ready. If you'd like to join with a few others in a virtual sense - hop on over to The Webcomic Beacon's official 24 Hour Comic Challenge Forum where I'll be posting a few updates as I go along.
Stop Jenny McCarthy
Here's a simple website that gives some of the basic reasons Jenny McCarthy's war on logic needs to be stopped. I'd like to see a section on the site devoted to letting people know exactly what they can do to see that her harmful "information" about autism gets squashed, but it's a good first step.
This gave me so many fits of giggles I nearly lost my lunch. Titled "Presenting 50 Facts About Homeopathy" I only wish the article was intended to be the brilliant work of comedy it actually is.
Secondly - It's very nearly 24 Hour Comic Challenge time! I hope that everyone who's participating this year is gearing up and getting ready. If you'd like to join with a few others in a virtual sense - hop on over to The Webcomic Beacon's official 24 Hour Comic Challenge Forum where I'll be posting a few updates as I go along.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Debate Recap, Minus The Rage
For those of you that follow my Twitter Feed it's not news that I was a bit... animated... during the last presidential debate. In truth, there was an awful lot of screaming and cursing in my home throughout. In the light of a new day, however, I've had the opportunity to really go over the debate and figure out just exactly what it was that got me so heated.
Here, in no particular order, are the top 10 things that pissed me right off about John McCain:
1 - "Sarah Palin is a role model to women." No, Senator McCain, she's not. Sarah Palin is only a role model to women that fit nicely within a very specific demographic - Fundamentalist Christians. A good many of the rest of us find her vapid, dogmatic, and possibly crazy.
2 - Women's health in air quotes. I'm not sure whether those air quotes showed a shocking lack of medical knowledge or a shocking lack of respect for women. Either way, I was certainly offended.
3 - The notion that Palin's special needs child means anything to other special needs families. I don't elect an official because they can relate to my personal emotional struggle. Bringing up Palin's special needs son in place of actual policy discussion is patronizing and it certainly doesn't erase the fact that Palin was recently named in a lawsuit claiming inadequate services specifically for an autistic teen, or that Senator McCain hasn't rated higher than 33% on the Children Defense Fund's scorecard, or that he opposes the Community Choice Act.
4 - "I'm proud of [Palin}... And I can't tell how proud I am of her and her family. Her husband's a pretty tough guy, by the way, too." Senator McCain was asked about his running mate's qualifications and this is what we get? I have to wonder, does he really not understand how condescending and unprofessional this sounded? She's his VP pick, not his daughter.
5 - He's proud of violent bigots too. Proclaiming pride in his supporters immediately following remarks regarding violent and hate-filled outbursts during rallies was troubling enough - following that up by whining over offensive t-shirts as though they were on equal footing to shouts of "terrorist" and "kill him" showed blatant contempt.
6 - Blame the victim mentality. McCain's notion that he wouldn't have run attack ads if only Obama would have met with him in his heavily stacked Town Hall Meetings sounds eerily familiar to the "I wouldn't have to hit you if you wouldn't talk back" defense.
7 - Repetition. Repeating an argument nearly verbatim directly after it's been refuted makes you look completely daft.
Statement - He'll raise your taxes!
Reaction - Oh... I don't want that.
Refutation - Actually, I'll only raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.
Reaction - Oh, I don't make anywhere near that much.
Follow-Up Statement - He'll raise your taxes!
Reaction - What the fuck is this guy's problem?
8 - Repetition. McCain mentioned Joe the Plumber some 20 times. We get it, trust me, we're not nearly as stupid as you apparently think we are. He may think he's cementing a theme, all he's really doing is providing comedy shows with skit fodder.
9 - Attitude. McCain once again came off like a cranky old man yelling at the neighbor kids to get off his lawn. Look at the adjectives that sprang to mind as I wrote this post regarding his general attitude: disrespectful, patronizing, condescending, unprofessional, contemptuous, daft, cranky... Yeesh. This isn't a man I trust to negotiate fragile foreign policy relationships. Somehow I get the feeling the president of Spain is relieved McCain won't agree to meet with him.
10 - Baseless bullshit. McCain apparently didn't need the reminder Obama so glibly provided that he'd lose the race if he stuck to the issues - once again we got to hear a plethora of catch phrases and more easily refuted nonsense about Ayers and ACORN. If he was up for the position of gossip colmunist, McCain would have my vote - but Commander in Chief? I think I'd prefer someone with a touch more professionalism.
Here, in no particular order, are the top 10 things that pissed me right off about John McCain:
1 - "Sarah Palin is a role model to women." No, Senator McCain, she's not. Sarah Palin is only a role model to women that fit nicely within a very specific demographic - Fundamentalist Christians. A good many of the rest of us find her vapid, dogmatic, and possibly crazy.
2 - Women's health in air quotes. I'm not sure whether those air quotes showed a shocking lack of medical knowledge or a shocking lack of respect for women. Either way, I was certainly offended.
3 - The notion that Palin's special needs child means anything to other special needs families. I don't elect an official because they can relate to my personal emotional struggle. Bringing up Palin's special needs son in place of actual policy discussion is patronizing and it certainly doesn't erase the fact that Palin was recently named in a lawsuit claiming inadequate services specifically for an autistic teen, or that Senator McCain hasn't rated higher than 33% on the Children Defense Fund's scorecard, or that he opposes the Community Choice Act.
4 - "I'm proud of [Palin}... And I can't tell how proud I am of her and her family. Her husband's a pretty tough guy, by the way, too." Senator McCain was asked about his running mate's qualifications and this is what we get? I have to wonder, does he really not understand how condescending and unprofessional this sounded? She's his VP pick, not his daughter.
5 - He's proud of violent bigots too. Proclaiming pride in his supporters immediately following remarks regarding violent and hate-filled outbursts during rallies was troubling enough - following that up by whining over offensive t-shirts as though they were on equal footing to shouts of "terrorist" and "kill him" showed blatant contempt.
6 - Blame the victim mentality. McCain's notion that he wouldn't have run attack ads if only Obama would have met with him in his heavily stacked Town Hall Meetings sounds eerily familiar to the "I wouldn't have to hit you if you wouldn't talk back" defense.
7 - Repetition. Repeating an argument nearly verbatim directly after it's been refuted makes you look completely daft.
Statement - He'll raise your taxes!
Reaction - Oh... I don't want that.
Refutation - Actually, I'll only raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.
Reaction - Oh, I don't make anywhere near that much.
Follow-Up Statement - He'll raise your taxes!
Reaction - What the fuck is this guy's problem?
8 - Repetition. McCain mentioned Joe the Plumber some 20 times. We get it, trust me, we're not nearly as stupid as you apparently think we are. He may think he's cementing a theme, all he's really doing is providing comedy shows with skit fodder.
9 - Attitude. McCain once again came off like a cranky old man yelling at the neighbor kids to get off his lawn. Look at the adjectives that sprang to mind as I wrote this post regarding his general attitude: disrespectful, patronizing, condescending, unprofessional, contemptuous, daft, cranky... Yeesh. This isn't a man I trust to negotiate fragile foreign policy relationships. Somehow I get the feeling the president of Spain is relieved McCain won't agree to meet with him.
10 - Baseless bullshit. McCain apparently didn't need the reminder Obama so glibly provided that he'd lose the race if he stuck to the issues - once again we got to hear a plethora of catch phrases and more easily refuted nonsense about Ayers and ACORN. If he was up for the position of gossip colmunist, McCain would have my vote - but Commander in Chief? I think I'd prefer someone with a touch more professionalism.