Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, September 3, 2009
Politics National Health Insurance, Living-Wage Jobs, Strong Unions: Traditional Values
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:34 AM
The right-wing douchebag running for governor of Virginia—GOP state legislator Bob McDonnell—opposes gay rights, wants to outlaw abortion, and thinks religion (just one!) should be taught in the schools. No surprises there. But McDonnell views about the role of women may be a little to Saudi/Taliban even for Virginia.
The 1989 master's thesis he submitted to the evangelical Regent University—titled "The Republican Party's Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of the Decade"—was unearthed by The Washington Post this past weekend, and it contained the sort of stuff oppo researchers die for. In the 99-page document, McDonnell outlined a battle plan for social conservative warriors that called for the usual things: make abortion illegal, oppose gay rights, bring religion into the schools. The Democrats and media reports have focused on how McDonnell went the extra mile by decrying working women as "detrimental" to the traditional family...
Here's what I don't understand: If social conservatives want more women to stay home and raise their children and do the whole traditional family thing... why don't social conservatives support the kinds of social policies that would make it possible for more women to make that choice? More women might be able to stay home and stay out of the workforce—thereby refraining from undermining the traditional family—if their husbands could find living-wage jobs... which means social conservatives ought to support big hikes in the minimum wage and favor strong unions. More women might stay home if the United States, like all other civilized nations, had either a sane single-payer health care system or found some other way to guarantee health care for all. Right now if dad can't find a job that offers health insurance benefits and mom can, mom goes to work. And if a family member gets sick and those medical bills start piling up—which they can and do, even for the insured—mom has to go to work.
But, hey, I'm talking about making it possible for more women—and men—to choose to stay home, for more families to be able to get by on the income of a single breadwinner, and I'm pretty sure McDonnell isn't interested in choice. He probably thinks the state should be able to compel women to stay home... just like he thinks the state should be able to arrest people for engaging in pre-marital sex.
1
I have no disagreement with the piece itself, but in the title you reference strong unions, and I'd like to note that the UFCW local 21 charges an exorbitant amount in initiation fees (in the $200 range) to entry-level grocery checkers for big chains, most of whom make just a hair above minimum wage and work part time, then charges them $40-50 a month, which for them is about a day's pay. Meanwhile, they're cutting benefits: For example, what used to be full health insurance now requires a co-pay and has a low annual ceiling on how much you can claim.
So while unions may have been a staple virtue 20 years ago that you could claim are inherently good, nowadays you have to call into question their value on a case by case basis. I'm sure other unions charge their members little and continue to offer a lot... but some of the big ones don't.
So while unions may have been a staple virtue 20 years ago that you could claim are inherently good, nowadays you have to call into question their value on a case by case basis. I'm sure other unions charge their members little and continue to offer a lot... but some of the big ones don't.
2
No one will ever be able to support a family on "minimum wage".
By definition it is "minimum".
One has to aquire some skills above the "minimum" in order to support a family.
By definition it is "minimum".
One has to aquire some skills above the "minimum" in order to support a family.
3
Perhaps the murderous rapist Glenn Beck will address this on his show tonight? And perhaps Glenn Beck will adress the rumors that he raped and murdered a young lady in 1990.
4
Steel, Auto, Newspapers, Airlines all had Strong Unions.
Strong Unions destroy the industries they infect.
Strong Unions destroy the industries they infect.
5
Arresting people for having pre-marital sex??? WOW
That would be my entire high school. Even the bible thumpers bump uglies...
That would be my entire high school. Even the bible thumpers bump uglies...
9
It costs about $250,000 to raise a kid.
If two people with no job skills and no education and without the emotional maturity to raise a child have pre-marital sex and create a new human what should society do?
Does society have any responsibility to protect babies created and born under those conditions?
Dan, what do you think society should do about pre-marital sex?
If two people with no job skills and no education and without the emotional maturity to raise a child have pre-marital sex and create a new human what should society do?
Does society have any responsibility to protect babies created and born under those conditions?
Dan, what do you think society should do about pre-marital sex?
10
@7: No, not necessarily. But they support a stay-at-home parent in each family, though, and they want that stay-at-home parent to be the mom. But they don't support the kind of pro-family policies that would actually make it possible for working Americans to choose to have the kind of family structure they insist should be the norm.
Which is crazy, no? And my stay-at-home co-parent agrees with me on this.
Which is crazy, no? And my stay-at-home co-parent agrees with me on this.
11
6
The only segment of the economy where strong unions remain are taxpayer supported- prisons, teachers, government employees.
Entities that do not have to sell a product or provide a service in the free market but can tax and tax some more to pay off their unions.
What did you learn in Economics?
The only segment of the economy where strong unions remain are taxpayer supported- prisons, teachers, government employees.
Entities that do not have to sell a product or provide a service in the free market but can tax and tax some more to pay off their unions.
What did you learn in Economics?
13
@9 "Does society have any responsibility to protect babies created and born under those conditions?"
Wouldn't this responsibility be greater if abortion was outlawed?
Wouldn't this responsibility be greater if abortion was outlawed?
14
The reason social conservatives don't support those things you mentioned Dan, is because they believe that business owners WANT to treat their employees well, but the government and unions (who they see as organized crime/mafia) interfere.
They believe it's the government and union's fault that workers are treated like shit, not the big CEOs and corporate execs. They believe that those execs are only trying to make an honest dollar, and the evil government wants to take their money away and give it to some poor black guy who is too lazy to work.
Remember, Reagan is their prophet, and their golden rule is: "government is the problem, not the solution." They will ALWAYS oppose the government and ALWAYS support private capitalism, even if it kills them.
They believe it's the government and union's fault that workers are treated like shit, not the big CEOs and corporate execs. They believe that those execs are only trying to make an honest dollar, and the evil government wants to take their money away and give it to some poor black guy who is too lazy to work.
Remember, Reagan is their prophet, and their golden rule is: "government is the problem, not the solution." They will ALWAYS oppose the government and ALWAYS support private capitalism, even if it kills them.
15
10
It takes a great deal of time and skill to be a competent parent.
More skill, in fact, that many wage paying jobs require.
If both parents work, or there is only one parent, do not the children get shortchanged?
Is it wise policy to pay minimum wage employees to warehouse children in daycare? Is quality parenting not a wise investment in the society's human capital?
If parenting is an afterthought it will be reflected in the lifeskills, or lack thereof, in the children so raised.
Our society has devalued parenting and we have the social pathology to prove it.
We expect schools to pick up the slack but they never will be able to.
If, as a society, we choose to bring children into the world do we not have a moral responsibility to parent them?
It takes a great deal of time and skill to be a competent parent.
More skill, in fact, that many wage paying jobs require.
If both parents work, or there is only one parent, do not the children get shortchanged?
Is it wise policy to pay minimum wage employees to warehouse children in daycare? Is quality parenting not a wise investment in the society's human capital?
If parenting is an afterthought it will be reflected in the lifeskills, or lack thereof, in the children so raised.
Our society has devalued parenting and we have the social pathology to prove it.
We expect schools to pick up the slack but they never will be able to.
If, as a society, we choose to bring children into the world do we not have a moral responsibility to parent them?
17
13
good point.
The responsibility would not be greater, but respecting and protecting all life would demonstrate society's increased willingness to accept the responsibility.
good point.
The responsibility would not be greater, but respecting and protecting all life would demonstrate society's increased willingness to accept the responsibility.
18
What percentage of women stay at home in nations with government single-payer health care compared to the US?
19
Working for a corporation in exchange for health insurance for her family is a reality for at least one woman I know... Otherwise, she'd be working in the family business.
22
@9: "Dan, what do you think society should do about pre-marital sex?"
I'm not Dan (and I don't play him on TV either), but *I* can say that society should leave pre-marital sex the fuck alone.
I'm not Dan (and I don't play him on TV either), but *I* can say that society should leave pre-marital sex the fuck alone.
23
@9 What should society do? Society should make sure kids (sorry, TEENS) know how to fuck without fucking up their lives. For example: condoms, pills, education. (In reverse order, of course.) Sex does not have to equal baby, unless you have not been taught how to avoid that consequence.
24
Unfortunately, we don't have a good Democratic Opponent in Virginia. We will have to make the Republican seem so conservative that his policies are abhorrent to us to elect the other guy.
The Northern Virginia vote is crucial for Democrats and the Washington Post story has been on the radio and television since it broke this weekend.
The Northern Virginia vote is crucial for Democrats and the Washington Post story has been on the radio and television since it broke this weekend.
25
Economics assumes that market structures will be such that things like good wages and quality healthcare benefit the employer as much as the employee, and, therefore, the employer will provide them (talented and/or educated workers are a precious commodity, and must be paid as such in order to recruit/retain them; healthy workers are more productive and so healthcare should be provided). However, those market structures do not exist in our current environment. We have too many people willing to work for any scraps that are thrown at them (because the alternative is to not work at all), which allows employers of low-skill workers to provide very low wages and few to no benefits and still have a workforce. If someone gets too sick to work, they can always hire someone in their place. If someone is coming to work sick and underperforming, they can always fire them for that lack of productivity and hire someone who is well, for the time being. It is debatable whether there was ever incentive to provide quality healthcare to employees...after all, that's why we have OSHA and worker's compensation taxes, to force employers not to cause the harm themselves. If we had to REGULATE employers just to make it SAFE for their workers to do their jobs, was there EVER an incentive for them to go beyond that and make sure their workers are healthy? Honestly, it was unions that got employer-provided healthcare, so I call bullshit on their EVER being that incentive. Wage-wise, again, unions pushed for wages the employees could actually live on, the government regulated a minimum wage. Again, I'm not seeing the existence of any market structures that create these incentives.
As for a lot of other stuff...in our current economic environment, education is HUGE. While jobs are scarce even for those who are well-educated in in-demand fields, they are not hurting as much as the poorly educated (I know a number of people who have landed lucrative positions even recently, and there's no indication that my job is at risk...in fact I'm busier than ever - and before you scoff about posting on the internet, I get to work from home 3 days a week, so I'll be starting my work in a few hours and knocking off around midnight...works well when dealing with companies in Asia who expect their analysis delivered at 8 AM local time and then a conference call). Who should provide that education? The state, the parents? It's always been a given in the U.S. that a solid education was a right. Even playing field...each makes their own bed...you know, all those niceties. Yeah, we totally don't have that now. We suck compared to the rest of the world, and certain communities suck worse than others, and public schools in general suck more than private schools in general.
It boils down now to increasing income inequality. The U.S. has always had a MUCH higher Gini coefficient than most developed states. But it used to be that most people could still support a family. Now, it seems like the top has run away with everything and everyone else is left scrambling to pay for even the basics - healthcare, housing, food, clothing, education. It doesn't help that we have this debt and entitlement culture where it's more admirable to buy nice stuff you can't afford than work hard, save hard, and play later.
In sum, in economics, the mantra is always that the government's role should be to fix market failures and inefficiencies. I'd argue that MUCH of our market is failing and/or inefficient right now. Do I think that we need to go Communist? Nah, but regulation is going to be necessary. See, *I* think the problem is that we had good regulations for a while, and everyone got so used to them, that we decided we didn't need them anymore, and we started dismantling them, and now we realize that they were the only thing holding the damn ship together. Let's put them back!
And that's from someone who's at the level of, oh, I don't know Economics 700? The last course I took was at the 650-something level.
More...
As for a lot of other stuff...in our current economic environment, education is HUGE. While jobs are scarce even for those who are well-educated in in-demand fields, they are not hurting as much as the poorly educated (I know a number of people who have landed lucrative positions even recently, and there's no indication that my job is at risk...in fact I'm busier than ever - and before you scoff about posting on the internet, I get to work from home 3 days a week, so I'll be starting my work in a few hours and knocking off around midnight...works well when dealing with companies in Asia who expect their analysis delivered at 8 AM local time and then a conference call). Who should provide that education? The state, the parents? It's always been a given in the U.S. that a solid education was a right. Even playing field...each makes their own bed...you know, all those niceties. Yeah, we totally don't have that now. We suck compared to the rest of the world, and certain communities suck worse than others, and public schools in general suck more than private schools in general.
It boils down now to increasing income inequality. The U.S. has always had a MUCH higher Gini coefficient than most developed states. But it used to be that most people could still support a family. Now, it seems like the top has run away with everything and everyone else is left scrambling to pay for even the basics - healthcare, housing, food, clothing, education. It doesn't help that we have this debt and entitlement culture where it's more admirable to buy nice stuff you can't afford than work hard, save hard, and play later.
In sum, in economics, the mantra is always that the government's role should be to fix market failures and inefficiencies. I'd argue that MUCH of our market is failing and/or inefficient right now. Do I think that we need to go Communist? Nah, but regulation is going to be necessary. See, *I* think the problem is that we had good regulations for a while, and everyone got so used to them, that we decided we didn't need them anymore, and we started dismantling them, and now we realize that they were the only thing holding the damn ship together. Let's put them back!
And that's from someone who's at the level of, oh, I don't know Economics 700? The last course I took was at the 650-something level.
26
@ 23: I have a friend who is a high-school math teacher in a small town in eastern Oregon. The town has banned sex education in the schools (which by extension means that most kids aren't getting it at home either, since their parents voted against it). The school has a pregnancy rate of something like 30% of female students. (This is just anecdotal evidence based on being a teacher at a very small high school and knowing the entire student body, at least by name.) A large number of these are "immaculate conceptions," since the girls say they didn't do anything to cause a baby to happen -- an easy claim to make, since they were never taught how babies are made and are thus too ignorant even to choose abstinence.
My friend's teenage daughter joined her church's youth group, but stopped going to meetings because of the constant peer pressure to have sex.
Just a little $.02.
My friend's teenage daughter joined her church's youth group, but stopped going to meetings because of the constant peer pressure to have sex.
Just a little $.02.
27
9: We're going to have to acknowledge that teens are minors housed in biologically adult bodies. And, according to the CDC 50% are engaging in penetrative forms of sex by the age of 17. We're going to have to expand sex education to be both comprehensive and able to deal with open discussions about sexual needs and desires, which means we are going to have to teach them more than just abstinence, contraception, and the three forms of penetrative sex. We're going to have to get over ourselves and teach them about mutual masturbation, frottage, outer-course, vibrators, etc. -- Real life forms of non penetrative sex that are legitimate ways to express themselves sexually and intimately. It will benefit the sexually active and the abstinent, because each of us are evidence that abstinence ends and immaculate conception isn't a real option. Just my $0.02.
30
Hello? Look at the bigger picture here. Republicans don't want to give people options, even if they may choose what Republicans want: women choosing to uphold the traditional family. They want people to be miserable for a whole host of different reasons, not the least of which is to fill church coffers. Desperate people are more likely to turn to religion.
If the Republicans are as intelligent as they like to believe, they've also noticed that despite generous maternity and paternity leave, universal health care, mandatory vacation, high minimum wages, and even cash payouts to new parents, the birth rate in Europe is still decreasing. When you give people, especially women, more choices, by and large they choose not to get married (or get married after having kids) and they choose to have very few children, if any.
If the Republicans are as intelligent as they like to believe, they've also noticed that despite generous maternity and paternity leave, universal health care, mandatory vacation, high minimum wages, and even cash payouts to new parents, the birth rate in Europe is still decreasing. When you give people, especially women, more choices, by and large they choose not to get married (or get married after having kids) and they choose to have very few children, if any.
31
If they like those values so much they should move to Saudi Arabia and become indentured servants for the al-Qaeda-funding Saudis.
32
It's not about actually achieving the stated desired outcome (a return to traditional values.) It's about assigning blame for problems to things that make the base uncomfortable as a means of diverting their attention from any kind of fact-based approach to problem solving.
Politicians of McDonnell's ilk have no real interest in making things easier for stay-at-home moms. They would just rather talk about how feminism is killing America so they can still keep fighting the culture war they lost 40 years ago and keep avoiding honest discussions about how their pro-corporate theocratic agenda works against the interests of 95% of their constituency.
Politicians of McDonnell's ilk have no real interest in making things easier for stay-at-home moms. They would just rather talk about how feminism is killing America so they can still keep fighting the culture war they lost 40 years ago and keep avoiding honest discussions about how their pro-corporate theocratic agenda works against the interests of 95% of their constituency.
33
Its not so much of a stay-at-home-moms-are-better-for-children-families-america sort of thing and more of a get-your-ass-back-in-the-kitchen-and-make-me-my-dinner sort of thing.
republican polices drip with disdain for everyone who is not rich, white or male.
republican polices drip with disdain for everyone who is not rich, white or male.
34
Look, if he believes in these values so much, as Governor, he should have done something about Glenn Beck raping and murdering that girl.
But he didn't.
But he didn't.
35
One of my neighbors has a McDonnell sign in his yard. It's pretty bad when your own street makes you nauseous...
Like #24 said, Creigh Deeds is a huge disappointment. I was actually thinking of just staying home on election day. Until this broke.
Like #24 said, Creigh Deeds is a huge disappointment. I was actually thinking of just staying home on election day. Until this broke.
36
Oh, yeah, and if we actually had well-educated, creative thinkers, we could put this whole issue behind us. For example, we don't need women out of the workforce to create a situation where parents are a strong force in the childrens' lives. Flexible working hours, telecommuting, and job-sharing are all ways for families to make more money while always having a parent home. Of course, it works best when both parents participate in this and share the parent-at-home role. Even though I don't want kids, and I'm not married to the BF, we are the perfect example of how this would work - we both have the option of working from home a few days a week (and take that option because nothing is better than formatting Excel sheets in your PJs while watching Oprah or blasting your fave music as loud as you want, not to mention that the grocery store is a whole lot better stocked and less crowded at 11 AM on a Tuesday). We could TOTALLY work out a situation where one of us was at the house all the time, even a system where one of us was home and not working, because we can both work at any time we want on those at-home days - well, except that both of our jobs require travel, but that's kind of a rarity for most fields. OR well-run daycare is actually good for kids - socialization, better immune systems, solid education from a younger age, etc. OR we could always run the school day longer and incorporate extracurricular activities, tutoring, study hall, etc. into a supervised day so that the parents' work schedule doesn't interfere (not to mention bringing back art, music, and physical education). We could also drastically improve public transportation, shortening commutes so that the workday doesn't have to be as long as it is, and people could live further out in cheaper areas while adding a minimal amount of time away from home! See, think outside the box and anything is possible. Problem is, 90% of people in the U.S. probably couldn't reason through my earlier post (I don't really care if they know what a Gini coefficient is...that's specialized knowledge, but I threw it in there for the troll who thinks he's an economist). I can understand how new ideas are scary when you can't understand them.
More...
37
@Dan: Virginia currently has a Democratic governor, two Democratic Senators, and six out of our eleven members of Congress are Democrats. It's not like we're Texas or something.
@24: I may have voted for Moran in the primary, but Deeds isn't a bad candidate - he's certainly miles ahead of McAuliffe.
@24: I may have voted for Moran in the primary, but Deeds isn't a bad candidate - he's certainly miles ahead of McAuliffe.
38
I really oppose the notion that a family with two working parents shortchanges kids. There are all kinds of solutions parents can come up with to make sure their children are well-cared for - from extended family-style caretaking to preschools geared towards learning and creative thought. You can't forget about the importance of parents as role models in a kid's life. Not only does a working parent model success and hard work, they also provide an example of real fulfillment and life satisfaction (assuming they find their career rewarding). While some people can feel totally fulfilled being a stay-at-home parent, others will wind up laying awake at night, wondering if they've wasted their life's potential. It's best not to force anyone into the confines of a household if that's not what they choose for themselves.
My parents are both college professors. They came up with alternating schedules as much as they could, and placed me in quality pre-schools and after-school programs all through my childhood. The newest baby of the family, my cousin, has an attorney and a pediatrician for parents. I don't feel shortchanged, and I don't think he's going to be either.
My parents are both college professors. They came up with alternating schedules as much as they could, and placed me in quality pre-schools and after-school programs all through my childhood. The newest baby of the family, my cousin, has an attorney and a pediatrician for parents. I don't feel shortchanged, and I don't think he's going to be either.
39
Fear, anxiety, and insecurity. Some folks like that in their workers. Here's an oldie, back when certain folks were declaring 5% to be full employment and the edge of the earth beyond which we ought not sail:
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/busine…
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/busine…
40
Big hikes in the minimum wage would put small businesses out of business, especially in this economy where we are struggling to survive. Hell, even a small hike in the minimum wage would put us under right now. Show some freakin' sense.
Small Business Owner
Small Business Owner
41
38
college professors?
oooooh-
aaah!
you're a lucky girl.
of course, the last professor we read about on slog was renting his five year old adopted son out to pedophiles on Craigs List...
college professors?
oooooh-
aaah!
you're a lucky girl.
of course, the last professor we read about on slog was renting his five year old adopted son out to pedophiles on Craigs List...
42
Finally, Dan, you've pointed out what I've been trying to tell idiotic S. Carolinians for years.
You won't believe how many times I heard people decry and put down on working women, how many times James Dobson encourages his followers to have women stay at home. Yes, a lot of mothers would like to stay at home with their children. Of course they can't afford it. And the very idiots that lambast two income families do nothing to actually encourage a single income family.
Anytime I hear some fundy whine about the degeneration of the family due to sinful, working women, I automatically know he must make plenty of money. If he was poor like most of us, he'd know better.
Single-income families are a luxury. In fact, historically speaking, they always have been. Look at the lives of Americans in the 1800s, 1920s, hell, any decade. Only the wealthy had the "Man of the House" work. The more common poor families had women working the same as the men. Before child labor laws, children as young as 8 years old could be seen working in mines and mills alongside their parents.
This "traditional" family notion that fundies are fond of throwing around was a luxury of the upper class that they have somehow come to believe was lived by every single American prior to the 2nd wave of Feminism.
You won't believe how many times I heard people decry and put down on working women, how many times James Dobson encourages his followers to have women stay at home. Yes, a lot of mothers would like to stay at home with their children. Of course they can't afford it. And the very idiots that lambast two income families do nothing to actually encourage a single income family.
Anytime I hear some fundy whine about the degeneration of the family due to sinful, working women, I automatically know he must make plenty of money. If he was poor like most of us, he'd know better.
Single-income families are a luxury. In fact, historically speaking, they always have been. Look at the lives of Americans in the 1800s, 1920s, hell, any decade. Only the wealthy had the "Man of the House" work. The more common poor families had women working the same as the men. Before child labor laws, children as young as 8 years old could be seen working in mines and mills alongside their parents.
This "traditional" family notion that fundies are fond of throwing around was a luxury of the upper class that they have somehow come to believe was lived by every single American prior to the 2nd wave of Feminism.
43
@42, you bring up a valuable point. The working family used to be a mainstay of the American family. Even as a member of a solidly middle-class family in the 80's, my brother and I were out working in the garden every day in the summer, keeping the family in valuable and expensive food. We had paper routes and babysitting gigs for our spending money, which we had to spend some of on what most would consider necessities, like school clothes and basic entertainment supplies (any construction paper, crayons, markers, stencils, etc. in the house once my brother and I were old enough to get a job were bought by us). My mom worked until my younger brother was born, and we lived with extended family who provided childcare and extra funds for having a comfortable and financially secure life. Now we assume that one family member can provide all of this, but in more lavish style (let me tell you that there were no granite countertops or stainless steel appliances or flat-screen TVs or premium cable in MY household)? It's ludicrous.
44
Kids are going to be short changed until we value caring for vulnerable family members (kids, seniors, ill/disabled adults)--inside and outside the home. Cleaning the toilet, wiping noses, and making sure there's food in the fridge are not considered important. The mundane tasks associated with maintaining healthy families are not valued. Even construction work doesn't "count" when it's your own home.
Paying more for work outside the home won't fix the problem. We need to change the social attitudes towards those who work inside their own homes. We also need to offer tangible, independent protection for those who provide those services--including life insurance, retirement benefits, and (yes, I'm a commie) health benefits. The definition of work needs to be changed and all forms of work need to be rewarded.
This isn't a feminist vs. fundamentalist or liberal vs. conservative issue. It's a measure of how we as a society value families. Right now, our policies demonstrate that we don't.
Paying more for work outside the home won't fix the problem. We need to change the social attitudes towards those who work inside their own homes. We also need to offer tangible, independent protection for those who provide those services--including life insurance, retirement benefits, and (yes, I'm a commie) health benefits. The definition of work needs to be changed and all forms of work need to be rewarded.
This isn't a feminist vs. fundamentalist or liberal vs. conservative issue. It's a measure of how we as a society value families. Right now, our policies demonstrate that we don't.
45
42. This sort of revisionist history by the right wing actually falls along the lines of a long write-up by a friend of mine about the public option, Columbine and the media's power of creating universal impressions through false interpretations.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Prospecting Science by Charles Mudede
-
Google Briefly Acknowledges the Existence of Gay Couples—and Princess/Frog Couples—on Valentine's Day by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (45) RSS