I've made it to the initial round for favorite progressive blogger in the Air America Cruise Contest. I have to stay in the Top 5 before the second voting round begins, so your vote is appreciated! First voting round:
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
...Now, after this summer of bad political behavior -- full of hecklers, birthers, truthers, death panels and guns -- I think it's time to take up the cause against poorly behaved politicians and citizen activists alike. Do it for the children!
It wouldn't be so bad if politics weren't viewed as the be-all and end-all of American culture. I mean, I'd be happy if someone like, say, South Carolina GOP Rep. Joe "You lie!" Wilson had the courage of basketball star Charles Barkley to stand up and say, "Hey, I'm not a role model just because I got elected to Congress."
But you know that won't happen, because despite all the evidence to the contrary, we like to delude ourselves into thinking that politics is an honorable profession guided by only the most moral and high-minded of individuals and intentions...
In the middle of the piece, commentator Gregory Rodriguez makes a serious comment about Nazi politics (that for once isn't an exercise in violating Goodwin's Law):
Otto von Bismarck, the 19th century German chancellor, is famously said to have remarked that "laws are like sausage. It is better not to see them made." As much as I agree with his assessment, I also recognize the dangers of looking away from the sausage machine. Indeed, one of contemporary Germany's foremost intellectuals, Wolf Lepenies, argued a few years ago that the German elite's disdain for the lowly practice of politics (and preference for high culture) essentially allowed the Nazis to emerge unchecked. So dismayed were they by the everyday horse-trading, the elite left politics to others.
But if none of us can afford to turn away, what can we do to make political discourse and behavior more palatable?
Of course, the writer answers his rhetorical question with his ideas on how to create space for civil political discourse.
But, of course, let's "unrhetoricalize" the question, and make it a question for all of us. What do each of us who are politically engaged on some level or another to make political discourse and behavior more palatable?
But let's not frame our answers in tems of "this is what I think the other guy should do," but instead from the perspective of "what do I think I could and should do?" So, how would you answer Gregory Rodriguez's question of "what can we do to make political discourse and behavior more palatable?" if you applied the question to yourself and your own behavior during political dialog?
And I know, the question as I've interpreted it takes on my perspective that civil political dialog is the preferred kind of political dialog. So for those who don't agree with mine or Mr. Rodriguez's perspective that civil political dialog is preferred, you can instead answer of how you think you should engage in political dialog in the current reality that political dialog is currently pretty uncivil.
So what are your thoughts?
~~~~~
Since this is a discussion about political civility, here's a special excerpt related to Godwin's Law that I like to quote occaionally:
And the Hitlers keep on coming. Yes, Adolf Hitler, one of the worst mass-murders in all of history, has become the go-to metaphor and comparison for anyone you have a minor disagreement with.
...Here's my point. When you compare people to Hitler, enh, you lose a little credibility.
...[P]lease stop calling people Hitler when you disagree with them. It demeans you, it demeans your opponent, and to be honest, it demeans Hitler. That guy worked too many years, too hard, to be that evil to have any Tom, Dick and Harry come along and say "Hey, you're being Hitler." No--You know who was Hitler? HITLER!
The Jon Stewart video on that linked site to the quote is a particularly poignant and funny take on calling an opponent a Hitler or a Nazi. Higly recommend its vieing.
These days, a few of you may know me from my occasional and typically infuriating comments here at PHB, or occasionally on Bilerico.
My name is Toni D'orsay. I am a multi-ethnic woman living in Phoenix, Arizona. Starting in late 2010, I will begin running for office here in Arizona -- office in specific to be determined. I am also a transsexual, and while I am *not* an activist, I am an advocate.
The distinction is a fine one, as I see my role as an advocate more educational -- both within and outside the queer/lgbt/whatever community -- than political, although obviously a run for office will sorta change that.
I do not always see things the same way that the general leadership of much of the community does -- at 44, I come from a different worldview and understanding of things than many of them.
I have talked in the past about strategy, about the way of doing things, and, given the general unrest regarding many of the current leadership's methods, I figure why not do the advocate thing and talk about possible changes.
I approach things with a focus on the Transgender side. I look at all of these issues as being trans issues because the majority of transfolk are also gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. The straight one's like me are pretty rare, comparatively.
In looking at the big issues that loom in the future, the fights that matter the most, right now, in my opinion, are pretty wide ranging, and consist of 5 things:
Recognition of Unity
Non-discrimination in housing, employment, etc.
The "Bathroom Issue"
Health care issue resolution
Marriage equality
Now, I realize that a lot of my cis queer/LGBT friends will be somewhat taken aback that I would list marriage as the last one, but I did say that I am informed through a transgender lens -- there are gays and lesbians for whom marriage is worthless since they won't have a place to live or a job to pay for the license and rings.
After the break, I'm going to suggest some approaches to these issues that may not have been considered before, and that are actually inspired and informed by our very own enemies in this battle. To do so, I will explain some aspects of history that are often ignored or overlooked by the queer community (which is how I will refer to them going forward).
I hope that some of you will follow. I hope because it is not a short posting. Indeed, it is one of the longest political posts I've ever written in my life. Sorry I'm so wordy.
I have to admit, I'm confused by the sentiment and numbers of this Wall Street Journal article entitled Donor Disclosure Has Its Downsides; Supporters of California's Prop. 8 have faced a backlash. The article begins with the line "How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd," and then goes to make a case for keeping donations secret.
We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public -- many worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their businesses.
And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people's fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 -- California's recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman -- is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.
For example, when it was discovered that Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in Sacramento, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8, the theater was deluged with criticism from prominent artists. Mr. Eckern was forced to resign...
The writer then goes on to cite the cases of Richard Raddon (the director of the L.A. Film Festival who resigned under pressure), a Palo Alto dentist who lost patients as a result of his $1,000 donation, and restaurant manager Marjorie Christoffersen (the El Coyote restaurant manager who resigned due to loss of customers).
I don't believe the losses of these four people match the possible future of marriage dissolutions of 18,000 same gender couples by the state of California -- 18,000 same gender couples who married when it was lawful in the state.
The authors of the WSJ op-ed conclude:
In the aftermath of Prop. 8 we can glimpse a very ugly future. As anyone who has had their political yard signs torn down can imagine, with today's easy access to donor information on the Internet, any crank or unhinged individual can obtain information on his political opponents, including work and home addresses, all but instantaneously. When even donations as small as $100 trigger demonstrations, it is hard to know how one will feel safe in supporting causes one believes in.
Public disclosure laws aren't meant to encourage violence, and there has been little to no violence against individual voters based on their political donations.
So since we're not talking about physical violence, I actually believe disclosure laws were created in part specifically so citizens could respond to how people "vote" with their money -- to know who is financially supporting political causes, and respond with protests, boycotts, and buycotts based on who supported what candidate and/or initiative that they didn't. I certainly don't want to go back to the days before disclosure laws were passed, and moneyed interests could purchase the government they wanted without any public knowledge of who was "buying votes" at the expense of significant numbers of those in minority populations.
So, don't count on this Californian supporting any initiatives or laws that repeal campaign public disclosure laws. Good government demands more transparency -- especially in the election process -- not less transparency.
Every year at Christmastime which, sometimes, starts as early as Halloween, I start what seems to be a tradition of posts on the so-called "War on Christmas." The now annual battles start with Christianity's biggest loudest, most obnoxious and, by default, morally superior defenders throwing down the gauntlet to challenge anyone who shows lack of respect for one of the most holy Christian holidays for the heinous and heretical transgressions of holding "holiday" parties, "holiday" sales, sending "holiday" cards and, in the case of retailers, having staff use a "happy holidays" greeting. The complaints of the Christmas Warriors (Fox News, American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Bill Donahue, et al.) is that these people/corporations are blaspheming the holiday by rendering their commercialization and mass marketing too generic. In short, these offenders are not bastardizing Christmas enough for the taste of the holiday defenders.
"I'm shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. . . . We have become so absorbed in the question of gay rights and the rest that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself -- heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to reevaluate this and look at it a little differently." NPR
The National Association of Evangelicals has publicly noted they have lost confidence in Cizik because, in the face of facts, he thought logically and then spoke instead of continuing to echo the distorted view of the NAE and similar organizations that SSM is a direct threat to the institution of marriage in that it somehow mortally injures married heterosexuals and their families. While it's appropriate and understandable for an organization to expect their spokesperson to parrot that organization's views/policies (especially when speaking on behalf of that organization) this incident sheds a light on two different, but equally interesting, tidbits:
There are those within the fundamentalist/evangelical movements who are starting to think critically (judicial) instead of critically (severely judgmental)
The NAE has, as an organization, now (re)confirmed it's commitment to Christian Nationalism in which attesting to a belief in a need for strict, bible literal-when-convenient, adherence to fundamentalist doctrine is the sole definition of patriotism and dissent in word (or by action - but only when the action is done by a "non-Christian") is unpatriotic and, potentially, treasonous.
The latter of the two lifts any remaining veil from the NAE's previous assertion they're not trying to force conversion on non-adherents, just making sure those hell-bent sinners know Jesus's benevolence is matched only by his overbearing father's sure, swift and absolute [negative] judgment of them.
The latter of the two lifts any remaining veil from the NAE's previous assertion they're not trying to force conversion on non-adherents, just making sure those hell-bent sinners know Jesus's benevolence is matched only by his overbearing father's sure, swift and absolute [negative] judgment of them.
The former, however, gives hope for progressives and devout Christians alike. As clergy and members from the orthodoxy across faiths take a step back to view their faith, religion and politics with a clear head and some degree of objectivity, they may well see that the so-called religious right and their hijacking of the GOP (and, even, the political process) has not only sullied our government, it's intercalated into the fabric of their very religion itself. Will Rogers once said "mixing politics and religion is like mixing manure and ice cream. It doesn't do much to the manure but it surely does ruin the ice cream". Progressives recognize that those espousing that a civically rooted government and legislation (aka "Secularism") is the safest and wisest form of government for humanists and people of faith (regardless of religion, denomination, etc.), this is why it is embraced by progressives, liberals and moderates alike. We also recognize that the politics of morality damages religion itself in that it not only turns religion into a weapon instead a way of living and spiritual healing, but it also leads to the destruction of a sincere faith for some jaded as the sheer hypocrisy of leadership and its most vocal proponents is publically exposed.
Like many of us here I was stunned by the racism stirred up by the passage of Prop 8 here in California. In an effort to find if there was any truth to the accusations that our loss could be laid at the feet of the black community I wrote to Nate Silver at 538.com, explained what was happening and asked if he would be kind enough to crunch the numbers and tell us what really happened. Nate provided his analysis today.
Here is the money quote, and I urge readers to go to Nate's website and read the entire report.
Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.
Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.
So now that we have but that to rest, let's see if we can't undo some of the damage we have inflicted on ourselves over the past week and move on.
When asked by Chris Wallace what "conservative solutions" the GOP would bring to their current minority-party status, Pence said social issues like "the sanctity of marriage" will remain the backbone of the Republican platform. "You build those conservative solutions, Chris, on the same time-honored principles of limited government, a belief in free markets, in the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage," Pence said.
Per Pence, since all 3 referendums against SSM on state ballots were approved this year, he is sure that the best foot forward is to undermine an Obama-Biden administration & their mandate to ensure the government is for all of us (not just one that pleases the religious right) and will do so by focusing on a spiteful wedge issue. I, for one, may actually enjoy watching the religious reich stalking the GOP the death as I hope we'll come out of the haze of religious mass hysteria with something more citizen friendly than our two party system.
It's been a long, long time coming
But I know, a change is gonna come.
Oh, yes it will.
Sam Cooke, "A Change is Gonna Come"
At 11:01 p.m. last night, after the polls closed in California, I just had to call someone. I'd spent the night at the National Public Radio headquarters with a bunch of other bloggers, live-blogging the election results. I called home and spoke briefly to my husband, then found myself walking aimlessly down a hallway. I stopped in a reception area, looked at the night sky from the second story window, and though how strange it was that the world — my world had changed so dramatically — yet the sky looked just the same.
And I thought about the people who didn't live to see what happened that night, and the people who never thought they would — but did.
Well actually, the only thing you have to do is switch out the W with a B and you have Shirley Nagel, who turned her Gross Pointe Farms home into a Halloween House of Horror that the kiddiwinks (and their parents) are sure to remember for years to come. There was no blood (real or fake) and the only howling that was heard was from the kids who, along with their, parents were grilled on their political views. Nagel, a McCain supporter in the cranky tradition of, well, John McCain, decided that she would only dole out treats to trick-or-treaters with the same political leanings as she has. No joke people, this lady made sure these kids knew they were put on notice as she told them:
"No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters."
I was recently harrassed into joining facebook. It's a weird thing because I think of facebook as a tool that nobody over 30 should be a part of (at least, not until those youngin's who started on facebook in their teens or 20's start rolling over that particular hill). I was amazed to see how many older folks had joined and thought it was pretty funny that the teenaged children of some of my friends (most of my group have toddlers or are just starting families but a few have older step-children) thought it was cool to let add a few of the adults as friends. Much of my staff, most of them in their mid-late 20s or just crossing the threshold to 30 (kids the same age as the ones I used to babysit!) are on facebook and I know some HR people troll the internet to get info about candidates, so I worry about what some of the things they post could possibly do to their careers. I tell them to be careful about tagging themselves in pictures because I do worry about what one or two pictures could possibly do. I also wonder and worry about whether a company's HR person would weed out a candidate with certain political views or relationship information ascertained from facebook. I actually made a joke about facebook possibly helping the company out with employee retention (of course I did so while taking "blackmail" pictures during a company happy hour). Based on joining facebook I now know that one kid working for me follows Chuck Norris's political lead and that one girl is in a complicated relationship with one of her female friends. Both of these revelations surprise me - sorta - but I would never use the information against them nor would it change my opinion of them in the least (and I admit to being a little disturbed by the Chuck Norris revelation because she seems like someone who thinks for herself).
Until about 4 years ago, I never worked at a company where politics was discussed openly. At that time, I started working for a company was gloating about a second Bush administration and one little bully in particular would bring up her Rethuglicans politics in meetings without rebuke. In all fairness, most of the people were not political bullies and the adults among us thought that real politics in the office was just as bad as the junior high office politics were (funny that, the political bullies were part of the queen bee crowd too). The only time my political leanings were revealed was during a flight delay during which the TV monitor blared a story about the gay marriage debate. The woman traveling with me (in her mid-late 50s) started talking about the issue very negatively and then asked me what I thought. She was apoplectic when I told her that I have no problems with SSM and, in response to her "how can you believe that, you're religious?" comment I was very direct in saying that my religion doesn't teach me to discriminate and that anyone who was really secure in their faith would not be threatened by those who live/believe/act differently. I quite enjoyed her reaction and the chuckles it got from even the Republicans in the office when she told them about our conversation.
Sigh. I have to share with my Alabama-born wife this dreadfully wingnut news about a debate that was held for candidates in the 5th Congressional District race there. Steve Johnson of WHNT.com was the moderator of the debate and this is the first question he tosses out to Republican Wayne Parker and Dem State Senator Parker Griffith:
And purported journalist Johnson elaborates with this additional mind-blower -- "Is this how Jesus wants to see you campaign? And maybe the best way to ask this is with a popular question -- 'What Would Jesus Do?'"
I sh*t you not. Watch it -- Parker gets the first crack at an answer.
PARKER: "That's a good question. You know that oftentimes Jesus is presented as meek and mild, but he was a man's man. He grew up a carpenter, he worked with his hands. And he had some really hard things to say to religious leaders of his time. He called some wolves in sheep's clothing, he called others hypocrites. So I think the thing that Jesus would do is he would always speak the truth."
(Griffith tries mightily to steer back to the issues at hand, but what do you do with a moronic question like this?)
GRIFFITH: I think he'd probably be ashamed of both of us a little bit. I think the financial crisis that we are facing in America today begs for solutions, it doesn't beg for blame, it doesn't beg for finger-pointing or throwing mud at each other. I think we've got families out there that are absolutely devastated by this. Pensions are disappearing, families don't know how they are going to educate their children, and I think we really, really have done ourselves a disservice by not discussing the issues.
Where do you begin to address how screwed up the state of journalism is in the state. This district, btw, is in northern Alabama. Bush won with 60% of the vote in 2004. However, the district has never voted a Republican to Congress. Parker, no surprise, is in favor of a federal marriage amendment and in state womb control.
From Open Left, it's not just campaign volunteers endangering themselves it's now anyone who dares question the opposition that's a prime target for some degree of beat-down. Republican Congressman
really doesn't like to be questioned, especially not by his opponent's (Judy Feder) staffers. Background from Raising Kaine:
Over the past couple of weeks, the Feder and Wolf campaigns have gotten into a dispute over Congressman Wolf's support for McCain's $5,000 health care tax credit. Congressman Wolf said in the debate the other day that he supports the tax credit, but he doesn't want to tell anyone how he plans to pay for it (hint: as the Obama campaign has pointed out, the answer is the largest middle class tax increase in history). On Friday, at the NARFE debate in Winchester, Congressman Wolf went so far as to call Judy Feder "a liar" in public. Following the debate, two staffers from the Feder campaign approached Congressman Wolf and asked him to explain how he planned to pay for the $5,000 health care tax credit he supports.
After being deposed by the independent investigator inspecting the TrooperGate TaserGate Scandal, Sarah Palin returned to the campaign trail with a new foe in sight: Katie Couric. This time Palin hit hard claiming the interview made her look bad because she was annoyed with Couric's frivolous line of questioning:
“Last time I was here I got to tell a crowd that I had to give a national interview that didn’t go so well,” she said. “And it was because I was kind of annoyed with the questions I was being asked because I thought they were kind of irrelevant to, you know, national security issues and getting our economy back on track, so I kind of showed some of that annoyance.” CNN
what do you see as the role of the United States in the world?
I know the McCain campaign has called for a surge in Afghanistan. But that country is, as you know, dramatically different than Iraq. Why do you believe additional troops, U.S. troops, will solve the problem there?
Do you think the Pakistani government is protecting al Qaeda within its borders?
You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that? . . . explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
Before I launch into this post, let me just be clear about one thing. I'm not sure of much anymore. But I am fairly certain that I shouldn't be writing this, or much of anything having to do with politics these days. For starters, I'm not that relevant as a voter. Based on everything I've read, seen, and heard, as black gay male, a member of the upper middle class, a college-educated white collar worker, and a non-Christian and non-theist, who doesn't reside in a southern state, a rust-belt state, a battle-ground state, a small town or a rural area, and someone far enough to the left to be out of the mainstream much of the time, I am one of the most irrelevant, least important voters in this election.
I am also not a "real American" living in the "real America." At best, I am an "ersatz American." (The use of the word "ersatz" automatically disqualifies me as a "real American.)"
But this is something I - and the rest of the country - already know and have known for a while.
Sounding a little like a utility infielder on a World Series team, Palin added, “I’m just glad to be a part of the McCain/Palin ticket and help out wherever I can.” (”Part of the ticket.” Just imagine the furor if Michelle Obama pronounced herself “part of the ticket.”)
The article didn't mention anything about anyone from the Coleman or McCain-Palin campaigns, let alone Norm or Todd, tellingtheir supporters that maybe some of the signage was less than appropriate. The police, however, did have a little face-off with Obama supporters trying to get closer to the stage with their banners.
This is a must see video and the folks at the Wasilla Project need to be heard.
From the Wasilla Project comes the second video, the first dealt with the rape kit issue (Attention MSM: it has not been cleared up, just blurred), the second video deals with Sarah Palin's religion and her politics.
"In 1996, when Sarah Palin first ran first mayor of Wasilla, she brought new elements into the race that her townspeople had never experienced before. The position of mayor in Wasilla had traditionally been secular and non-partisan, and she ran a campaign that featured both her fundamentalist Christianity and her opposition to abortion. Many observers felt that they were unusual issues for small town politics, but they proved successful in the conservative climate of the times. Sarah Palin beat her opponent John Stein by more than 200 votes. The final tally was 617-413. Palin’s fundamentalist church affected the community in other ways as well, such as taking over the local hospital board and banning abortions. The ban was challenged in lower courts and when the hospital appealed to the Alaskan Supreme Court, their ban was denied in a landmark decision that made national news at the time."
"This is not a man who sees America as you and I do: as the greatest force for good in the world," Palin said at a fundraising event in Colorado, according to a statement released by the McCain-Palin campaign. "This is someone who sees American as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country."
In saying this, Sarah Palin has gone too far. She has not only accused Obama of being a terrorist by association, she has opened the door for everyone to evaluate and criticize every single person and organization with which she associaties.
Obama and Ayers met at meeting for a school reform project in 1995 and again later that year. Then, Ayers hosted an event where then-Illinois state Sen. Alice Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced the young community organizer as her chosen successor, campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said. Both men also served on a charitable board together, he said.
[snip]
"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, requesting anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss strategy. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here." CNN
If you are the same as those you know and you are guilty of everything they say and do (or are alleged to have said and done) by association, wouldn't the degree of guilt increase with the frequency and intimacy of that association? Based on this, Sarah Palin is a separatist, Jew-hater, who thinks Jews and Gays must be converted and is a danger to the very freedoms American citizens hold dear.
An 11-year old girl running for student council at a Clay County Georgia public ELEMENTARY school has decided to interject religion in her campaign by using signs that say"Jesus hearts you Lexi for Prez". While a few parents have complained the girl, her mother, the school and, it seems, most of the community thinks her signs and use of religion in her campaign is perfectly appropriate. In fact, while they understand that some people may object because they have different religious beliefs, they seem to think the real problem is that we have removed G-d from public school education.
I have to be honest, if I were a teacher at a religous school, I would find this completely inappropriate - but then, I somehow doubt a child would use this tactic in a religious school because it does sully religious beliefs, has nothing to do with student council and (most importantly) wouldn't be as provocative. I also guarantee you that if any student used a campaign poster that was contrary to Christian view (I dunno, Allah Akbar! Cranky for Prez) the same parents who have no problem with (or support) young Lexi's campaign would be picketing the school - and, instead of sayingthe poster is OK because a student made and hung it, they'd take it down because it would be considered disruptive. I'd love for someone running against this girl to counter-campaign with Jesus has nothing to do with Student Council.
For some reason, I can't seem to get the embed of the video to work, the link is at CNN
Higly recommend its vieing. 
