I am sure that today's “Stevo over-reacts to a socially
conservative idea” post is going to offend a lot of people who read it. And if you are one of those people who are
easily offended, I suggest you just stop reading.
Because this proposed "Missouri Prayer Amendment" is
just about the most ridiculous thing our well intentioned religious friends in these parts has
ever tried to jam down our throats. And
considering we live in a region of the country where a state school board said
"no, no way, no how, never!" to teaching evolution as a credible
scientific theory on multiple occasions, that's saying something.
The sponsor of this piece of proposed amendment is a
representative from Odessa named Mike McGhee.
If you listen to Rush or Radioactive at all (and I do pretty much every
day), then you get bombarded by this gentleman’s ad in favor of this amendment
at least once an hour. The man ... I'm
sorry folks, I’m trying to be polite here, but the man is bat sh*t crazy. He actually believes "liberal
politicians and animal rights activists" are "conspiring" to “destroy
our families” and to "destroy our way of life"*. Yeah, because the Humane Society of Kansas
City is certainly scheming to stop Missouri farmers from being able to sell
beef on the free market.
(*: those exact phrases are used in his radio advertisement
seeking your vote next Tuesday.
Missouri: now officially every bit as screwed up as Kansas!)
He’s running for the state Senate, and apparently the entire basis
for his campaign is this amendment. He
mentions no accomplishments from his tenure in the state House of
Representatives, mentions nothing about what he’s done to prop the economy up,
what he’s done to secure funding for his district, nothing – except that for
five straight years, he sponsored this “Missouri Prayer Amendment”, and I’m
guessing that after attempt number five, Republican leadership grew so sick of
his one-idea tenure that to simply shut him up, they agreed to put the referendum on the
ballot.
(Something I am fine with, by the way. If the people of this state genuinely believe a "war on prayer" is the greatest challenge or obstacle or idea in this 2012 election cycle, then let's have a vote. That's the beauty of democracy -- what I think is the most important issue (THE ECONOMY), someone else disagrees with entirely. I love this country ... even if we do sometimes pander to the looniest amongst us.)
Anyways, in today's Star, there was an article outlaying what this
proposed amendment to our state's constitution means for us, the apparent
targets of liberal extremists who mean us only evil, harm, and irrepairable
damage. For your reading pleasure and my
own sanity, I intend to respond to it, Stevo style.
(As always, that means the article will appear in italics, and my
comments will appear in normal font, usually prefaced by my initials to indicate I am, uuh, commenting. And
the article can be read in its entirety, without my response, by clicking on this link.)
Here we go.
Missouri "Right to Prayer" Amendment Sparks Debate
by Jason Hancock, the Star's Jefferson City correspondent
"When Missouri voters cast ballots on the so-called
"Right to Pray" amendment to the state's constitution, they'll be
deciding whether students should be able to opt out of school assignments that
they think run counter to their religious beliefs.
"Yet that's not spelled out on the August 7 ballot."
sk: of course it's not spelled out. Because if people actually read this piece of
crap proposed amendment, they'll conclude -- correctly -- that this is one gigantic stinking piece
of crap. This is nothing more than your
typical right wing scheme to get voters to the polls. We see it every two years, and it's as predictable as anything the Democrats do -- (1) religious right
is worried their candidate will be identified as an escapee from the loony bin,
so (2) they manufacture some "social cause that causes moral outrage" to rally their people and get
them to vote. Usually the evil
"boogeyman" is gay marriage.
This year, they've apparently decided on those "evil liberal politicians attempting to outlaw prayer" as the "key
issue" to be voted on.
You know, because 15.2% unemployment, $15.98 trillion (and
climbing) in national debt, and 48.3% of the populace living on income provided
by the federal government, those CLEARLY are not the "key issues" of
the 2012 election cycle.
"To its supporters, the amendment enumerates rights already
in the US and Missouri constitutions, and forces government and public schools
to respect religious liberty."
sk: is there anyone drawing breath in this nation that believes
those rights AREN'T respected by the government and public schools? (Note I did not say the courts. You can argue (albeit erroneously) they don't care much for your right to pray, but that's beside the point.)
I'm being quite serious here -- is there
ANYONE, ANYWHERE in this nation, who has been arrested for saying a prayer, for
attending Mass, for preaching the word of God, whatever God that word might be
about? Are our prisons overcrowded with
people persecuted for their faith, imprisoned for their religious beliefs?
No, really, once again -- I'm asking this with all due
sincerity. Can you identify a single
person currently being held behind bars because he or she said a prayer before
eating dinner, or being systematically tortured for preaching moral certainty
to their children? This ... I'm telling
you people, crap like this offends the hell out of me. This is nothing more than a pathetic
"rally the base" exercise. (As
if the base isn't sufficiently fired up to fire President Obama 99 days from
now.) Good God. Even God has to be looking down from heaven
and shaking His head in abject disgust at what the religious right will do in
His name to win an election.
And I say that as someone ready to vote yesterday for Mr. Romney. No, really guys, it's people like me who are going to decide this election. And when the sensical 20% sees garbage like this? You tend to offend us, and drive us to the opposition's camp.
"To its critics, the amendment poses a problematic fix for
something that isn't broken, and ultimately could open school curricula to
theological negotiation."
sk: great, just great, that's exactly what this country needs --
teaching religion to eight year olds.
Because clearly, we've done such a GREAT job teaching basic science,
math, and reading skills, that teachers have plenty of time on their hands to
teach about Job's hardships.
I mean it -- this crap
INFURIATES me. Mainly because:
"Both sides agree the final say probably will be made by the
courts."
sk: and boom goes the dynamite.
Rep. McGhee and his fellow supporters of this waste of paper are
conceding that "yeah, we probably have crafted a law here that stands a
decent shot of being sued to prevent its implementation, which will force us to piss away hundreds of
thousands of taxpayer dollars defending the coming lawsuits -- taxpayer dollars
we don't have, and refuse to tax anyone to raise. But hey, lookie -- prayer! Those evil liberal politicans are going to
beat you like a government mule if you dare to bow your head in reverence to a
higher power! So vote early, vote
often!!!"
What a disgrace.
"Last year, lawmakers approved a proposed change to
Missouri's constitution they said was aimed at prohibiting government or school
officials from adopting policies to prevent prayer in public places, as long as
the prayer does not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a
public meeting or assembly.
"The summary that will appear on the ballot asks voters
whether the constitution should be amended to ensure:
* That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious
beliefs shall not be infringed.
* That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God
voluntarily in their schools.
* And that all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of
the United States Constitution.
"The summary goes on to say a "no" vote will not
change the current constitutional provisions protecting freedom of
religion."
sk: wait, what? Let me get
this straight, because I am kind of slow, and am not often accused of possession
a high level of intelligence. What the
supporters of this amendment want me, as a citizen of the state of Missouri, and
as a registered voter to boot, what these people want me to do is vote yes on
an amendment -- not a bill, a freaking AMENDMENT to the constitution -- that
does absolutely nothing at the end of the day, because as the language of the
proposed amendment notes, these rights said amendment is seeking to
institutionalize into the Missouri governing documents, ALREADY EXIST IN SAID GOVERNING
DOCUMENTS!
We're wasting thousands of dollars to hold a vote -- and then potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend a victorious outcome -- on something
that is already legal?!?!?! We're going to
tell the single mother of three whose boyfriend just beat the crap out of her
"sorry chica, no room at the shelter tonight -- we had to cut out a few
beds so that people can vote on whether or not we're going to allow them to
pray". Well, why not -- after all, there was no room at the inn for Mary and Joseph, why should there be room at Newhouse or some other worthwhile organization for that poor, desperate mother of three.
That's what this piece of
legislative garbage does -- it's taking money far better spent elsewhere, and
pisses it away on drafting ballots, campaigns, and language to hold a vote on
something that's already a protected right.
THIS is responsible governing?
THIS is a good idea? THIS is what
conservatives genuinely believe that, unless it passes, their way of life is
threatened in some way, shape, or form?
I'm outraged. I am outraged
at this worthless waste of money, paper, and ink. And anyone with a conscience, to say nothing
of having an IQ higher than room temperature, should be enraged by this
ridiculous exercise as well.
"Supporters and critics agree that the right to pray in
public is already enshrined in the US constitution and Missouri
constitution."
sk: then why the f*ck are we voting on this? Other than pathetic pandering to the base -- a
base which, again, if you believe even 2/1000ths of what the mainstream media
reports, it's a base that is FOAMING AT THE MOUTH to fire Barack Obama. This isn't 2004, where a beleagured incumbent
who probably deserved to be fired, had to motivate his base into showing up to
defeat the "evil" John Kerry and the "frightening" John
Edwards. (OK, fine -- John Edwards is
"frightening", in addition to "corrupt",
"sleazy", "reprehensible", "pathetic", and
"morally bankrupt".)
Again, I ask a simple question: why are we holding a vote on
something that's already a protected right at both the state AND the federal
level? What am I missing here? Better yet, what are we as taxpayers missing
out on because funding for legitimate needs has to be shifted to hold a vote
on, and then legally defend, this proposed amendment? How can ANYONE behind this monstrocity look
at themselves in the mirror and not immediately feel a sharp desire to hit
their knees and repent to their God and their citizenry for their outrageous
waste of the public dollar?
And yes,
they currently have that right! The right to hit their knees and pray for
forgiveness! Which is what they should
be doing. Instead ...
"But state representative Mike McGhee, an Odessa Republican
who sponsored the amendment for five years, said many people were unaware of
their rights."
sk: ok, forget for a moment that this "right" we're
going to be voting on in a week, is already a "right" we
possess. Even suspend reality for a
second and conclude, like Mr. McGhee has, that the random citizen living in Missouri
is so stupid, so clueless, so utterly bereft of an ounce of common sense or
intelligence, that said dumb, mentally challenged voter not only makes the retarded horse on "Family Guy" look mentally sharp, but that dumb, mentally challenged voter needs a benevolent,
well-intentioned person like Mike McGhee to inform them of what their rights
are.
(dana wright voice) For the love!
(For those of you who don't listen to "Radioactive" ... well you should. (2-6pm every day on 98.1 and 980.) For those of you who do, yup -- take a drink! For. The. LOVE! (gulp). OK, fine, we're fair and balanced here. (scott parks voice) Gimme a break! (gulp).)
Here's my question -- again, assuming you share Mr. McGhee's belief
that the average person walking around the state of Missouri is a dumb f*ck
moron: WHY DO WE NEED AN AMENDMENT TO TELL US WHAT OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS
ARE?!?!?!
Why are we pissing away time, effort, and money on something designed
to simply INFORM people of what they already have the right to do? What sensible person amends the governing
document of the state simply to let average Joe know "hey dude, you can
pray! No, really -- it's like legal and
all!"
I'm telling you, this bill so enrages me, I'm halfway stunned I've
only dropped the f bomb twice so far in this post. This is such a f*cking waste, this is so f*cking
stupid, that you ... well, you'd have to be as f*cking stupid as Mike McGhee
thinks you are, to actually vote yes on this insanity. (And I just more than doubled the f bomb output! Is this post f*cking great or what!)
"We're just trying to get the word out", McGhee
said. "You have the right to pray
at a city council meeting, a football game, or a school board meeting as long
as you don't disturb anyone else."
sk: is there seriously, and again, I am slow and, at least in Mike
McGhee's eyes, am mentally retarded and completely incapable of actually reading the damned constitution on my own to see what's in there, but in all seriousness, is there ANY
person above the age of three, with an IQ north of 20, who actually DOESN'T
know they possess that right? The right to pray?
(Nope.)
So why in the hell do we need a damned amendment to the
constitution to simply INFORM us that, yes Toto, you can put your hands
together, bow your head, close your eyes, and thank Jesus for the Filet-o-Fish you're about to consume? What kind of
person thinks THIS is an effective way of stating the obvious?
If you want to simply "get the word out", that it's OK
to do as the Good Word instructs you to, and say "thank you God" for
whatever happens in your life, why is THIS the way you have to employ to get
the word out? Why couldn't a simple
press release, press conference, or sh*t, a flyer mailed to your constituents (again,
on our dime!) work?
I mean, certainly
you've heard right? There's no need to
"get the word out", Mike, because EVERYONE has heard.
That the bird is the word!
(Come on, I couldn't resist.
Admit it, you just laughed out loud.
You're welcome.)
"Left out of the summary that will appear on the ballot,
however, is a provision that say no student "shall be compelled to perform
or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that
violate his or her religious beliefs."
sk: we already have a system in place for handling things like
this, Mikey. It's called a parental
consent form! As Swoozie Kurtz noted in the opening scene of "Cruel Intentions": "Christ! How could you be so stupid!"
If you have children sir,
I'm sure at some point in time in your existance on this planet, you've had to
sign your name on said parental consent form.
Schools all across the state of Missouri utilize them.
Furthermore, if you don't want your kid hearing something being
taught in his or her school? Like, say,
you think your little junior is incapable of being taught sex education by
anyone other than yourself? Then you
have the right, as a parent, to yank your kid out of the school and either
enroll him or her elsewhere, or teach little Johnny or Sally yourself!
My God, when did we become so stupid as a public as to fall for
tactics like this? Or worse yet, since
when did we become so clueless as an electorate, that we need "brave
heroic politicians" like Mike freaking McGhee to tell us how best to raise
our kids? Or worse yet, since when did
we become so incapable of an intelligent thought or opinion, that it falls on
"brave heroic politicians" like Mike freaking McGhee to make every
decision for us?
THIS ... is why I am dreading voting for Romney in 99 days. Because with the good (he actually gets
economics 101), you get the bad (a boatload of politicans like Mike McGhee
running the country).
"Susan German, president of the Science Teachers of Missouri,
said the amendment could have a major impact on the teaching of certain topics
in classrooms around the state.
"It is evident that some of the major areas of concern
include teaching the age of the Earth, evolution, or climate change in the
science classrooms," German said in a letter to the organization's 450
members. "While this may not be a
direct attack, it certainly opens the door."
sk: wait a second -- let me make sure I read this properly.
Ms. German is concerned about a potential
erosion of teaching credible, universally recognized scientific standards, so
what does she do? Does she, I don't
know, spend five f*cking years crafting an amendment to the state constitution, to
address a problem that doesn't exist? Or
does she do what any sensible person would do, and, oh, for sh*ts and giggles, she enunciates her thoughts in a
flyer?
(Flyer!!!)
THAT, Mr. McGhee, is how you address a
potential problem that doesn't exist, even though you believe it does -- you detail your concerns in a mailing
to your followers, and make sure the major media outlets are informed of said
concerns. Hell, you can schedule a presser to boot, if anyone in the media can stop laughing at you long enough to show up and cover said presser.
You do NOT hijack the damned
constitution and waste thousands of dollars on a stupid amendment that
accomplishes nothing, other than making trial lawyers in Jeff City a boatload
of money!
"German said her organization had not taken a formal stand on
the amendment, but it is urging its' members to go beyond the summary to fully
understand potential ramifications."
sk: uh oh, don't let Mike McGhee know that. He doesn't want his supporters reading this
proposed ridiculousness, he just wants them to know that he's defending their
right to pray over the Happy Meal they're about to enjoy. He wants to make sure you know that he's "standing up!" to the evil boogeymen who apparently want to take your Bibles, cut
off your hands, and take a guillotine to your head if you dare to make a religious
expression in their sight.
The religious right and its snake-oil salesmen disgust me even more than the sleazy corrupt "reverends" MSNBC trots out on a regular basis to race-bait the masses. (I'm looking squarely at you, Jesse and Al.)
"You can't put the entire amendment in the summary, but
letting students opt out of assignments is a pretty big change," said
Anthony Rothert, the legal director for the ACLU of eastern Missouri. "I don't know if voters will know that
this is what they're voting for."
sk: well this is positive -- it's still a week until we vote on
this damned thing, and the ACLU is already pointing out the flaws it plans to
sue over. In the words of James Petigru
the night South Carolina seceded from the Union: "you fools don't know
what you've done".
Even better -- did I read this right? This amendment is so damned long that it can't fit on a ballot? I notice as part of this amendment that Mr. McGhee and his supporters want to post the Bill of Rights in every classroom. Mr. McGhee, have you ever READ the Bill of Rights? Because EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM could fit on a f*cking ballot!
"McGhee said his intent wasn't to allow students to opt out
of a class on evolution, but rather to give students a chance to take a class
"on Buddha or Islam, or for a Muslim kid to be able to say he won't take a
class on Christianity if he feels it contradicts his faith. I want to make sure a student knows he can
bring his Bible to study hall if he chooses."
sk: what moron doesn't already know he or she has the right to do
that? And while it's been nearly 20
years since I was last in a classroom, I don't recall public schools teaching
classes on Christianity, or any religion for that matter, that is a mandatory course ... so how does this
allow some Muslim kid to get out of taking said class on Christianity,
considering said mandatory course doesn't even exist?!?!?!? FOR. THE. LOVE! (gulp.)
And don't
even get me started on the fact that study hall should be used to, I don't
know, STUDY the damned curriculum you're being taught, not read about Jonah
living in a whale for a couple days. GIMME A BREAK! (gulp.)
"If the curriculum of a school results in conflicts with the
constitutional amendment, McGhee said, "why not just change the curriculum
so that it will be pleasing to all students?"
sk: here's a thought: if a proposed constitutional amendment
creates more trouble than problems that it solves, why not scrap the damned
thing and come up with something that doesn't create confusion, doesn't lead to
parents taking on teachers, and doesn't ensure a nasty protracted lawsuit from
the ACLU and other like-minded organizations and parents, lawsuits that will
cost the state in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, money the state doesn't
have? (And can't raise either, because after
all, all tax increases are evil, and must be opposed before they're even
announced, let alone debated on their merits.)
Here's a thought, Mike: how about you take your damned amendment,
and shove it where it belongs -- in the trash recepticle with the rest of
today's garbage?
"Kerry Messer, president of the Missouri Family Network,
dismissed concerns that the amendment would have dramatic impact on lesson
plans.
"Will somebody try to opt out of a class over something like
evolution? Probably so," he
said. "But I don't see the courts
applying the amendment that way at all.
This is only about religious liberty.
If a Christian student is told they must kneel and bow east in a mock
Islamic prayer to sensitize students of the Muslim community, that student can
refuse to participate."
sk: where exactly is this forced kneeling to Muhammed actually
being practiced in Missouri, Mr. Messer?
Provide me with just ONE documented instance where this occurred within
our state, sir. Just ONE documented
occurrance. And where in the hell are
students in Missouri public schools being forced to pray to a God other than
their own, Mr. McGhee? Where?
And what responsible adult, regardless of their views on
evolution*, what sane, rational, responsible parent would choose to not expose
their child to the accepted scientific theory of the day as to how we came to
exist?
(*: I personally believe in creation, believe it or not. The idea that one cell mutated over trillions
of years into everything we see around us, is patently absurd. Having said that, you are a failure as a
parent if you don't at least expose your child to the prevailing scientific beliefs of the
day. After all, the most ardent supporter of "the earth is flat" for 1500 years ... was the Church. It took those "liberal activists" in Spain giving that "animal rights crusader" Christopher Columbus a couple boats and some cash to find out that, well, golly gee whiz Beaver, we was wrong about the earth being flat! I know, that's over the top. Sorry.
But I do believe that you are an abject failure as a
responsible adult if you intentionally deny your kids exposure to what most of
the world believes to be scientific fact. Because sometimes, what YOU believe in, as a person of faith, is 100 percent wr ... wr ... wr ... possibly incorrect. Oh, and sometimes? That guy wearing a frock behind your pulpit is a child molester the Church refuses to hold accountable for his crimes. Why I refuse to attend Mass 101 -- don't call me a sinner when person calling me a sinner, is committing the most horrific crime imaginable.)
What truly frightens me, isn't the Pandora's box this amendment is
going to open, and it isn't even that people like Mike McGhee think the voting
public is so stupid, so ignorant, so completely clueless, that they need an
amendment to inform them of their most basic of rights. What truly frightens me, is that enough
people in this state ARE so stupid, ignorant, and clueless, that they're going
to vote for this thing because they think it's a good idea. THAT is what frightens me -- that we really
are as mentally retarded as Mike McGhee and others like him believe us to
be. Prove me wrong Missouri.
Please -- prove me wrong.
"Gregory Lipper, senior ligitation council for the Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, said the measure's language is so
broad that noone knows for sure what its impact might be.
"In trying to solve a made-up problem, this amendment
generates a flood of legalese," he said.
"It adds more fine print to the Missouri constitution than you'd
find in the typical apartment lease".
sk: "it adds more fine print than you'd find in a typical
apartment lease". This brought to
you courtesy of the folks who scream bloody murder 24/7/365 (or this year,
366!) about getting government "off of our backs" and "out of our lives".
The party of "don't you dare tell me how
to live ... unless you're pregnant, because us old white guys know more about
your vagina than you do, missy! We
demand you vote for this amendment to guarantee our already God-given and
government-supported right to pray ... but you gay people, hell no you don't
have the right to marry like we do, or adopt kids, or even to draw breath,
goddammit, because you're a sinner, and sinners deserve to die!"
OK, fine, that was a little over the top ... but
in all seriousness, why is it that the party of limited government (a concept I
strongly support, by the way), why is it these people always demand that government
legislate morality?
Why is it they demand freedom of religion for themselves, yet if
you happen to not share their faith or beliefs, you're a subhuman person who
deserves none of the protections they're afforded?
Again, I personally am not a religious person. I have no use for religion, frankly. Another Steve Rule: religion is the the cause of 95% of the world's
problems, and the solution to none of them.
But if you are a person of faith? That's great.
I am all for your right to believe as you want to believe. All I ask is that you afford me, and others who think like I do, the same rights you seize for yourself. Amendments such as this one? Don't accomplish that purpose. In fact, this amendment does the exact
opposite of that -- it seeks to force what your view of freedom of religion is, on
me.
And I don't appreciate that.
At all.
"The only thing that's certain, Lipper said, is that the
amendment will result in a "flood of long and costly lawsuits" at
taxpayers' expense.
sk: perhaps Mr. McGhee can pray for a treasury windfall to pay for
the defense of this amendment. Because
if even $0.01 of current revenue in the state treasury is spent to defend this atrocious
idea, Mr. McGhee should resign and return to private life.
"Messer, however, said he doesn't expect a significant change
in the number of lawsuits, but rather a change in the way a governing body
makes decisions. He contends that
instead of being solely motivated by the fear of being sued for allowing
religious observances in schools or other public venues, now government
officials will have to contend with the threat of a lawsuit if they curtail
those activities.
"This amendment," Messer said, "turns the
tables."
sk: stop the tape. Where,
pray tell, are government officials denying access to public buildings to folks
of faith? That, like banning personal, unobtrusive prayer, is COMPLETELY unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has found time and
again.
Yet another "problem"
this amendment "solves" that actually not only is not a problem, it
is a problem that simply doesn't exist.
"If the amendment passes and problems arise --"
sk: and if it does, they will.
" -- the Legislature can always go back and make corrections,
said McGhee, who is running for State Senate."
sk: no they can't! My God, THIS is the most outrageous thing in this posting to date, that a freaking REPRESENTATIVE to the damned state house doesn't understand that you can't CORRECT language in an amendment!
This
isn't a piece of legislation sir! It's
an amendment to the state constitution!
The ONLY way you can "go back and make corrections" to an
amendment sir, is to pass ANOTHER amendment!
I swear -- the next time any of my conservative friends want to rip into me for something some liberal I like or support does? Fine, go ahead. But your side has elected at least one mentally challenged individual for at least five years running, and that individual is Mike McGhee, who doesn't understand the constitutional process, doesn't realize you can't "clean up the language" of an amendment, and genuinely believes that our kids are being forced to kneel in the direction of Mecca three times a day during this Ramadan month.
"But because the measure is an amendment to the state
constitution, any proposed changes that clear both the House and Senate would
have to once again be placed on the ballot for the voters to ultimately
decide."
sk: bango. That "liberal media" and their constitutional facts. When will they ever stop harassing us Christian folks?!?!
"North Dakota voters in June overwhelmingly rejected a
proposed amendment to that state's constitution aimed at preventing government
officials from implementing laws that could be considered an obstruction of the
exercise of religion.
"In Missouri, however, even those opposing the prayer
amendment concede it is likely to pass.
"It wouldn't surprise me at all if this passes
overwhelmingly," said Rothert of the ACLU.
"If you just read the summary, it seems like a real moderate
proposal. The real action will come down
the road, when lawsuits are filed by students trying to opt out of
assignments."
sk: let this sink in, Missouri voters -- North Freaking Dakota
voters had enough common sense not to fall for this half-wit idea. North.
Freaking. Dakota. A state that hasn't voted a Democrat for President since FDR was still upright and ambulatory. A state that is so heavily conservative, the DNC doesn't even bother to campaign there, let alone send the Democrat ticket there. Even North Freaking Dakota saw this crap for what it is -- CRAP!
Are we, fellow Missourians, are we dumber as a citizenry than North
Dakota? Are we as stupid as Mike McGhee believes we are, that we don't realize we have a right to pray in private, we have a right to practice our religious values as we see fit in the comforts of our environment? We'll find out a week from
tomorrow.
And for what it's worth, my money is sadly on "yes, we is that
damned stupid" ...
