Perhaps she had to pay her mortgage. Maybe she needed health coverage. Could be she needed to continue eating. Or any and all of those things that employers always hold over employees heads to make them do degrading and demeaning things every single day.

If we could sue employers for acting in mean or degrading or even outright abusive ways then those who criticize her suit might have a point. However in most "right-to-work" states (how's that for doublespeak?) none of these behaviors are actionable. Don't like being mistreated? Accept it or go somewhere else and work. Or live under a bridge and starve if the previous option isn't open to you. Your choice.

So what we have is a legal system that sanctions degrading behavior as long as it isn't sexually degrading.

Oh, ok then, that's so much better.

In California (where I live) you can sue your employer and win if you have a case for sexual harassment, age or race discrimination or whistle blowing - that's pretty much about it. We are "at will" employees and have virtually no rights to our jobs.

If she had refused to take part in the exercise and was fired she would even have *less* of a case than she does now. And since she did take part and since she did object I would suggest that she did so because she was in fear for her job.

Given that she was in fear for her job and she was uncomfortable working there then I would further suggest that simply going to another job was not at least an immediate option. As I said, some of us like to eat and have roofs over our heads. She had no real choice but to participate.

I think the basic fact here is that all of us regardless of gender have the right to keep other people from putting their hands on our bodies. This is in some way the most fundamental right of all. She was clearly not assured of this if she was required to gamble her livelihood for it.

Being put in that situation is simply wrong in any context.

Bush was the finished product.

The rich and corporate America needed a fake aw-shucks, empty suit front man to drain the pockets of middle-class America in the 80's and a fake resolute protector Daddy figure to do the same in 2000. Having an actual slightly real populist like Clinton in between really pissed them off as it slowed down the looting.

Reagan was a rich Hollywood actor that played a cowboy in the movies and in the White House. Everybody loves a cowboy. Bush is a spoiled bullying rich boy who walked away from his military obligations and now plays a brave fighter pilot vet in his White House. And everyone loves a vet.

Both are complete and total fictions, created exactly and specifically to keep our attention off of our pockets being picked.

Your mention of of Bush's handling of the "mini" recession in 2001. I remember the sock puppet standing there like an empty glass, saying nothing as the stock market tanked. I vividly recall turning to my wife and saying at the time "what is this idiot doing?". What he was doing of course was exactly what I saw but couldn't believe - he was doing nothing. Watching with disinterest as other people suffered, seeing no need to interfere or comment because, well, somehow it really wasn't about him even if he was the President.

What a strange little man.

On a funnier note, I heard on CNN early this morning (when the market was down 4%) one of their financial commentators say it was a good time for the average investor to buy, because the professionals were panicking and the rest of us could pick up some "deals".

This advice ranks up there with the TV commercial I heard a couple of years ago that said "with interest rates at their lowest level ever now is the perfect time to get a variable rate mortgage".

If that's how you want to frame the argument then I guess Hillary could legitimately say YOU want to get 5000 more American soldiers killed.

And any Republican who calls the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party is clearly more interested in (and conscious of) framing the argument in a negative manner than actually commenting on what was said. That's of course obvious by the stupid comment itself but it bears pointing out how calculating he is and how little he believes what he actually says.

Finally, it has become apparent to me that the only Democrat who could lose is Hillary and the only Republican who can win is McCain. Given the media's hatred for Hillary and their love of McCain and the Republicans in general look for them to use every opportunity to steer the election toward that match-up.

Government giving tax dollars to churches is by definition state sponsorship.

Whether religious organizations provide for the "common good" is more than debatable (I say they don't) but it is beside the point.

It is a fact that tax dollars go to religious organizations and that is and should be prohibited, since there a separation by law of church and state. Government giving money to religious groups is sponsoring those groups and is against the law. That it happens anyway doesn't change the legality.

Oh, and your "too bad" argument isn't an argument at all.