In which I admit I’m a Republican.

I don’t talk much about my personal politics here on That’s Church because as we’ve previously discussed, I might as well just fling myself into an active volcano because it’d be less painful than reading 500 comments that range from, “How does it feel to be so stupid?” to, “I’ll pray for you and your lost soul and the lost souls of your children and also, I hope you get run over by a bus and when you do, I’ll continue to pray that hell doesn’t burn your soul to Extra Crispy.”

But this Sunday while reading an article about the Port Authority service cuts that went into effect today, I was first shocked to see the 67J was cut, because I assumed that was a pretty profitable and popular route. But I was the most shocked that transit union president Patrick McMahon said this to the media:

Dan Onorato — union buster,” Mr. McMahon said. “That’s the label you will have whatever else you do in your life. You stink. You’re a Republican.”

The very day I outed myself as Virginia Montanez instead of PittGirl, Chad Hermann at the Radical Middle latched on to this letter to the editor I wrote when George Bush was re-elected, wondering how my readers were going to like me knowing I was a Republican. This resulted in some uproar from readers who were shocked I ever voted for a “war criminal.” Yes. WAR CRIMINAL. I voted for him because as you already know ME LOVE KILLING! GRRRRR.

And for those times when I might be talking to a reader or new friend who is a Democrat, perhaps over a drink, and I utter the words, “I’m a conservative,” I can see something happen in their eyeballs. Like their brain seized and then slammed the door behind their eyes. A shutter. A flutter. I can practically hear their train of thought as it screams past the brain station. “OMG. She’s a Republican. She hates gay people. She loves Sarah Palin. She probably agrees with the Westboro nutjobs. She hates freedom. She loves the rich and hates the poor. She hates good. She hates the flag. She hates black people. She is what’s wrong with America. SHE PROBABLY KILLS BABY EAGLES FOR FUN AND THEN STUFFS THEM AND USES THEM TO SCOUR HER POTS AND PANS.”

Yeah. None of that is true. But please, those of you that think that, please continue to paint me Evil with your giant self-righteous paint brush of Truth.

I’m used to it.

I live in Pittsburgh, a Democratic stronghold. Almost every single one of my friends is a Democrat. I spent a decade working for two non-profits in which almost every employee was a staunch democrat. Each election I’m  bombarded on twitter by tweet after tweet about how every Republican is evil and how every problem can be traced back to Republicans and about how Republicans are not worth the filth they must roll around in. (I’m sure there are Republicans on twitter who say the same things about Dems. I think I just follow mostly Dems or something.)

I have learned to ignore it. It doesn’t upset me. I still like those people. They’re still my friends. I hope my actions will eventually prove to them that not all Republicans are radical evil-doers.

Unlike Mr. McMahon, I don’t believe every Republican is a union-busting stinky poo-pants. I’m all for unions helping their members earn fair wages and benefits. I’m not all for unions being bullies that demand more than most of America’s workers are getting and who give unions a bad name by refusing to allow poor employees to be fired.

I don’t believe every Democrat stinks either. I know too many amazing Democrats.

My personal politics have me in the middle, really. There are certain issues I side with the Dems on and certain issues I side with Republicans on. But if you put me on the scale, I probably lean more to the right than the left. Somewhere, my father is congratulating himself for raising me right.

Until I start defending Obama to him, and then he thinks about all the ways  he went wrong.

But yes. I’m a registered Republican. Or as Patrick McMahon might spell it, “FILTH-BATHING GAY-HATING UNION-BUSTING BABY EAGLE KILLER. WHO STINKS.”

Mr. McMahon has taken a dangerous road here. Not just labeling every Republican as a fool. A union-buster. A loser. But going all playground bully/Top Gun sniffing, “You stink,” on a whole lot of Republicans who are riding the buses, who don’t agree with the service cuts, who want nothing more than the Port Authority and the county to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial to the employees of PAT and the people they’re driving around town.

Maybe you don’t know this, Mr. McMahon, but Republicans use public transportation too.

Enough with the name-calling. The painting with strokes so broad you can barely lift the giant brush.

The childishness.

Uncalled for. Unnecessary. Unproductive. Uncouth.

And as far as I’m concerned, you can stick it up your nose with a rubber hose.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, there are baby eagles that must needs die. I have dirty dishes.





258 Comments


  1. Pidge
    April 4, 2011 9:21 pm

    I’m a callous fucker. I admit it. I don’t want or expect people to rely on my generosity for them to carve out a better life. I give to charities that I agree with, and I refuse to give to ones who have a mission I disagree with. I believe government has an obligation to provide basic services to the people, I believe in hard work and sacrifice, I believe in not living above your means, and I believe in not using tax dollars to subsidize a special interest group’s perks.

    It used to be that would get me branded a Republican. Now I’m a leftist. The world truly is screwed.

    I notice how you nicely sidestepped the points that it’s not the poor who would benefit most from this. Very clever, that.



  2. facie
    April 5, 2011 8:48 am

    Since a few of you mentioned school, I wanted to include a link so you could see how your PA school district is doing in terms of grades, attendance, drop-out rates, etc. I have some pretty strong feelings in this area, but unfortunately no good answers.
    http://www.pde.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pennsylvania_department_of_education/7237.



  3. Dan (Not Onorato)
    April 5, 2011 9:41 am

    I actually agree with pidge…you want a better education for your child? Move to a better school district. The voucher program is compete BS in my opinion.

    There is no reason that tax dollars should be spent bussing kids to a school outside of their local school district so junior can go and use their resources.

    And dont even get me started on cyber-schooling…



  4. NewBurgher
    April 5, 2011 9:51 am

    PIDGE – being against school vouchers is typically a liberal position, I don’t think I’ve met a Republican who was opposed to that idea, maybe you’re the first one!

    I actually agree with almost everything in your last post. Sorry for the bow-out of the discussion, kid had to be put to bed. Only thing I don’t agree with (besides the schools of course) is that the gov’t has an obligation to provide basic services. The private sector used to do that, and I believe still should. I think the local church/food pantry/charity etc would do a far superb job in that department, and do it with compassion and accountability. But that ain’t likely to happen again anytime soon.

    It doesn’t matter to me if the “middle class” would benefit the most from school vouchers. I don’t champion this mainly for the poor, although I think they would greatly benefit, and as a result, so would society. I mainly champion it because this is America, and I think freedom would dictate the government not telling me which school my kid has to go to, all the while taking my money for said school.

    DAN – school vouchers, as far as I know, don’t typically mean sending your kid to another district; I think that would be impossible. Typically, it’s moving your kid to a private school, religious or secular, in your current area. I think it could work, but there would have to be common sense restrictions in place.

    FACIE was right on the mark. There are no easy answers. But it’s pathetic to see our money being spent on schools where kids are routinely assaulted, need metal detectors, and most drop out, etc. I don’t see why as a society we have to accept that, just because “it’s public” and so it’s a sacred cow.



  5. Butcher's Dog
    April 5, 2011 10:05 am

    @Pidge: Church! However, unless the renters are in public housing they’re paying real estate taxes through their rent payments. Because the landlord is paying those taxes and he’s sure not letting that come out of the profit.

    All the points made about special needs kids, utility payments, maintenance costs and the like are really valid. And people can move to a “better” school district. The playing field is not level between public and private schools. In fact, take behavior as one example. The public school basically has to take the kid no matter what. There are limits on how much time a kid can be out-of-school suspended. The private school? They basically say “Shape up right this instant or we’ll send you back to your public school.” Yep, that’s fair.

    Sports teams and extracurriculars are another issue where fairness doesn’t apply. Public schools can’t really recruit. Private schools have to recruit to maintain their populations. And the point that private/homeschooled are pushing to use their public school activities (marching band or theatre productions) is a valid one. You want all this school has to offer? Go to school here!

    OK, I’m done for now. I’m out most of the day, so I’ll look in again tomorrow and see where we all stand. BTW, I called the “over” soon after Scarehouse Scott made his selection at 180! Just sayin’.



  6. CC
    April 5, 2011 10:15 am

    This is a great discussion and everyone has very well thought out, defensible opinions. as Facie stated this is a complex issue and I certainly do not know the solutions but it seems to me the school voucher program is great in theory but could not work in reality. For instance, wouldn’t all parents in say, Wilkinsburg, opt to send there kids to the local Catholic school? First, this would leave Wilkinsburg with even a smaller tax base and, most importantly, the Catholic school could not possibly absorb all of the children who opted in. This would create a scenario where the Catholic school would have to pick and choose who gets in and the ones left behind would be even more disadvantaged.

    There is always a disconnect between reality and theory. Look at the Obama Presidency. I voted for him but he certainly was quick to learn that there is a big difference between what he campaigned on and what was practical. Same thing with the Tea Party folks. It is nice to say cut, cut, cut but harder to pick what to cut.



  7. NewBurgher
    April 5, 2011 10:38 am

    CC – I would like to give the voucher theory at least a try. As for your Wilkinsburg question, yes, probably what would happen first is a crowd out at the local private schools, but I would imagine, that the private schools would react by either renting more space, if not immediately then surely by the following year, and start making expansion plans to accommodate. There might be a lag, but a lag is better than perpetuity of horrible education, isn’t it?

    A relative’s child goes to a local school district which extols it’s excellence on its website. Yet this kid reports daily on fights – violent fights – in her school. Lockdowns because of the fights. Being stuck on the bus in the parking lot because a fight broke out on the sidewalk and no one is allowed to leave. In that kind of environment, I doubt there’s a lot of conducive high quality education going on inside. I don’t know why her parents don’t move, I’ve asked myself that, because that’s what I would do, but they don’t. BUT — the kid would be going to the private HS if they had the money, they had already footed the bill for K-8 in private, and it was a sacrifice for them. But the HS is out of reach. This is where the question comes in – would it be a bad thing if so many people moved out of the HS, with their funds, to where it could no longer operate? And might not it encourage the public school to improve in that case? Where is the school’s incentive to improve, when they have no competition?

    I feel it’s worth a try, even though it would be difficult. Every kid educated adequately and primed to be a good citizen, can only help our country in the long term. It has generational implications of get off welfare, work hard, and self responsibility. And don’t we all know, that what we’re doing now in inner city schools, is not working? So why do we allow it to go on?



  8. bucdaddy
    April 5, 2011 10:43 am

    Pidge, You and I are more in tune than I initially thought.

    Just on a side issue someone brought up: We had a sports transfer case come up in my town this basketball season that ended up in court, where it was eventually decided in favor of the player. The long version is below.*

    In a supposedly free country, I don’t get why it shouldn’t be perfectly fine for an athlete to attend whichever school he/she wants to attend within the home district. If my kid is interested in engineering and School A has great science and math teachers and School B doesn’t, I would do everything in my power to get my kid into School A. If my kid has a chance to be an outstanding basketball player and ride a scholarship to a good college, and School A has an excellent coach and School B has a lousy coach, why should I be forced to send my kid to School B or have to move across my street or town, just because that’s where someone drew an arbitrary boundary line? School B whimpers and complains that it doesn’t get the good players? Then get better coaches.

    And I doubt the kid who gets to play for School B now instead of riding the bench behind a star has much complaint.

    *–Player A had attended middle school in the feeder system of School A, but when he hit ninth grade he enrolled in private School B and attended two years. As a junior he attended private School C (Kiski Academy, as it turns out), and for his senior year went back to private School B.

    The state association ruled him ineligible under a complicated rule called “transfer back,” which as best I understand it, means if you opt out of the system and then want to come back, you have to come back to your “home” (essentially eighth-grade) school, even though he never attended that high school.

    The court ruled that the rule could stand but that it was misapplied in his case, and let him play. His school lost in the state championship game.



  9. infinonymous
    April 5, 2011 9:12 pm

    “Democrats have never disfavored babies.” A fetus is not a baby, not even in a fairy tale.

    Democrats push health care, education and nutrition for children. They push consumer product safety for children. Calling them anti-baby is dopey.

    Using “pro-life” to describe someone who supports the current implementation of the death penalty, or doesn’t apologize for the clustermuck in Iraq, or was comfortable with torture and endless detention, also seems silly.



  10. infinonymous
    April 5, 2011 9:17 pm

    Anthony Andolini: The next time a liberal has anything intelligent to say, it will be the first time. Hell, the Current Democrat in the White House thinks we have 57 states. I am tired of working to have my money taking and redistributed to somebody else, all the while you liberal democrats continue attacking Republicans, meanwhile, when we work and pay taxes you receive your food stamps!

    Your lack of familiarity with standard English, coupled with the lack of self-awareness betrayed by your crack about intelligence, is striking.

    Stick to the shallow end of the pool, Anthony. Pigeons, heartthrobs and the like.



  11. NewBurgher
    April 5, 2011 9:32 pm

    “Stick to the shallow end of the pool, Anthony…”

    That’s a pretty tough indictment coming from someone who lacks the basest knowledge of human development and biology. “A fetus is not a baby, not even in a fairy tale.”

    It’s nonsensical to mix a medical term with a colloquial term. A woman 7 months pregnant is carrying a “fetus.” Another woman who gives birth in her 7th month of pregnancy delivers a “baby.” I’m sorry – what exactly is the fairy tale here? Besides I mean, the idiocy of giving the same developmental age human being two different classifications. One, a “choice” that can still be killed, the other “a baby” – personhood – who now has legal protection.

    That, is the schizophrenia of the pro-abortion movement. If a “fetus” is not a human being – I have yet to get a reasonable answer from any pro-choice person of just exactly what it is then.



  12. Heather
    April 6, 2011 12:48 am

    @Butcher’s Dog – You said “And the point that private/homeschooled are pushing to use their public school activities (marching band or theatre productions) is a valid one. You want all this school has to offer? Go to school here!”

    Those homeschooling parents are paying for the public school education (via their tax dollars) even though they opt not to use it. That’s kinda of a win for the school – money without the extra student to deal with. What’s the big deal if that kid wants to come in and play the tuba? The parents are paying for that opportunity (among others), aren’t they? I’ve never understood this gripe, though I’ve heard from many homeschooling families that it is a common problem.



  13. Heather
    April 6, 2011 12:48 am

    I really hate it when I hit submit and then notice my poor grammar. Grrr….



  14. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 8:06 am

    NewBurger:

    Does the scientific opposition to abortion on which you rely extend to a seven-week-, seven-day-, seven-hour-, seven-minute- or seven-second-old (after conception) baby?



  15. Anthony Andolini
    April 6, 2011 9:15 am

    1. infinonymous Says:
    April 5th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    Anthony Andolini: The next time a liberal has anything intelligent to say, it will be the first time. Hell, the Current Democrat in the White House thinks we have 57 states. I am tired of working to have my money taking and redistributed to somebody else, all the while you liberal democrats continue attacking Republicans, meanwhile, when we work and pay taxes you receive your food stamps!
    Your lack of familiarity with standard English, coupled with the lack of self-awareness betrayed by your crack about intelligence, is striking.
    Stick to the shallow end of the pool, Anthony. Pigeons, heartthrobs and the like.
    Conception) baby?

    I apologize for my errors in the comment that you cited as you are correct that my own attention to detail was lacking. As far as the shallow end of the pool goes, you reflect your own shallowness in your comments regarding a baby vs. a fetus. At the moment of conception a life is being born, and since I am pro-life when it comes to abortion as an unborn child cannot protect his or herself and needs a voice. In other posts above people talk about the difficulties of adoption, perhaps if there were not so many babies KILLED in the womb adoption would be slightly easier. As far as Iraq, torture, and endless detention goes, that was a result of an attack on America almost ten years ago via 4 airplanes that were hijacked and used as missiles killing over 3000 Americans on OUR SOIL. As a result, a military response was necessary to remove the threat from society posed by Al-Qaeda, The Taliban, and Iraq. What do you suggest to deal with this threat, perhaps sing happy songs and hold hands?



  16. Anthony Andolini
    April 6, 2011 9:23 am

    Damn it, I did it again! I quit posting anymore as I keep writing and re-reading and still screwed up the following sentence: At the moment of conception a life is being born, and since I am pro-life when it comes to abortion as an unborn child cannot protect his or herself and needs a voice.

    Correction: At the moment of conception a life is being born, and since I am pro-life when it comes to abortion as an unborn child cannot protect his or herself and needs a voice.

    The fact that I keep screwing this up is proof to me that criticizing anyone for grammar or spelling on a blog is asinine and not reflective of one’s intelligence. In addition, we all have very valid concerns over issues and everyone has their own belief system so anyone I criticized directly in an offensive manner I apologize for that as well.



  17. Anthony Andolini
    April 6, 2011 9:25 am

    The Strikethrough on “since” in the correction did not work!

    Oh well



  18. NewBurgher
    April 6, 2011 9:33 am

    infinonymous “Does the scientific opposition to abortion on which you rely extend to a seven-week-, seven-day-, seven-hour-, seven-minute- or seven-second-old (after conception) baby?”

    Of course it does, and it’s exactly the same scientific opposition. I notice you didn’t offer an explanation of what a “fetus” is, if it’s not a human being. It’s quite obvious why, it’s because we all know it’s a human being. Just a very very small human being; and whatever it looks like at 1 month (or one second) in utero, well, that’s what a human being looks like at one month or one whatever! Same way that an infant doesn’t look like a 90 year old. For pete’s sake, I was once a fetus, as were you. Based on that alone, we human beings deserve full protection, from day one to the final moments. Once you install an artificial line of where “personhood” worthy of legal protection starts, than you have set a precedent that the next person can come in and change, according to their whim. I really do not like being subject to people’s subjective whims. And where do we stop?

    There is an “ethicist” at Princeton, who has publicly taught that he believes a newborn shouldn’t be declared a “person” until two weeks after birth. Yes, according to him, I could have smothered my daughter 5 days after her full term birth and called it my “right to choose.” Yes, I know he’s extreme, but he’s also a natural product of what happens once we start setting artificial definitions on who a “person” is and isn’t. After all, the 5 day old is no more “viable” on its own, then a 5 month old in utero, is it?

    The pro-life positions actually guard more than just the unborn, they guard us all, they guard you, they guard our humanity.



  19. Anthony Andolini
    April 6, 2011 9:44 am

    NewBurgher:
    Well said!



  20. Dan (Not Onorato)
    April 6, 2011 10:06 am

    @204 NewBurgher. I believe you are correct in the fact that the students stay within the district.

    I apologize. Once I read what you wrote I remember that Ive heard that as well.



  21. Butcher's Dog
    April 6, 2011 10:25 am

    @Heather: as a former high school director of theatre for 26 years, here’s my objection to letting those home-schooled in my district participate:
    The kids in the building have rules, including (in our school) being physically present for a minimum of half-a-day (the second half). They have minimum GPA standards. There are also communication issues concerning possible changes to rehearsal schedules. And selection to the cast often depended upon more than just ability to sing the notes or pronounce the words (we did more than just musicals). I had most of them in class, so I could tell how responsible they were. Also, I taught the whole child. I pretty much knew if there were traumas outside of the theatre that could influence the kid’s life and, eventually, performance. If you’re home-schooled, I don’t get any of that. Maybe I know your family and maybe I don’t. Maybe you’re allowed to sleep until noon while the kids who walk through the door every day have to be there earlier than that. And if you have any kind of significant role and turn up missing at the last minute, the entire project is shot. And for what? Because your helicopter parent (in many cases) doesn’t want you sitting in my class? If I’m told I must let you audition (and I never was, but I’ve been out 5 years now), then I’ll let you audition. The chance of you getting a part, though, is pretty slim.



  22. Butcher's Dog
    April 6, 2011 10:36 am

    @bucdaddy: I’ll address the sports issue now. If everything were cut and dried as you say, there’d be some justice in your position. It would, probably at best, lead to magnet schools where the science and math nerds would all go one place, the artsy types would go another, and the jocks would all congregate in still a third. I’m personally against that concept, by the way. I came from a small school, went to a small college, and taught for 37 years in a small school. I think the kid who can play in the band, sing in the choir, work on the yearbook staff, run track (for instance), and still be in a play while maintaining a strong academic schedule is far better off than any specialist. I have a sneaking but unconfirmed suspicion that fewer bridges would collapse, say, if engineers did more than just math and science.

    But we’re working mostly with those helicopter parents mentioned in my post to Heather above. Been to a little league baseball game lately? Seen any parents who weren’t convinced that their kid was destined for big-league greatness? That’s the attitude that school recruitment of athletes taps into. Lord knows there are a myriad of youth programs and AAU teams for that “superior” athlete to use outside the school season. The PIAA is at least attempting to maintain some kind of order to the whole system instead of letting anarchy reign.

    As is pretty obvious, I’m big on community as it relates to school and the school activities. Educationally I think it teaches kids to work together, to grow together, and to determine who among their peers can be counted on and who can’t. Those are, I think, valuable lessons for later in life. Anyway, that’s much more than my two cents.



  23. CC
    April 6, 2011 10:37 am

    Andolini – Iraq was the result of four planes used as missiles? WOW. That kind of makes every argument you have here irrelevant.

    It was actually because there were weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait, not that.

    It was because a group of overzealous, cowardly politicians who never served or fought in a war (can you say deferrments) used our courageous troups as pawns for there own self interest.



  24. NewBurgher
    April 6, 2011 10:44 am

    CC — I have mixed feelings about Iraq, but I completely fail to see what “self interest” you’re referring to, as relates to the decision that Bush and Congress made to declare war on Iraq. I’m not trying to be an a$$ here, I truly don’t see what they gained from it, besides a lifetime of ridicule and name calling. But, as Bill Murray says in “Stripes” – *I’m willing to learn.* So educate me.



  25. Steve
    April 6, 2011 10:57 am

    We might as well shoot the moon on this one.

    Global warming?
    Gun Control?
    War on Drugs?

    How about an up or down vote on the following (you are only allowed a yes or no answer?

    Iraq?
    Afghanistan?
    Libya?

    Did I leave anything out?



  26. Steve
    April 6, 2011 10:59 am

    Duh!

    Economy?

    Discuss.



  27. bucdaddy
    April 6, 2011 11:04 am

    B-Dog,

    There are already magnet schools, for instance, for the artistically gifted. But I hope they don’t spend the WHOLE day wrapped in their specialty, just given an emphasis on it. Or is that not the way they work?

    What I’m getting at is, why couldn’t a magnet school for the athletically gifted also produce well-rounded students? Are they turning out one-dimensional idiots at Central Catholic? (I don’t know, I’m asking.)

    I just don’t think it’s entirely fair that athletes have to jump through transfer hoops that I’m not sure a student/budding thespian who wants to go to School B instead of School A because the theater teacher is far superior doesn’t.



  28. Anthony Andolini
    April 6, 2011 11:18 am

    CC:
    I love how you attempt to parse my comments to suit your own need. I did not state that Iraq was behind 9/11. I simple mentioned them in a sentence with The Taliban and Al-Qaida as those 3 were the principle targets in the “war on terror”. However, removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq was a result of September 11th. If 9/11 never happens, the USA never has the thought to remove WMD’s from Iraq. Once the War on terror was launched and the Taliban and Al-Qaida began scurrying from Afghanistan, the next logical military action was to depose of Saddam Hussein and Iraq as both US and Britain Intelligence believed Saddam had and would use (as he already had) WMD’s against his people and quite possibly, the U.S.

    Speaking of self-interests, if Iraq was self-serving for cowardly politicians who never served, what exactly is President Obama (President Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard)? President Obama attacked President Bush during the 2008 Campaign for all of his policies in protecting America, yet President Obama has continued everyone of President Bush’s policies now has intervened in Libya with the US military. President Bush had the approval of US citizens and authorization from the U.S. Congress. President Obama has neither of these.



  29. empirechick
    April 6, 2011 11:27 am

    NewBurgher – there were absolutely no WMDs in Iraq, as admitted by Bush43 himself. As justification for going to war, we used intelligence that was so flimsy even our closest allies the British didn’t believe much of it(yellow cake uranium, operative CurveBall). Doug Feith and others NeoCon advisors had long advocated for Saddam’s removal, and if Bush family biographers are to be believed, Bush43 had inferiority complex issues with Bush41. Maybe son decided this was his chance to one-up the old man and take out Saddam, the one thing daddy hadn’t done in the first Gulf War.

    I don’t think any president sends troops into battle lightly, but when the top two guys in charge of making that decision skipped out of their own military obligations (spotty Air National Guard service and 6 Vietnam deferrments between them), have long financial ties with the ‘military industrial complex’, and used admittedly flawed intelligence to justify their position, it’s not hard to think their may have been some personal and financial influences at work.



  30. Monty
    April 6, 2011 11:33 am

    Unsubscribe.



  31. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 11:34 am

    NewBurgher: Of course it does, and it’s exactly the same scientific opposition. I notice you didn’t offer an explanation of what a “fetus” is, if it’s not a human being. It’s quite obvious why, it’s because we all know it’s a human being.

    It must be difficult for you to live in the United States, believing that most Americans are cold-blooded murderers. The hatred toward America must be intensified by the blood on Americans’ hands from Iraq, and from the immoral manner in which the death penalty has been administered by Americans. I can’t imagine how you tolerate the relatively recent American experience with torture.



  32. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 11:39 am

    Anthony Andolini: Once the War on terror was launched and the Taliban and Al-Qaida began scurrying from Afghanistan, the next logical military action was to depose of Saddam Hussein

    Hunch: Your English instructor also taught logic.



  33. CC
    April 6, 2011 11:47 am

    Thanks, Empirechick, you saved me some typing.

    I do not try and parse words. You said 9/11 = Iraq War. It simply is not true. I personally do not think any intelligence agency really believed they had WMDs and were capable of attacking the U.S. There were way too many contradictory, relaiable sources indicating they did not have them. It was manufactured intelligence to get us into Iraq.

    And, I think Haliburton has profited handsomely from the Iraq War.



  34. Anthony Andolini
    April 6, 2011 12:00 pm

    I am shocked, it took 233 comments until someone mentioned Haliburton…Amazingly, Haliburton profited under President Clinton and is still profiting under resident Obama.



  35. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 12:26 pm

    NewBurgher: Yes, I know he’s extreme, but he’s also a natural product of what happens once we start setting artificial definitions on who a “person” is and isn’t.

    Hunch: Mr. Andolini’s logic instructor was yours, too.



  36. LaughingOutLoud
    April 6, 2011 12:46 pm

    @infinonymous: I’ve read a bunch of opinions from you, but have yet to see you actually put forth an argument other than “You’re wrong, because I’m right.”

    My 6 year old has better debating skills.

    I’d disagree with @ empirechick’s assertions, but you know, she’s at least brought things up in a manner that allows for discussion and debate. You, on the other hand, would have to put some effort into actually rising to the level of an entertaining troll.



  37. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 12:54 pm

    LaughingOutLoud:

    You wish to debate standard English?

    Shall we being with hyphens?



  38. bucdaddy
    April 6, 2011 1:03 pm

    Nice going, infinonymous.



  39. Butcher's Dog
    April 6, 2011 1:08 pm

    Maybe we could begin with hyphens rather than being with them. Just sayin’.

    @bucdaddy: your understanding of how magnet schools works fits in perfectly with mine. And two of us can’t be wrong, right? While they don’t spend the whole day on the specialty, I’m not sure how in-depth the non-specialties get. Can’t really conceive AP Chemistry and, say, Physics fitting in with a half-day on stage, but I guess it could happen. I’m basically opposed to specialization until it becomes necessary. I’m thinking grad school at the earliest. (And, yes, there should be academic majors at the undergrad level.)

    The simple answer to why the athletically gifted have to jump through those hoops is that their activity is regulated, in Pennsylvania by the PIAA and its subsidiary district boards of control. Why? Who knows? Sports and the results of the games seem to attract a lot more attention than the fall play does. Maybe it’s because the results are displayed in lights at the end of the event. I’m also thinking that this hypethetical athletic magnet school, while it won’t probably turn out one-dimensional idiots, is going to have limits on after-school homework loads. The golf and tennis academies one reads about would be the closest existing equivalent to what we’re talking about that I’ve heard of. And none of them seem to encourage hours after class in the lab or library, at least from what I’ve read.



  40. LaughingOutLoud
    April 6, 2011 1:10 pm

    @infinonymous : Ha! OK, that, at least, was entertaining.



  41. astroidb612
    April 6, 2011 1:12 pm

    can we go back to talking about pigeons, jeff reed, and self-united husbands, please?



  42. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 1:12 pm

    Nice going? Has this thread gone anywhere? Excepting some discussion of public school issues, I sensed it was still in park or neutral.



  43. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 1:13 pm

    Maybe we could begin with hyphens rather than being with them. Just sayin’.

    Nicely played.



  44. NewBurgher
    April 6, 2011 1:14 pm

    Infinonymous and any others: interesting, but false. I, in fact, love America. I’m a first generation American, born in a communist country, whose parents defected in the 70’s when I was a little kid. We immigrated legally, as political refugees, and I have been a citizen since I was 18 years old. One of the main reasons I get so worked up over US politics is because I truly believe, like Reagan said, that America is the “last stand on earth” – if we screw this up, there is nowhere else to go. Even for all its faults, this is the last decent country, and even though my “homeland” is now a free country and I could return, I am now an American first, and I’ll never leave here.

    Most Americans have never truly examined the abortion issue. AS IN – look at fetal development, read arguments against it posed by ethicists, view the results of all different types and fetal age abortions, understand the law in its fullness (Roe v Wade legalized abortion through all 9 months), etc. If you’re not informed, but most importantly, if you *don’t commit the act* you can hardly be accused of *murder.* This applies to most of the women who get abortions, the parents or spouses or boyfriends who might pressure them into the abortion, and in the old days, probably even some of the doctors.

    It is interesting though that you use the word *murder.* Murder is, technically, the killing of an innocent. The unborn, the victim of a crime, you if someone breaks into your house and kills you. These are all acts of murder.

    Death penalty could be murder, if the convicted person is innocent. If they’re not, and they are executed, they are killed, and it is not the same thing as putting to death an *innocent.* Same way if someone breaks into your house, you shoot them and they’re dead. You’re not guilty of murder, but you did kill them. It’s fairly simple to understand; and it helps the discussion if you make this necessary distinction.

    Wars – I know innocents die in wars. Innocents die in every war. Your judgment must be that the war in Iraq was unjust, so the killing of any Iraqi, guilty or not, is murder. I don’t debate the war in Iraq because even as a Repub I have mixed feelings on it (gasp!). I LOATHE war, and yet, I wasn’t privy to the reasons as to why we went to war with them. I don’t make accusations I can’t substantiate with *FACTS* — like that Bush made money off the war, or he had a “complex” or whatnot. If I remember correctly, Bush did not scream “CHARGE!” and we invaded Iraq. He went to Congress, and again – I believe it to be FACTUAL that Congress agreed with him, including a substantial number of Democrats. Somehow, that important fact frequently gets left out of the Iraq discussion. Somewhere online you can find Katie Curic interviewing Condi Rice and she asks her the WMD question. Look it up, it was informative.

    In short, I’ll tell you the same thing I tell tree huggers. I already love nature, and I already loathe war and don’t like the death penalty. But please don’t ask me to *ardently* care about trees and murderers behind bars, when you don’t give a flying crap about the 1.2 million unborn who lose their lives each year; mostly for convenience sake, due to our unjust laws.

    Typically, conversations such as these are much easier when both sides make a decision to not “assume malice.” As in, I don’t assume that you’re a heartless monster because you’re “pro-choice,” so it would be nice to have the same respect returned and I not get accused of hating America when you know nothing about me.

    If you never have, I would ask that you go and really look at the abortion issue from the other side. You may not change your mind, but even if you don’t, at least you’ll have given all sides of the discussion a fair hearing. And that’s never a bad thing.



  45. Dan (Not Onorato)
    April 6, 2011 1:16 pm

    How have we gone from Democrats-Republicans to Schools to when does life begin to the war on terror to debating standard english (and not cover spelling)

    Nice work.

    Cant wait til Ginnys back so we can say “good day” to this post.



  46. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 1:20 pm

    can we go back to talking about pigeons, jeff reed, and self-united husbands, please?

    A spendid proposition. If anyone wishes to debate abortion or other substantive issues, or even the stupidity and unreasonableness of liberals or conservatives or Republicans or Democrats or libertarians or non-partisans, we could do that at Infinonymous.



  47. NewBurgher
    April 6, 2011 1:22 pm

    Dan – yeah I’m ready for some fun as well. Isn’t she due back this afternoon?



  48. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 1:24 pm

    New Burgher: If you never have, I would ask that you go and really look at the abortion issue from the other side. You may not change your mind, but even if you don’t, at least you’ll have given all sides of the discussion a fair hearing. And that’s never a bad thing.

    I believe reasonable people can differ on many, or most, issues involving abortion.



  49. infinonymous
    April 6, 2011 1:27 pm

    If anyone visits Infinonymous for the first time today, the most recent content likely would create a misleading impression. Search “Ravenstahl” or “Doven” or “List-Maker” before developing any conclusion.



  50. NewBurgher
    April 6, 2011 1:28 pm

    Infinonymous: who knew!?! You have a blog!