"Six Republican U.S. senators had even vowed to cut federal funding for several Berkeley programs, such as Alice Waters' Chez Panisse Foundation, which provides school lunches at Berkeley's public schools." So this 'moral, family values' party will willingly, in a fit of pique, take food out of the mouths of children because The Berkeley City Council DARED to say something negative about their beloved military industrial complex. What a bunch of pandering, fear mongering, amoral lowlifes.

Yeah, yeah. THAT'S the ticket! Context is everything! Shuster's wife is a butt fuckin whore! But, I mean that in the new, 'good' way. Yeah. Hey, I'm just speaking live here. Sometimes, when we speak live, we slip into the vernacular and say things we don't really mean. Like Shuster is a dumb motherfucking asshole. But I mean that in a 'good' way. Like Hillary is a pimp. You know, in the 'good' way. Yeah, yeah, THAT'S the ticket. And in the words of Matt Damon, 'How you like THEM apples?'

I think that what Matthews offered was an opportunity to vocalize the reason that feminists (both female and male) should support Obama over 'The Woman Candidate.' Granted his rhetoric was somewhat boorish, but that's his style. I think he was (perhaps unintentionally) opening a door to express the reasons why women should feel okay about supporting Obama over Rodham-Clinton. The argument that it is hypocritical to suggest that women who support Obama are sex-traitors is kind of dubious since feminists (women and men) have never had this kind of opportunity before (or have African Americans for that matter), so of course the sense of urgency is so much greater, especially following the repressive policies of the past almost 8 years. I think the 'Talking Heads' in the movement should recognize the sometimes backhanded opportunities offered them provide an opportunity to, rather than become defensive, provide positive incentives to go against instinct and be okay with the choice to support 'The Guy over The Woman.'

There are a lot of less than ethical vets out there, just as there are dentists and shrinks and other 'professionals' who know they can prey off of people's ignorance, fear, and anxiety. I had a situation with a vet who, after treating my cat for kidney disease, taking well over a thousand dollars in total fees, when we finally had to have him put down, she asked when we were going to pay off the balance on his bill. I was a bit stunned to be having that conversation while my cat's body was still lying in my arms, but told her through tears that I would give her the balance within the week and then arranged for cremation. I got a call 2 days later from her office manager who told me that the vet was angry at me for not settling the bill and would not release the cat to the crematorium until I settled. Needless to say, I have never returned to that vet. She might be good with animals but she SUCKS with people.

You know, I've been perusing these posts and the ones that stand out most have been written by you. You are one sick puppy. You seem to exhibit a complete and total lack of empathy for either animals or their human caretakers. And lack of empathy is a highlighted symptom of sociopathic behavior. That, and the fact that you go as 'anonymous' indicates that there is some shame that you feel about your sociopathic behavior; you are afraid to let others know who you are. You need help.

RE: Your reply to AnnieOrchids: GET A FRIGGIN LIFE WOULDJA?! You are arguing apples and oranges. Quit your bleeding heart whah whah whah about the poor starving children and consider the fact that these are real people dealing with real emotions. Yes, there are starving and brutalized children (and women and men) in the world. And that is a very serious and complex problem that your average Joe cannot begin to fathom let alone deal with, and it will take a lot more than just throwing money at it to fix. But you are belittling the very real anxiety and pain of people who's beloved companions are also suffering. Very humane. You are also implying that animals do not deserve a chance to live. So, by your reasoning, I should just allow all my pets to die for lack of care so that I could send the money I would have spent on keeping them alive and happy to The United Way or the Christian Childrens Fund? How typically 'Christian' of you. Do you also make value judgments over which homeless person you deign to give a nickel to? Or do you even bother to give the nickel? So you are saying that because people are hurting because their beloved animal companion, who gives them unconditional love and devotion, are somehow less humane because they aren't forking over thousands of dollars to some 'organization' which may or may not actually be funneling some small percentage of it to some starving kid somewhere? And how much have YOU given to Sally Struthers lately? Do you realize that over 9 million animals a year are euthanized in this country because they have been abandoned? I guess in your equation that's okay because they're just animals, not your precious human beings. Jeez, aren't they all 'God's creatures'? Yours is the whiniest argument I've read yet!