GOP has a problem with simple facts.

If anything is clear from the recent CNN Republican debate, it's that the whole group of GOP candidates, apart from Mitt Romney, are idiots, Homophobes, and Islamophobes, who know nothing about the US Constitution, and who buy into the Christian Fundamentalist Dominionism mythology about America's founders wanting to make America Exclusively Christian.

Herman Cain, When asked about his comment that he would feel uncomfortable having a Muslim in his administration, snapped "I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims — those that are trying to kill us, and so when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones who are trying to kill us." Of course, this doesn't take into account all the American-born Christians who have been trying to kill us, but I digress.

Cain also explained that he does not support Sharia law in American courts. "I believe in American laws in American courts, period." He, as well as several other candidates like Rick "I am not a homophobic bigot" Santorum and Tim "I'm not a homophobic bigot, either" Pawlenty, don't seem to realize that there is no Shariah Law practiced by any US Government angency. It's a completely made up fear, and the Republicans are treating it as though it's a legitimate threat.

Is Herman Cain for real? First of all, he's an African American Republican. That tells you what an idiot he is from the start, because he is willing to ignore over 75 years of overt racism on the part of the Republican party, such as the infamous "Southern Strategy", where the party deliberately created fear of black people in white southerners, to frighten them into thinking that the Democratic Party was out to take their rights away and give black people special priviledges. This overtly racist strategy is still used in much of the country, in spite of the GOP apologizing for it back in 2005.

Herman Cain previously mentioned that he would only allow Muslims to run for public office if they took a special oath, which he also said would not have to be given to Christian or Jewish candidates, because they can be trusted. This essentially amounts to a religious test for public office. Cain also just weeks ago was holding up his little copy of the US Constitution, proclaiming that every American needs to read it and know what's in it. Too bad he said that. Now we get to see what a true retard the guy is. Article 6, section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, specifically states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Apparently, Caine hasn't finished reading up on his Constitution yet.

Mitt Romney was the only candidate who managed to say something intelligent about this issue. He said, in response to Cain, "We recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country... Our nation was founded on a principle of religious tolerance. That's in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion."

Tim Pawlenty, who runs on a platform of Homophobia and Islamophobia, erroneously commented "The protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith." Well, he got it half right. The Constitution works BOTH WAYS. It protects individual religious freedoms from government intrusion, but it also prevents government from being controlled by a religious majority.

But Tim went on to reveal what a true ignoramus he is, by saying "This is a country that in our founding documents says we're a nation that's founded under God, and the privileges and blessings that we have are from our creator… The Founding Fathers understood that the blessings that we have as a nation come from our creator and we should stop and say thanks and express gratitude for that. I embrace that." Too bad it's utter nonsense. None of our founding documents, especially the United States Constitution, say that in any sense.

Right wing Christian Fundamentalists wish that "The Pledge Of Aligience" was more than just a stupid ritual that entered into America's culture as reaction to fears of Communism. They wish that "under God" was part of our founding documents, and keep asserting that the nation was founded on Biblical Principles. Nothing is further from the truth. The problem with this retarded theory of Christian Dominionism is that it has one thing standing in it's way -- inconvenient facts, such as the texts of our Nation's founding documents, and the quotes from our founding fathers themselves. They are so concerned with avoiding the pesky facts of US History and pushing their mythology, that they not only make up their own facts, but they even write books with bogus quotes from the founding fathers.

Here's a little test you can all perform. All you need is a text file of the United States Constitution. Search the text of the Constitution for the following words -- (1) God, (2) Jesus, (3) Christ, (4) Faith. You do not find God, Christ, Jesus, or Faith at all in the Constitution. One word you do find is "lord", but it is only in the context of a figure of speech "In the year of our Lord..." which was an official, British legal way of announcing the date. In no way does the single appearance of "Lord" in our constitution refer to how government is run. The single reference simply announces that a group of named people were present at the signing of the Constitution "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". If our founding fathers were religious, and sought to create a particularly religious nation based on Christian principles, their most basic founding documents, The Declaration Of Independence, and The Constitution Of the United States Of America, which establishes how our nation is set up to run, is pretty empty of religious language. In fact, apart from the first Amendment, Article 6, section 3, is the only other place in the constitution where religion is even mentioned, and it's not very friendly to the idea of America being a nation of religious exclusivity.

You can even try this text search on the The Declaration Of Independence, too. Apart from "Endowed By Their Creator", there is no other religious language in the document. Why all the GOP candidates are spending so much energy pushing this ridiculous mythology about America, is because they really believe that their votes depend on the nation's Jesus-Freaks. They are willing to push marginal and bogus views, promote psuedohistory, and lie to get elected, because they really believe that they can't get elected without catering to Religious Nut-jobs. This strategy will fail as soon as one interviewer challenges their assertions on the subject. All it takes is one setup question, asking the candidates if they believe that the constitution promotes Christian Values, then after they give their positive answer, all the interviewer needs to do is hit them with inconvenient facts, like the text of the Constitution and actual quotes from it's writers. They will fall all over themselves trying to explain things.

Workplace Pre-Employment Drug Screenings

One of the legacies of the Reagan Era that has been the most aggravating for workers, as well as a waste of time, money, and manpower, has been the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988. This act, and the tax breaks that companies get for participating in it, is a waste of money. The anti-drug hysteria of 1980s conservatism was just that -- a hysteria. It's always been an irrational fear of people who smoke pot, based on delusions pushed on people by conservatives and religious nuts.

I've had several jobs since 1988, and each one of them required a pre-employment drug screening. Now, I don't do drugs, and have nothing to hide from taking these tests, but every time I take them, it's a hassle. I've had to wait in lines for long periods, often having to really go bad, because I made sure I had plenty to drink. On one occasion, the people administring the tests were just kids who passed a course at one of those quickie learning centers, and they made mistakes, forcing me to pee a second time. Then, on one memorable occasion, I arrived at the location given to me by the employer, and the place was closed -- as in out of business. They sent me on an all day-trip looking for a bunch of clinics on their extremely out-dated list, each one of which was either no longer a diagnostics place, or which had moved. By the time I got to the last clinic on their list, and found it open, I was in serious pain from holding my pee all day, and I had to wait another hour before I could take the test.

It's aggravating that anyone should have to go through this just to get a job, and just so that your employer can get a tax break, paid for by your taxes, for this utter nonsense.

I call it nonsense, because almost nobody is ever failed on these tests, and often times, you can re-test. Also -- there are plenty of tried-and-true methods for passing on a test, which allow many people to cheat the system. Anyone can carry clean pee with them in a bag. As long as testing allows you to have privacy in the rest room, anyone can cheat by bringing someone else's clean pee in a catheter bag. If employers and government REALLY wanted to test for drugs effectively, they would use Hair, blood, and tissue tests, which are far more accurate, and which few people could cheat on.

Pre-employment drug screenings are a political test. It's basically an employer's or governemnt's way of placing you in a box that says "This person is unpatriotic, liberal, or some kind of trouble-maker". It's obviously not about safety, because if it were, they would want to screen for psychiatric drugs, rather than recreational ones. See, there have been far more workplace safety issues -- and annoying little workplace killing sprees -- attributed to doctor-prescribed psychiatric medication than to marijuana or methamphetamines.

If the government and employers REALLY wanted to test people for drugs that were actually a danger to workers and management, they SHOULD be screening people for Prosac, Zoloft, and Paxil, all of which have such wonderful side-effects as Suicidal tendencies, and other psychotic mood swings .

The term "Going postal" was coined after several well-publicized incidents of post-office killing sprees, perpetrated by people who were on Prosac or other doctor-prescribed antidepressants. It would make far more sense for workplaces to screen people for Prosac to keep us safe from potential killing sprees. Call it discrimination against the mentally ill, but am I wrong for not wanting to work around head-cases who will annoy me with their drama, or have breakdowns for whatever reason, or who might flip out and go on a killing Spree? I do not discriminate against race, creed, color, sex, or sexuality, but I do not believe I am wrong for discriminating against psychos.

If I was going to work somewhere, I'd prefer to work around potheads, than to work around fragile-emotioned potential psychopaths who might forget a few doses of their meds, then come to work with a duffel bag full of guns and ammo. Besides, apart from being mostly harmless while under the influence, potheads will make me look like a much better worker, because they'd be high, goofing around, and well, acting like potheads, while I was actually doing my job. Of course, this is pure fantasy -- the government's own statistics show that people who smoke pot often work just as efficiently as non-pot smokers, but I digress.

Don't keep potheads out of jobs -- keep psychotic people out of jobs, until they can be cured or controlled of their illness. How many people will have to die in workplace-related violence before government realizes that people with serious psychotic disorders are far more dangerous than someone who smokes weed occasionally.

WWW.WEIRDCRAP.COM Still Lives!

Just a reminder to all those who still like my old website, www.weirdcrap.com... The site is still up. For a few weeks, I had not visited it, and then I got an email from someone asking me if it was the end. I went to the site, and found PORN! This was no surprise, as my Brother-in-law runs a porn site off of the server that he hosts from. I had a free space on it, and several times, when he upgraded the software or the hardware, my site went kablooey, because he moved folders around, or settings had been set back to defaults.

So I decided to just move over to my own domain, and well, after delay after delay, I did it. It's back up, and well -- it was never gone, really. The files are still on my brother-in-law's server. I re-pointed the www.weirdcrap.com domain to a new host, and now the site is back, and nobody can screw it up but me.

Have fun!

Who's politicizing Bin Laden's death?

So I'm looking on my Facebook page and I see someone writing the following:

Let’s be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden!
OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American soldier, who Obama, just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to PAY, did. Obama just happened to be the one in office when our soldiers finally found OBL and took him out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!!

I commented that this idiot was essentially doing a cut and paste, and that right-wing blogs have been putting that same comment up everywhere. Of course, the idiot denied it, claiming that it was their own opinion, not something grabbed from some teabagger website. So I did a search for the comments, and found about 400 hits of the IDENTICAL wording.

Why bother lying about something like that?

The irrational cut-and-paste teabaggers don't even realize that using their own logic, Bin Laden shouldn't take credit for the World Trade Center bombing, because he didn't actually do it himself. So why did we bother to go after him?

Of course, I don't buy that kind of illogical crap. President Obama deserves as much credit for this as Ronald Reagan was given for the fall of communism. The difference, of course, is that unlike Reagan, Obama was intimately involved in the planning of the operation; Reagan just said "tear down this wall", after Gorbachev had already begun the process of transforming his country from Communism into something resembling a democracy.

Why does Obama deserve credit for what a soldier did? Well, why does Bin Laden get credit for destroying the world trade Center? Easy -- Obama, before he was elected, said he would make the capture or killing of Bin Laden a priority. He also enacted several policy changes that directly led to the killing.

* First, he ended enhanced interrogation, and went back to the old proven style of interrogation that the CIA used before George W. Bush took office.

* Second, he actually LISTENED to his military advisors, who had been telling his predicessor that the Pakistani government was giving aid to Bin Laden, and stopped sharing intelligence with the Pakistani government.

* Third, he gave orders for intelligence officers to not engage targets, and to simply gather information, follow people, until we have actual proof of Bin Laden's location.

* Lastly, he gave the orders, after intelligence officials had shown him, the pentagon, and the intelligence community the evidence, to plan for the raid.

The level of intimate involvement that the President had in the details of the raid was far more than what George W. Bush did when he went in to Afghanistan back in 2001. There simply is no way to take credit away from President Obama without being inconsistant.

If it were not for Obama, we probably would have given up on Finding Bin Laden, just as George Bush ad done in 2002, when he said "I don't know where Bin Laden is, and I don't care..."

Republicans and Democrats: Is one worse than the other?

Many people (well, nearly always conservatives and Tea-bagger types) often claim that “Republicans and Democrats are all the same” when it comes to dirty politics. The usual claim (often riding off a discussion of a Republican being caught doing ill deeds), is that The Democrats are just as bad, and that it doesn't matter if it was a Republican or a Democrat -- both groups are equal in terms of their slime factor.

Is this claim true? Are they really just as bad?

After some simple (and even after more thorough) research, you will have to agree with me that not only is it NOT true, but that there simply is no comparison to the level of slime in the Republican party versus the Democratic Party.

Let’s start with the worst examples of Republican abuses against the people of the USA.

Nixon:

• Claimed presidential powers that did not exist
  
• Watergate was the attempt by Nixon and his staff to rig the elections.
  
• The white house tapes revealed that Nixon also was trying to prevent Jewish people from public office and being appointed as court judges.
  
• The Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) and the Plumbers worked on ways to manufacture phony scandals to defame democrats, as well as engaged in illegal gangster-style money-laundering.
  
• Anti-Semitism and overt racism was Rampant in Nixon’s white house.
  
• Nixon and his staff openly discussed how to assassinate certain democratic members of congress and news reporters.
  
• Nixon’s staff contained over 40 people who were convicted of federal crimes.
  

All of the above is very well documented and reported on. There is no conjecture about it. The facts are part of the official Government investigation, the Nixon Library, and the Library of Congress.

Which Democratic President did anything even resembling the above? I’d certainly love to hear who the Democratic equal of Nixon is, because as far as I can tell, no Democratic President in the 20th century has even come close to the Nixon record.

The Republican “Southern Strategy”:

• The Southern Strategy was the Republican party’s way of gaining Southern white votes by creating fear of black people. The Policy was overtly racist.
  
• When the Democratic Party split over the Civil Rights Amendment, and hundreds of Southern Democrats left the party as it promoted the Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party Welcomed them with open arms.
  
• In 2005, The Republican party actually apologized for this racist strategy in an attempt to get black voters in the party.
  

Now a true believer in the Republican party would obviously defend his party by either denying the racism that oozes from the party, or they will try to suggest that Democrats do the same thing, except they use the fear and hatred that black voters have for white people. Some might fall for this desperation ploy, but name one democrat running for office who ever told black voters that they were going to “keep whitey down” or “punish the white man for racism”. It simply doesn’t happen, and the republicans who use this tactic to try to say that democrats are just as racist, only in reverse, fail to address the fact that historically, Republicans have been against the civil rights act, and tend to oppose laws that attempt to ensure civil liberties.

Ronald Reagan:

• Reagan made a deal with Terrorists to give them weapons in exchange for Hostages. He also allowed South American drug lords to import illegal drugs into the country (with military escorts), and the money from the sale of the drugs went to purchase arms for the Contra rebels, a CIA-created group used to terrorize Nicaragua, which was a democratic nation.
  
• Reagan’s staff contained over 138 people who were convicted of federal crimes.

Have any Democratic Presidents ever done that?

George W. Bush:

• Where to begin? How about the establishment of “free speech zones” to avoid letting the news media see protestors?
  
• The Gulf war has been analyzed in detail, and it’s no mere conjecture that Bush and his staff invented the reasons to go to war, and invented lies to support them – it’s documented fact.
  
• Bush fired 12 lawyers because they were doing their job the correct way, instead of taking direct orders from Bush to start investigations designed to defame Democratic critics of the President.
  
• Bush stuffed the military full of private advisors and military contractors, which increased the cost of using the military by 1000% or more in some cases. Work traditionally done by enlisted men is now performed by private contractors who cost hundreds of times more ($200/hour versus less than minimum wage for enlisted troops).
  
• Bush’s white house endangered the life of one of our CIA officers in order to get revenge against her husband who was openly critical of the administration.
  

What have Democratic presidents done that’s anything like that?

When one takes all of this – the big overall picture substantiated by historical facts – and asks “how do the Democrats compare”, the answer is a resounding “There is no comparison!” The Democrats simply do not have any record as a whole of the kind of civil rights-violating criminal activity, arrests, convictions, and jail time that the republicans do. You may be able to find some democrats engaging in mudslinging, and other questionable activities each election season, but the Republican Party tends to commit criminal acts and behave like mobsters by comparison.

Bill Clinton is often used as an example of someone who was “as bad as Nixon”, but the Lewinsky scandal was no abuse of federal power, and was no attempt to violate citizen’s rights. In fact, Conservative opponents of Clinton had to pretty much make up phony scandals to make Clinton look bad. The Whitewater Investigation cost us millions of dollars, and was nothing more than Republicans trying to bog Clinton down in a phony scandal. When all was said and done, Whitewater only revealed that Clinton was the victim of an illegal land deal by Jim Mcdougal. Jerry Falwell, and other members of what I like to call “the Criminally insane branch of the right wing”, even invented a “hit list” of people that Clinton allegedly has murdered to keep them from testifying against him in the Whitewater hearings. When the list is examined, though, most of the people on it are still alive.

We can even see this desire to invent artificial scandal against democrats today, as media pundit after media pundit goes on the air and rather than talk about what President Obama HAS DONE, talk about what his COULD DO or MIGHT DO.

Anyone saying that the democrats and republicans are alike is simply wrong. Comparing the Democrats to the Republicans is like comparing school children to the mafia. The Republicans are far worse,far more criminal, and have a long history of racism and criminal prosecutions that the Democrats haven’t even come close to matching.

Celebrating the Confederacy is like Germans Celebrating Hitler's Birthday

So, I was looking at the new video recommendations on my YouTube account, and one of the videos was Southern Secession and the Liberal Mind by a writer I've sometimes agreed with named The Southern Avenger. Whereas I've agreed many times with him in the past on his analysis of various political issues, this video blog of his could not be more wrong, more ugly, and just so full of the ignorance of the American Civil War, that it's just not funny.

In his video, he explains that northerners who criticize southern celebrations of confederate heroes, or loving remembrances of the Confederacy are ignorant of the "heritage" of the country, and do not appreciate how Southerners feel about their history. My brief description won't do justice to the full video, but in essence, he defends people who have "confederate pride" as simply historically informed individuals who don't want us to forget our history.

That is why he is wrong. Every argument with people who celebrate the south's part in the civil war eventually gets to the mention of slavery. If you argue the civil war with any of these confederate pride types, one of the first arguments that you will hear is that "Slavery wasn't quite as nasty as it was made out to be... You need to realize that the winners of the war got to write the history... The war was about unfair taxes, not about slavery..."

All of these arguments were promoted in the above video, but I've heard them before from other people. The people who make these arguments are just wrong, and they are wrong because they are not informed by history. The irony is that the very writings of Jefferson Davis betray the notion that the war wasn't about slavery. The Confederate papers, The Constitution of the Confederacy, and the writings of the leaders of the confederacy are very weak on taxes and economic issues, and verbose on slavery and abolitionists.

The reason that the people who celebrate the confederacy always have to avoid the issue of Slavery, and try to downplay it by lying about it's role in the war is simple. If it were not for slavery, there would never have been a civil war, and in order to make the confederacy more palatable to people who actually appreciate freedom, the ugly side of the confederacy has to be covered up, and more emphasis must me made on the alleged conservative and family values of the people who were called Confederates. Unfortunately, in doing this, historical facts are forgotten, propaganda is used, and the Southerners showing pride in their beloved history end up being more like Germans who try to celebrate the Nazis as a cherished part of their national heritage.

Yeah, I used the N word. Tough! I know that it's usually the death knell for an argument, but hear me out, because it will all make sense when my article is complete.

The writings of the Confederacy

Take the address to the confederacy that Jefferson Davis gave at Montgomery on April 29, 1861. You will note that the words, "Tax" and "Tariff" do not appear at all, nor does any language pertaining to money or finance. What does appear frequently, however, is "slavery". The entire speech is all about slavery and it's preservation. The rest of the speech concerns preparing for war against the north, which destroys the idea that the Confederacy was seeking peaceful coexistence, and trying to avoid war.

If Secession was not about racism or slavery, then why would Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens have written "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."? (From his Cornerstone speech, March 21, 1861)

If Secession was not about Slavery, then why would the constitution of the Confederacy, as well as the constitutions of Confederate states like Alabama, look pretty much just like the Constitution of the United States, with the only real differences being sections that protect slavery, and prohibit emancipation of slaves by the government?

The reality of "State's Rights"

To really grasp the utter idiocy of modern people defending the honor of the south and the Confederacy, let's look at the reality behind the so-called "State's Rights". As we know, State's Rights was the argument that the south used as a reason for breaking away from the Union. We also heard this "State's Rights" argument rear itself during the civil rights era, personified in the likes of former Alabama Governor George Wallace. Modern supporters of the confederacy will often still refer to States Rights when arguing for more respect for southern pride and the preservation of southern heritage (respecting the confederacy).

What kind of things constituted the rights that states were asking for? Essentially, the reality of state's rights seems to be that a state should be allowed to violate the rights of minorities and people whose views are less popular than the views of white protestant conservative Christians. I reach this conclusion by simply looking at the things that the south has traditionally done in defiance of the north.

• When your state wants to allow guys in white sheets to murder black people or white people who help them, and not prosecute any of them, that's your state's right.
  
• When your state wants to allow lynchings, and willfully obstructs the federal government from conducting a criminal investigation of a lynching, that's your state's right.
  
• When your state wants to prevent black people from enrolling in college to get an education, and your governor personally blocks the way to the admissions office to stop black people from enrolling in a state college, which their family's tax dollars paid for, that's your state's right.
  
• When your state wants to segregate black people and white people the way that Saudi Arabia and Iran segregate men and women in their society, that's your state's right.
  
• When your state's public buildings and many businesses have 3 types of restrooms -- men, women and "black", which both black men and women have to share, that's your state's right.
  
• When your state gerrymanders voting districts so that black neighborhoods deliberately have poorer representation (or no representation), that's your state's right.
  
• When your state actively prevents black voters from voting, by having different standards that apply only to black voters, that's your state's right.
  
• When your state allows a 14-year-old black boy to be abducted in broad daylight with plenty of eyewitnesses, then be beaten to death beyond recognition by his well-known abductors, and the trial of his killers is manipulated so that they not only get away with it, but boast of their guilt afterward, and still go unpunished, that's your state's right.
  
• When your state allows a church to be bombed, which kills four young children, and local law enforcement doesn't cooperate with the FBI's investigation, and it takes decades for the killers to be arrested and prosecuted, that's your state's right.
  

That's the stark reality of so-called state's rights. It's just a smokescreen for saying what, in plain English, would be too ugly to admit -- that you want states to be allowed to violate the constitutional rights of certain groups of citizens, plain and simple. Whenever you hear the phrase "state's rights" being bandied about by the jokers who are arguing for revision on the civil war, or trying to white-wash the racist history of America, just tell them that you understand, and fling a few of the above bullet-points at them. If it doesn't leave them speechless, it will certainly provoke their anger, and soon enough, their inner Klansman will become too obvious.

The NFL Saves Boobies

My girlfriend is a Football fan, so this Sunday morning, she was surfing the television for games to watch, and noticed something weird. All the players on the channel she stopped to watch either had pink wristbands, pink chinguards, pink socks, pink shoes, or a combination of several of these things. Then, she changed the channel, and there were two totally different teams, with scattered patches of pink on their persons. She changed the channel, and there were more pink-speckled Football players from yet two more teams. This was such an astounding and strange thing that she had to call me over to be an eyewitness, or to at least let her know that she wasn't hallucinating. It was like suddenly, the most manly sport on TV had gone all metro-sexual. I didn't notice that the cheerleaders were using pink pom-poms, probably because that's normal for women.

My reaction was "WTF?!"

"It's breast cancer awareness month," she said. Now something made sense. But this was still a ridiculous event to watch. In my liberal anti-corporate mind, I thought of the scene from Office Space, where a chain-restaurant manager chews out a female employee for not wearing enough flair on her uniform (Flair is decorations, usually on pin-on buttons, which are worn on work uniforms to advertise or put slogans into customers' heads). I pictured the corporate owners of the NFL standing their players and coaches and other workers in line, and saying something like "Now Mr. Jones, who writes a lot of our paychecks, has made a lot of donations to various funds for breast-cancer research, and wants you all to show him that we're all behind his favorite cause..."

Then I realized that this was football. I then considered how the pitch was most likely made. "You all like boobies... at least most men do. Boobies are great. But boobies are in danger from cancer, and Well, we all need to help save the boobies so that we can continue to enjoy them, and so your sons can enjoy them when they grow up." Following that, players began to discuss how they were going to show support. "I like squeezing boobies with my hands, so I'm gonna wear pink gloves!" "I like putting them in my mouth, so I'm wearing a pink chinstrap and mouth-guard!" Nobody understood the guy who decided to wear pink shoes, though...

I wouldn't be making fun of this if it wasn't made so painfully obvious that it's breast cancer awareness month, and that the NFL was supporting it. It's like the whole NFL decided that a freak show was the way to show support for Breast cancer. They somehow need to make their support look as visible as possible. Someone must have convinced them that merely donating money and holding a press conference to announce their donation was not enough, and that pink shoes and gloves were a much better way to do it. It's just such a totally American thing to do, too -- make a painfully-obvious, overly-overt, visual demonstration of your stance -- Wave a flag, paint your face, shout a slogan, be a walking, talking advertisement, so that nobody could possibly misunderstand you... or take you seriously.