You didn't even read my post.

Language isn't my first last or only concern.

But it's one of them. Do you make politically incorrect ethnic jokes as well? As I stated below--it's not just about what you say but about what is in your mind/heart/soul....you know. What I wrote below.

But I'm having an imaginary obnoxious obama pary--I have the feeling that whether I like it or not you or your doppelgangers will show up.

cheers to a new millenium...and more equality and intelligence whether it's in language, in pay or in basic understanding.

because it affords me the luxury of using my brain. i can decide what is right or wrong for myself. the problem with people like you is that it starts with language and before you know it, you're deciding how others should act or live. i dare you to deny that you've never thought of a woman as a bitch. i dare you to deny that you've never thought about someone different than you in derogatory terms. i may not be able to judge you as a person, but without a doubt you are a hypocrite. i stand by my choice of words. i don't need to imagine maureen dowd as a twat to know she's a twat, and as a matter of fact she's also a bitch who's not fit to hold hillary clinton's coat.

another proud american.

But I would love to take on the issue of political correctness. And you're right by the way that I can't judge you as a person as sexist--and I did not. I can judge your actions the way that I see them. Using historically sexist language is not okay in describing a woman whether you like her or not. Disagree with me that your actions were sexist if you will. It's our right as Americans to disagree on absolutely anything under the sun, including this.

But as for political correctness--you have no right to judge what I do or do not do to change the world. I've been a teacher for two years of my life--and at that time I came to the issue of political correctness and scratched my head. The problem with something being politically correct is that it only scratches the surface--if we only use the right words does it mean that we are free from prejudice or "sin"? No--not by a long shot.

However, how do we dig deeper into our society and create a civil society of equals? How do we do this? Clinton's campaign transcended gender--obama's campaign seeks to transcend race--. If we only change the words we use to describe people, and yet we still have the underlying belief that they are not equals--then is society different? Maybe not...

So I propose to go deeper than not using sexist language...why not try to see that Maureen Dowd may be an ass, a donkey's behind, or any other number or worthy insults in your mind, but calling her (or imagining her) as a twat is not okay.

It's not okay because that term makes her not your equal on a very deep and basic level. You are referring to her by her sex organ. You can argue all day, but this isn't about identity politics for me or about so called correctness. It's about equality and justice, and by the way, I'd also like to have equal pay for equal work. And to be judged by the content of my character and not my number of x or y chromosomes. This is America, buddy, if you have a problem with that, take it to the founders of our country who wrote our constitution with such rhetorical flourishes that we are actually moving closer to a more perfect union where people are judged not by the color of the skin, or the shape of their sex organs, but by the content of their characters.

If you want to keep on arguing with me about how calling a woman a twat is not in any way sexist, I can keep arguing with you all day and night as well. If you check my letter history, you'll see I don't mind a good argument or two. It keeps me awake, alert, and proud to be an American.

cheers.

Suspense sells advertising; Predictable situations do not.

The last three times we voted to change the President, including this one, there has been a media-encouraged spoiler.

• Ross Perot ran for one reason: to pull votes from Bush in 1992. He did so. Combined with the problematic 1992 economy, Bush lost and Clinton won. The right-wing and the media immediately laid into him, during his first weeks, to fulfill every campaign promise right then. The crippling "don't ask, don't tell" military policy was from that fight.

• Nader ran in 2000, with a lot of followers who were happy to tell us that the two mainstream candidates were identical corporate stooges. We have seen, in the past years, just how un-identical they are: one has a Nobel Peace Price for publicizing ecological issues; the other has been fighting his way to the lowest position in Presidential histories. (He passed Nixon, three years ago, and makes us pine for the days of Bucchanan and Grant.)

• Now, we have the media encouraging a stay-at-home Mom, in the form of pissed-off Hillary voters. They have a legitimate point -- that women have been second-class citizens, and it seems like it isn't ending any time soon, so why bother -- but they'll end up with the greater of two evils by staying at home.

Hillary is one of the brightest, and the most important thing she said in her speech was not "no... no... no mccain." It was:

And on that path to freedom, Harriett Tubman had one piece of advice.

If you hear the dogs, keep going.

If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.

If they're shouting after you, keep going.

Don't ever stop. Keep going.

If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

It is the bald truth, that we all have to confront in politics: you don't always get everything, and you sure-as-heck do not get it all at once. Every good idea gets its day, and even if that day seems to end, people will remember the good idea and bring it back in another form. Kennedy died, and there's been a lot of bad water under the bridge since, but the idealism of his time seems to be remembered fondly. Some of it seems to be upon us, again. We see that now. We can encourage it, or bitch that the original version went away in 1963.