Only to the comfortable upper-middle class denizens of the Salon village is there any question of the first - and most important challenge - facing President Obama:

The ECONOMY.

IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID?

IT'S THE ECONOMY, RICH-IES!

As a working-class lab researcher whose own job lies precariously in the balance, it seems painfully obvious to me - as well as tens of millions of other Americans afraid of losing their livelihood, homes, etc. - that Barack's first task is to enact FDR-level, fundamentally transformational fiscal policies aimed at creating jobs and fixing our economy.

Yes, the effects of those policies may not be immediate. Yes, I am sure he will hear griping from both rich conservatives and rich liberals about the details of his policies...

But in the end, I and so very many other ordinary, true middle-class folk will look to Obama to do what great presidents do in times of recession: provide opportunity and mitigate the effects of wealthy Wall Streeters' incompetent, greedy ways upon us all.

------------

Less than two days away....I can hardly wait.

As for Bush, neocons and right-wing free-market Nazis?

May the door solidly hit you on your arses on the way out. =)

I have no inherent problem with defense-focused teams winning it all - but at least the media kept their QBs in perspective.

Those SuperBowl champion Ravens from 8 years ago? We could all acknowledge that Trent Dilfer was an average qb who did the one thing he was expected to: not cough up the ball.

Same goes for Brad Johnson & the Tampa Bay Bucs a couple years later, when they won it all.

----------------

So, my question is: why the hell does the media treat/view Rothlisberger like he's a combination of Brett Favre & Peyton Manning?

Without the Steelers D, Big Ben would have the same winning record as, I dunno...Jon Kitna?

Unlike draftmates Eli Manning & Rivers, he is - and always has been - at best an average QB who's asked to score 7 points a game, maybe hand it off for a rushing TD, and let the D do its job.

One flukish pass a game to Ward doth not a great QB make...

And if the Cardinals can score 17 pts or more (no easy task, given the 21st Century Steel Curtain), it's game over. Even Big Ben knows that.

Looking over the entire breadth of human history, how many societies have treated post-menarche girls and post-pubescent boys as mature enough to procreate, based on their biological ability to do so?

In other words - in how many cultures was a 15 year-old girl being in a monogamous, sexual relationship (perhaps 'marriage', perhaps not) and bearing children considered normal?

Likewise, in how many cultures was a 15 year-old boy who passed a rite of passage then considered a "man"?

--------------

Yeah, yeah - we live in the USA, where you can drive when you're 16, but not "mature" enough to vote until you are 18.

You can kill people for the commander-in-chief - and likewise die for him/her as well - at age 18...but you are not "mature" enough to be able to handle alcohol until you are 21.

And as for young females...well, you are not supposed to be "mature" enough for sex until marriage in your 20's...but you develop breasts, hips and can be sexually functional and alluring when you are 15.

Can anyone see what I'm getting at here?

--------------

Before the content-Nazis vilify me, please understand: I'm not advocating exploitation of post-pubescent teenagers.

I'm simply saying that for us as humans to deny and vilify attraction to sexually functional people - whether they have just developed secondary sexual characteristics, or have passed puberty 20 years ago - is ridiculous.

Our evolutionary drives guide us to make choices based on procreation...(regardless if we wish to have kids).

When I was 14, I was turned on by Alicia Silverstone at age 16 in those Aerosmith videos. Now that I'm nearly 30, I still find her sexually attractive - whether it's the 16 year-old version of her, or the current adult version of her.

Does that make me deviant? (FWIW: I at my current age would never try to pick up a 16 y.o. But to pretend that they are too young to find sexually alluring is idiotic.)

And YES: there is a distinct difference between being attracted to, say, a 15 y.o. with an adult body - and an 8 year old little kid.

When I used to ICQ with my strawberry-blonde crush Jess...and AOL was still relevant!

Yup, in the mid-90's AOL ruled the information superhighway, alright - with ridiculously slow download speeds, often iffy accessibility and - aww, yeah - AOL Mail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBWbIXo3pZI

Flash forward to 2009: Cheap broadband, Gmail, YouTube, Facebook...and the death knell for a once giant Net access provider turned archaic dinosaur.

Fare thee well, AOL...

Methinks if Keef drew Bill & Hillary Clinton in Beezlebub's hot tub, you WOULD think it clever and funny.

Yup: it's amazing how political cartoons are only funny to conservatives when it's not one (or two) of their own being made fun of, isn't it?

Git-R-Dun,

Wolfy

My co-worker randomly browses Facebook groups looking for girls with pretty profile photos. He adds them as friends. Over 90% of the time, they confirm it without even questioning who he is.

This is a "human connection"?

The bully of my high school class - a sociopathic jerk back then, blank cipher to me now - added me as a Facebook friend. I confirmed it - only to be polite.

Is our "friendship" really a human connection?

How about the Myspacers who have 5000+ friends...are they simply more loved than the rest of us?

Or are all those caring friends/acquaintances/etc. just hoping for another bathroom bra & panty shot to be posted??

----------

P.S. Those Burger King marketers are pretty damn smart. Credit where credit is due...