What the writer isn't understanding is that white shock at the Reverend's vitriol isn't that blacks are mad at whites. Among the top fears of white bigots is fear of black fury against whites. Of course whites have known for a long time the plight of racism.

The writer is stalling for time, searching for excuses for Wright's embarrassing crazy talk, and has convinced himself he can read the minds of whites. What nauseates whites i think is the black church's fantastic paranoia born of centuries of oppression. but american human rights has been evolving rapidly in a positive direction for last few decades.

Whites have been hungry for blacks to let non-blacks hear their own blinkered discussions -- beyond racial equality -- born of ignorance, fear, and lack of will to educate themselves and their children out of their bigoted muck.

the funny thing is, the more we can see blacks openly and intelligently discuss their own failings among themselves actually makes blacks show themselves to be more human, closer to the rest of us-- as humanly flawed as blacks accuse non-blacks of being. and that takes courage but the result will be confidence. blanket excuses, apologism, and paranoia come off as robotic, defensive, insecure, and mired in the nineteenth century.

such a slip seems out of character for such an experienced campaign machine. i'm not a hill fan, but i have seen no evidence that she thinks blacks don't work hard. remember when a candidate called obama "clean"? i think he just meant "clean-cut", an old-fashioned compliment few say anymore. saying someone is one thing shouldn't automatically mean they aren't otherwise. it's jumping to conclusions to appear clever and a step ahead of everyone else, but it is just illogical.

glitches may be revealing, but it seems a little hysterical, so let's be a little more circumspect about verbal gaffes.

lies is a different matter.

i want to use this opportunity to comment on women who insult other women for not voting for hillary solely because she's female. "defeating miscegeny" was one woman's reasoning, by which i assume she means sexism, which she didn't say perhaps because an anti-male vote is also sexism.

in fact if approved, then passed by voters, missouri will arrange a "republican proof-of-citizenship holiday" during any election period so that "election control" is guaranteed ("voter control" isn't really that important to them).

conservatives understand business.

rather than retool their phobias of *certain kinds of* science -- computer, aeronautics, farming, or internal-combustion apprently aren't among them (but dirt in the form of earth or sex is biblically referenceable), they must join us on the energy independence gravytrain.

already investors are scouring patents worldwide for cheap clean energy/cheap fuel cell technologies but have a limited time to develop existing and new ideas before corporations start killing competing innovations.

i think "climate change" replaced "global warming" because things are doing more than just warming. melting polar ice effects the jetstream/north atlantic drift, causing cooling but also instability.

and tell 'em hooty the owl is in job, or something.

let me also add that, in addition to some conservatives, some liberals probably believe the sun revolves around the earth too.

this issue and this article are meant to provoke and you're all taking the bait beautifully.

to further put gender labels in context, in french, penis is feminine and vagina is masculine.

with today's wonders of science and medicine, women fix and change themselves like a surreal painting. in this case a woman goes "mixed media" like a collage. to me it's all like physiological art. then the critics, both positive and negative, chime in!

by my calling the subject a woman above i was referring to his original female body.

her masculine appearance and pregnancy, if safe, may be shocking at first, but i support him. and thanks should go to the doctors who made it a safe birth.

and best of luck to the family. the fact that the wife had her husband's womb to use is itself a charming story.

the previous poster has it right that religion creates fear and enemies to help raise money. you can bet that right wing think tanks are right now figuring ways to get the gay dollar openly and directly.

BUT they'll propbably do it in such a CREEPY way that i'll regret being their new demographic fetish, or being gay in the first place. OR WORSE, they'll claim to have wanted us all along! and bless 'em, they'll probably get some of us to join 'em! hopefully not before 2050 or so after i'm dead. will they try to switch us after hooking us, or will they pull us aside after sunday service to ask us for kinky ideas?

birds of a feather, circle the wagons, etc.. groups ALWAYS give their own a free pass. this applies to any group. it only encourages steadfastness.

the parents didn't reject bristol and they didn't end the pregnancy, all making them appear noble and consistent to their supporters.

avoid talking sex; talk baby.

bristol had straight sex, making it a superior state than lesbianism, which would be a choice anyway, right?. (would they reject an out gay child?)

Or should I say "Juno 2"??!!

chris matthews kept interrupting her answers to a good direct first question with additional garbled versions of what he already asked, which might have filled silent broadcast moments but prevented bachmann from addressing her craziness more to the point and would have gotten even better crazy out of her.

the same thing happened with couric when palin was moaning and searching for an answer about how press criticism made her feel, and couric filled the pause with suggested answers that she just repeated. it could have been her most delicious deer-in-headlights moment -- a gutteral sound bite.

these two women are fourteen-fiftyniners, as in 14:59, as in at the end of their political fifteen minutes of fame. but their extremist media pundit clocks start ticking soon.