An unfinished idea about why I want the conservatives near me

After the election, there was all that talk about the intellectuals seceding and taking all the good cities and making our own super-fab country with nary a conservative as far as the eye could see. And all the conservatives could go make all their little conservatives laws to their hearts content. And maybe we could make a little revolving door citizenship policy and whenever you felt like changing on over to the other side, you could just take a little trip across the border and go live with all your like-minded friends. Sounds good right? Like everyone will get along as long as we exist in a constant state of a seventh grade dance. Liberals on the left nodding there head to the music and self consciously adjusting their anti-sweatshop garments and giggling, conservatives on the right hoarding the punch bowl and seeing who can make the best farting noise with their armpit.

But do we really want to leave the conservatives to their own ways? Sure, they'll be busy for a few years subjugating eachother, price-gouging and creating a caste system to rival India, but what happens next? I presume it would go a little something like this: take a fat guy into a china shop, blindfold him and tell him there's a twinky in the corner. Leave him there for a few days. Over a loudspeaker, tell him he owns the china shop and give him a gun. When the owners come back from vacation, arm them and watch the rest unfold on security cameras.

T'ain't pretty is it? The moral is, we shouldn't let the conservatives out on their own any more than we should let color-blind people coordinate outfits because it just isn't going to be pretty. Was it Sun Tzu that said keep friends close and enemies closer? I think that's a little extreme, but you could at least keep your friends playing a lively game of Canasta and eating a feast while you throw scraps to the conservatives locked in your basement.

Stupidity at the post.

Okay, I like the Huffington Post, but this one paragraph Amy Ephron's puff piece about the things she didn't get this week pissed me off. Not only does she spell Tom Matzzie's name wrong, but she has this drivel to say:

Tom Matzie, one of the heads of Move-On, a supposedly politically correct
organization, sent out a mass e-mail asking "Moms" and "Dads" to write in in
support of Cindy Sheehan, the woman leading the anti-war protest outside the
Crawford Ranch triggered by the death of her son, Army Specialist Casey Sheehan,
in Iraq. Wasn't that one of the things she was appropriately upset about -- that
in their personal meeting, President Bush referred to her as "Mom"?

Who the hell should he be addressing his open-ended letter to over 2 million people to? The reason Cindy Sheehan was rightfully pissed was that Bush was using the generic term "mom" to gloss over the fact that he knew niether her name, nor her son's name during a meeting meant solely to praise the dead soldiers and their parents for sacrifices to the war effort. Perhaps Bush could have sacrificed a little time to memorize the names that went along with this apparent photo-op.

Tom Matzzie might have been a little more politically correct and said "mothers" and "fathers" but that kind of scrubbed-clean language hardly inspires letters from grieving or distraught parents. Overall, this is a stupid paragraph that should have been eliminated in a swift perusing of the document before submitting. However, the lack of investigation on any of the topics in the piece suggests Miss Ephron didn't even bother to get that far.