essentially, the republican party--or at least, the prominent mouthpieces of the republican party--have gone completely batshit.

the democrats propose, say, cap and trade, sonia sotomayor, end of life counseling, or caps on drilling off the coast of florida, all of which started out as REPUBLICAN initiatives.

these proposals are met with asinine commentary about as relevant as "brawndo has what plants crave--electrolytes!"

i think hell has frozen over because i have never thought in all my days that i'd think that reagan looked good. mr ketchup is a vegetable looks like a dream when placed side by side with mrs. i can see russia from my house. in reagan's absence and in the absence of his influence, democrats have become the new conservatives. the right has moved off the map to batshitville and the democrats are now right of center.

so depressing. i am tempted on a daily basis to take my doctorate--when i get it in a few years--and move. i have a list: spain, the UK, iceland, canada, costa rica, argentina, in no particular order. the public and the politicians they elect just can't be stupider in these places. it's not possible.

In some cases, women would actually benefit from de-segregation, and in some cases, it wouldn't even matter. i mean, i noticed at the olympic games that there was a male and female dressage (show-horse riding) team. i found that ridiculous: are the horses female or male? or the athletes? since the horses aren't jumping and body weight isn't a factor, does it matter if the rider is male or female?

on the other hand, there are sports where women truly have the advantage over men. the poster who keeps insisting that marathon running is perhaps indicative of women's overall prowress in the correct circumstances is partially correct. the longer the distance--in swimming and running, btw, the closer men's and women's record times become. in the case of ultra marathons, women are routinely the winner, beating men in races that are over a hundred miles long.

when it comes to an area where women and men truly can't compete side-by-side, we have team sports. i used to play ice hockey when i was in high school. there was no girl's ice hockey team, so i had to play with the boys. as an underclassman, we were all about the same size. however, when I got to be a junior, the boys became impossibly big. i could skate almost as fast, but i risked far greater injury than they did.

the problem with de-segregating women's and men's sports in all cases is that the sports in which men excel--those that emphasize brute strength and speed--are overwhelmingly and disproportionately favored with funding, scholarships, and sponsorships. those that make use of agility, flexibility, and endurance--areas in which women excel--are very much underrepresented when it comes to doling out financial support. despite the fact that there are 7 measures of physical fitness, we still seem to fixate on the two that benefit men: strength and speed. when the day comes that spectators and sponsors are interested in those that benefit women--flexibility and endurance, maybe we can desegregate. some sports will have an overrepresentation of women; some will have an overrepresentation of men; but it would possibly work out even.

until then, it's the female athletes that will suffer.

didn't bill clinton "keep us safe" for the duration of his presidency? i mean, in the beginning of it, terrorists DID attack the WTC, after all. and didn't he manage to prevent further attacks WITHOUT torture? and didn't many of these same republicans attack him nonetheless? how dare they attack the man who Kept Us Safe from Terror!

god i loathe meetings. this is partly why i went back to grad school. one day, when i was a corporate schill, we had three meetings in one day. and then a fourth meeting where we fucking MET ABOUT THE MEETINGS. i remember a meeting that discussed the benefits of paper clips over staplers. a meeting in which a supervisor passed out a piece of paper regarding dress code and literally READ it to us. i could go on, but i won't.

if time is money then a lot of money gets pissed away during meetings. i read an article in the new york times to that effect once, actually. it recommended that all meetings take place standing up, so as to minimize wasted time. it also recommended that there be no food served.

that brings me to the other reason why i hated meetings. the food. the greasy, fattening, sugary, unhealthy food that they would serve to you while you were sitting on your ass for nine or so hours a day.

i feel your pain.

someone who supposedly has some sort of credibility about matters outside his own social sphere is under the impression that the cost to the country would be too great...if DICK CHENEY were to face the music for his misdeeds.

that's just fucking great: our country is apparently so fragile that a man with a 12% approval rating during his last term in office is too valuable to be held accountable for breaking the law.

and, glenn, i think it's worth noting that there may be additional reasons why they want to Look Forward. Who really was harmed during all of this? a bunch of poor muslim brown people from nowhereistan? Well, why should someone like Dick Cheney have to answer for that? I mean, a rich white guy -- any rich white guy -- certainly shouldn't have to be culpable for the kidnapping, torture, and murder of a bunch of brown guys in funny hats, right? right.