This is why I find some Republicans frightening

It's become crystal clear that Republicans in Congress will vote in total lockstep against anything significant proposed by President Obama, even if he proposed that Congress be turned over to the Republicans. If Obama wants it, they're against it, even if they would benefit from it or previously supported it. This makes me wonder what sort of people are still supporting these jackasses. (No need to tell me that the Democratic ranks in Congress also are primarily filled with jackasses. I'm aware of that.) Thanks to a poll conducted for the Daily Kos Web site by Research 2000, I have some answers. My thanks to the 2 Political Junkies blog http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/ for bringing it to my attention. Before you GOP backers get your panties all in a twist, I know that Daily Kos is a liberal Web site. But Research 2000 is a well-respected, non-partisan, independent polling outfit. Their poll involved 2,000 self-identified Republicans. Here are some of the findings, which I find sad and scary. Nearly 70 percent of those polled agree or are on the fence about the idea that Obama should be impeached. No reason was given, but I assume it's because he's a white-hating, terrorist-loving sumbitch who is also a "furriner." Gee, I guess I was right on at least one count, because the next question asks whether those polled think Obama is a socialist. Nearly two-thirds believe he is, and 16 percent are thinking it over. For the record, that's just dumb. Now, for something dumber. Nearly a quarter of those responding believe Obama wants the terrorists to win, and another 33 percent are not sure. Those people are idiots. More than three-quarters of the Republicans questioned believe or are willing to consider that ACORN stole the 2008 election. You have to be a little bit mentally ill to believe that. Oh, lookey here, I'm right about something else regarding why Republicans want Obama impeached. More than 30 percent believe the president is a racist who hates white people, and 33 percent more are unsure. Here's another crazy one. Nearly one-quarter of those polled think their state should secede from the United States. There was no follow-up question about whether gay people and minorities would be allowed to live in those states after secession. Wait. Maybe I have that answer. It seems that the percentage favoring secession is highest in the South, by a pretty fair margin. Hmmmmm. I'll sum up the area of gay rights by saying that the Republicans surveyed overwhelmingly oppose equality for gay people. We know Republicans, by and large, don't want gay folks to be allowed to marry, but almost three-quarters of those responding think gay people should be prohibited from teaching in public schools. Oh boy. The Republicans surveyed are against sex education, and they're also overwhelmingly opposed to aborting any pregnancies resulting from kids' lack of knowledge about how to prevent babies from getting made. Not a surprise. A lot of very moderate, reasonable people are against abortion. But here's where it gets squirrelly. Nearly half of those polled believe or are willing to consider a ban on the use of contraceptives, and even more think that the use of birth-control pills is the equivalent of abortion. So, very clearly, it's not enough for some Republicans if abortion were outlawed. A significant percentage of them think it should be against the law to attempt to prevent a pregnancy. That's tin-foil hat territory. And maybe somebody should point out to them that outlawing birth control would lead to more abortions. So maybe a little more thought is in order before they schedule that condom-burning rally. But I've saved the best stuff for last. More than half of those responding think Sarah Palin is better qualified than Barack Obama to serve as president, and 33 percent can't make up their mind on that question. Say what you will, I'm laughing out loud at that one. And even after all this time, 36 percent of Republicans polled think Obama was born somewhere other than the United States, and 22 percent are undecided. Really? To believe that, a person would have to be so intellectually crippled that keeping their spit in their mouth would require constant concentration. And finally, more than three-quarters of those responding believe that students in public schools - PUBLIC SCHOOLS - should be taught that "the Book of Genesis explains how God created the world." If that ever happens, I want to be given the right to offer the alternative view that Tim the Enchanter from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" really created the world. In closing, while I was looking around Research 2000's Web site, I came across their recent prediction that Sarah Palin will be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. These are the same folks who accurately predicted in June 2007, when Hillary Clinton had been all but crowned the Democratic presidential nominee, that Hillary would NOT be the choice in 2008. So, for all of you who criticize me for keeping track of what Sarah Palin is saying, arguing that she's not worthy of so much attention, I beg to differ. I shudder to think what would happen to this country if she and those who think like her ever gained control of this country. And I'm going to continue to point that out. My apologies to those who are offended.

The holy hotline

There's an old saying that a fool and his money are soon parted. Now, I'm not claiming that those who avail themselves of a new telephone service are fools, but they'll definitely be parting with some of their money. A group of businessmen has created what it calls the Bless Me Network, which it describes in a press release as a "service that allows people of the Christian faith to call a toll-free number and speak with members of the clergy. Just one catch. Once you call the toll-free number, if you want to actually talk with a priest or a preacher, you'll have to ante up $1.99 for the first minute and 99 cents for each additional minute. John Adams, the chief operating officer of the outfit, says the Bless Me Network provides "affordable faith-based counseling with a level of convenience and confidentiality that has never existed before.” The network says it will give more than 50 percent of its earnings to clergy, church, charity and humanitarian aid over the next five years. Anyone want to bet that it'll be 50.1 percent? And do they pocket all of the money after five years? I don't know. But here's the interesting part: the network expects those charitable donations to exceed $200 million dollars over the five-year period. So that suggests to me that their take will also be pretty close to $200 million. Not a bad little business venture. I suppose that if you're having some crisis of faith or other spiritual emergency at 4 a.m., this might be helpful. But if your problem is such that you need to call a man or woman of the cloth in the wee hours, it's probably pretty darned serious, and it might take quite a while to work it out. If we're talking a half hour, that's $30.70 on your next phone bill. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there's a risk that some really troubled people who aren't the sharpest tools in the shed might get taken advantage of. And there are plenty of people who can talk with folks about these kinds of spiritual and personal problems. They're the ministers and priests who live right here in our own communities. I'm not a religious person, but I know several pastors in our area who would be very helpful to talk with if I needed their input, and they wouldn't send me a bill. And I'm sure there are many more very caring, effective members of the clergy with whom I am not personally acquainted. I do want to thank the Bless Me Network for indirectly leading me to a business idea. While doing a little research before posting this item, I ran across a Wikipedia entry on religion in the United States. It cited a study that found the number of people in this country claiming no religious identification (atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, etc.) rose from an estimated 14.3 million in 1990 to 34.2 million in 2008, which translates to a jump from 8 percent of the population in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008. So, coming soon to a phone near you: "Talk to a Heathen." I'm telling you, it's catching on.

If she were one of the Seven Dwarfs, she'd be Dopey

You can always count on Sarah Palin to create a mountain out of a molehill, or to create a mountain where not even a molehill exists. This time, the target of her dumbness is White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. It seems that Emanuel, at a policy session a few months back on the health-care issue, used the term "f-ing retarded" to describe liberal activists who were thinking about running ads against some Democratic lawmakers. Well, old "death panel" Palin has gotten wind of this, and she's calling on President Obama to fire Emanuel because of his use of profanity and what she calls his "slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities.” Emanuel has never denied the oft-told tales about his regular use of cuss words. But to suggest that he's taking a shot at handicapped people is just absurd. Webster defines retarded as "slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress." That certainly does not apply only to people who are handicapped. It could well be applied to some of our politicians, of all parties and persuasions. It also might very well be applied to Palin, who required nearly a half-dozen colleges to obtain a single bachelor's degree. And anyone who saw her interview with Katie Couric can speak to Palin's intellectual shortcomings. This tempest in a teapot brings to mind a controversy about a decade ago, when an aide to then-Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams quit his post because of the furor over his use of the word "niggardly." A black co-worker apparently took that to be a racial slur when, in fact, the word means "miserly." It has no racial connotation whatsoever. Maybe people who don't know the meaning of words, or that words can have more than one acceptable meaning, should just keep their mouths shut. And if any of you want to take me to task for writing about Palin again, I'll offer a deal. If Palin agrees to stop doing and saying stupid things, and of going out of her way to draw attention to herself, I'll quit blogging about her. In other words, I'll be blogging about Palin for a long time.

Quite an embarrassment

Four people are facing charges and more could be in trouble after police review videotapes from a melee Friday night at a Wash High-Monessen boys basketball game in Monessen. Police say the incident, which Washington schools superintendent Roberta DiLorenzo described as a "riot," apparently began when a girl from Wash High and a female student from Monessen started "fighting over a male basketball player." The incident escalated, with some adults reportedly joining students in the fray. One person needed hospital treatment after the brawl, and police had to use Tasers on as many as four people to subdue them. The gym was cleared of fans before the game was allowed to continue. Two adults and a teen from Washington, along with a Monessen teen, were cited by police. It's bad enough that kids were acting like idiots, but it's shameful that so-called adults joined in. And now the superintendents of the two schools are displaying considerable gall by questioning how police handled the mess. For the record, four off-duty Monessen police officers had been hired to work the game. That right there tells me all I need to know about the atmosphere at Monessen games. If you need four cops at a high school baskeball game, you've got problems. And as it turns out, those four policemen weren't even enough to handle the mess that developed. They had to call for backup from neighboring police departments. But DiLorenzo and Monessen superintendent Cynthia Chelen are suggesting that police went overboard, questioning their use of Tasers to get the miscreants under control. Said Chelen, "Looking at the video (from TV), I'm not sure a Taser was necessary, but I was not there." So, the superintendent admittedly wasn't even at the game, yet she seems to think she knows what level of force was required to restore order. I guess Ms. Chelen would have no problem if the Monessen police chief comes to her and says, "You know, I just watched two minutes of classroom video, and I'm not sure you're doing a good job preparing your students for the PSSA tests." When it comes to how police handled this "riot," to use DiLorenzo's term, the superintendents need to put a sock in it. When severely outnumbered police officers are facing a situation where a brawl could conceivably escalate to involve dozens of people, they should do what they need to do to keep that from happening. I seem to recall that the City League in Pittsburgh used to play its football and basketball games in empty stadiums and gyms because of a legitimate, experience-based fear of violence by students and fans from the league schools. Perhaps the folks who run high school sports in Western Pennsylvania should take the same approach at places where students, parents and other fans have gained a reputation for not knowing how to act.

Weir-do

Figure skater Johnny Weir is a strange bird. No. Wait. Let's be honest. He's a walking, talking freak show of a human being. The latest strange story involving Weir centers on a small piece of white fox fur that he had his "designer" attach to his costume at the recent U.S. Figure Skating Championships. That's the "garment" shown above. Well, the costume caused the fur to fly as animal rights groups took Weir to task. Friends of Animals wrote an open letter to Weir and contacted his designer, Stephanie Handler. Initially, Weir wasn't fazed a bit, saying, "I totally get the dirtiness of the fur industry and how terrible it is to animals. But it's not something that's the No. 1 priority in my life. There are humans dying every day. There are thousands, if not millions, of homeless people in New York City. Look at what just happened in Haiti. I tend to focus my energy, if there is a cause, on humans. While that may be callous and bad of me, it's my choice." Flash forward a couple of days, and Weir decided to change his choice, announcing that his costume will henceforth be decorated with fake fur. Weir's agent says the decision was made because the skater feared that animal-rights groups might try to disrupt his performances in the upcoming Winter Olympics. Weir made it clear that it was all about him and the "dream I have had since I was a kid." He added, "I hope these activists can understand that my decision to change my costume is in no way a victory for them. I am not changing in order to appease them, but to protect my integrity and the integrity of the Olympic Games." Weir also has pointed out that all his fellow competitors are wearing skates made of cowhide. Perhaps he doesn't understand this, but there's a difference between utilitarian items such as skates and a piece of frivolous fringe on his outfit. I think these animal-rights groups go way overboard with some of their criticisms. I'm not going to give up steak dinners and ham sandwiches because an outfit like PETA doesn't like my lifestyle. But I believe they have a point when it comes to fur. Do a whole bunch of animals really need to die, and be killed in a horrific fashion, just so some rich lady can sport a floor-length mink coat? Do rabbits need to be killed so somebody can have a fancy fringe around the hood of their winter coat? And does Johnny Weir really need that stupid-looking tuft of fur on the shoulder of his goofy-looking costume? If Johnny doesn't have a problem with taking advantage of a smaller animal to make his outfit look more fabulous, I understand. But then I'm sure he wouldn't mind if I scalp him and dangle his pelt from my key ring. Hey, heterosexual guys can accessorize, too.