Orwellian Republican Voters

I read an interesting article on Alternet today: "'If You Can Run the PTA, You Can Run the Country' -- Republicans Explain Their Support for Palin" This article examined some of the lame and convoluted reasons some voters gave for why they support Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate.

My comment to this article follows below:

Orwellian Republican Voters

I've had conversations with Republican coworkers who have expressed the same sentiments about Palin that this author's article outlines.

Without mentioning how deplorable I find her viewpoints, nor mentioning her family woes, I've attempted to get them to see the point that however "sassy" and engaging they may find this woman, that she's simply unprepared and unqualified to lead this nation should John McCain become incapacitated during his term in office.

They simply brush off the concerns about McCain's health, insisting that 'she's not running for President'. They assert with straight faces that Palin is more qualified to be President than Obama, insisting that her experience, however light it is, as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska is more relevant to the office of POTUS than Obama's Ivy League education and experience in the Illinois State Senate and United States Senate because it is "executive" experience.

Never mind that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law school and then taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. This is compared to Palin who took five years to earn a BS in journalism attending several colleges to do so, then worked only briefly as a sports reporter for an Alaska TV station. None of this is at all relevant to them.

They similarly brush aside Biden's nearly 40 years in the US Senate as also irrelevant because it's not "executive" experience.

They fail to note, naturally, that John McCain's experience also comes from the Senate and are untroubled and unconcerned that McCain chose someone so obviously unqualified when there were more suitable running mates available.

I am appalled at the staggering ignorance of average Palin supporters in my area, who tend to be neo-cons, rather than traditional Republicans. I had thought that no matter how misguided their views might be on the issues, that at least Republican voters would insist on candidates with the requisite education and experience to run for the offices they seek. It seems I was sadly mistaken. It's all about image for them, rather than substance.

Your thoughts?

McCain = Dewey?

As several bloggers have already pointed out, John McCain's campaign jumped the gun by placing an ad on the Wall Street Journal's webpage that declared him the winner of Friday's presidential debate, before it even took place.

This reminded me of when the Chicago Daily Tribune similarly jumped the gun in the 1948 with its "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline.

We can only hope that the election turns out the same way for McCain as it did for Dewey in 1948.

Sex Survey

This sex survey was lifted from the beautiful Chica-X.

1. What is the strangest thing you have ever inserted or seen inserted (in a sexual manner) in person?

It would have to be a PR-24 police baton that I would insert into a lover by the vaguely penis-shaped handle end.

2. Have you ever had sex anyone whose name started with a J?

Too many to count. My current primary lover's first name begins with a J, incidentally.

3. Have you ever been outside completely naked?

Of course. I would advise others wanting to do likewise to make sure not to do it during mosquito season, though.

4. Do you prefer music, TV, or other noise in the background when you have sex?

Music, preferably with a beat that approximates the rhythm of sex; slower for "making love", faster and heavier for good old fashioned fucking. I'm not fond on having a TV on when having sex, unless we're using a porn tape as inspiration for our activities.

5. Have you ever used ice for sexual purposes?

Sometimes -- it's amazing what ice does for nipples!

---

Feel free to provide your answers in the comment box.

A Lethal Bomb

This past Tuesday, West Viriginia police officer T.E. Parsons brought a suspect to the police station for a breathalyzer test.

During the course of the test, the suspect, Jose Cruz, allegedly farted and made fanning motions, directing the stink toward the officer. Officer Parsons then charged Cruz with battery.

Kanawha County Magistrate Jack Pauley signed a motion to dismiss the charge Thursday.

Better watch out! Those fart blossom mushroom clouds can be deadly!

Be Careful What You Ask For

Many men who come to a point in their lives where they have trouble getting and maintaining erections have turned to pharmacological solutions, typically in the form of Viagra and other drugs.

These drugs come with a warning labels, cautioning users to contact their doctors if they end up with erections lasting more than four hours.

Such prolonged erections are classified as priapism, are not accompanied by sexual arousal and are unaffected by orgasm.

According to Dr, Ira Sharlip, prolonged erections are usually painful. Sharlip warns men that prolonged erections are "a potentially serious condition which can result in permanent erectile dysfunction if it’s not taken care of... If an erection is left in place for more than 12 hours, damage to the tissue in the erection chambers can occur. It can be a cause of serious erectile dysfunction. They may be able to get a partial erection in the future, but not a full erection.”

Fortunately, priapism associated with erectile dysfunction drugs is quite rare. Dr. Sharlip, who maintains a private urology practice, has never encountered a case of it in the ten years he's been prescribing Viagra to patients.

It is more common, however, with an alternative ED therapy, penile injection therapy. in a particularly tragic case, "a medical professional who, after reading about the treatment of erectile dysfunction with penile injections, injected himself with an excessive dose.

Unfortunately, he then developed priapism, but was so embarrassed he went for seven days before seeking medical help. According to Dr. Christopher Steidle, “the resulting erection was unsalvageable, and the patient was left with a penis that was less than an inch long.”

Though many of us would love to have a four hour erection, the above information shows that there can definitely be too much of a good thing.

I'm quite thankful that I not yet in any need of such drugs in my sex life, and I hope this will remain true for many years to come.

Republican Schizophrenia

In order to be a good Republican, you must believe:

1. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's Daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

2. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

3. The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority should continue to be enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational drug corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

5. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

6. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle and berate our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

7. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

8. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

9. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

10. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

11. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

The Benefits of 'Friends With Benefits'

Yesterday, I read an article on Alternet, Are There Any Real Benefits to 'Friends with Benefits'?, which took the view:

Having 'friends with benefits' can be fun. But it can also destroy friendships and stand in the way of real relationships.

As one who has spent much of his adult life engaging in concurrent "friends with benefits" relationships, I had to comment to disagree. Interestingly enough, most of the comments took a similar viewpoint to my own. My comment follow below:

I am a non-monogamous heterosexual male. I prefer novelty and variety in my sex life. I'm not interested in a daily, domestic committed relationship, as I prefer my independence and privacy. I do not wish my sex life to consist only of random hookups, though these have their place on occasion. For my life, friends with benefits relationships work well. Currently, I have several friends with benefits relationships going on, which has worked for me in the 30+ years I've been sexually active.

There are a lot of women who, for whatever reasons, don't want a serious relationship at various points in their lives, but they still have sexual needs they want fulfilled. These are the kinds of women whom I typically choose for my partners. There's lots of great sex with no strings attached on both sides. The cast of characters continues to shift over the years, but that just goes with the territory.

And that's what it's all about. People still have sexual needs even if they don't have the time or inclination to pursue a full-blown relationship, monogamous or not.

The author of this article compares FWB relationships to "real" relationships. As far as I'm concerned my relationships are "real"; they're just not traditional. My relationships are non-traditional, but they're no less "real" than those that end in marriage or long-term commitments. I don't measure the quality of my relationships by how long they last; I don't see my relationships as endurance contests. If the sex was good for both of us in the time it lasted, then it was a success.

She also said, "The cornerstone of friendship is open communication, and becoming a friend with benefits actually shuts down those open lines. Let's face it, if the only thing you're doing together is having sex, it isn't the same thing as sharing who you are."

In response to this, I'm quite honest with the women I have FWBs with -- I make the nature of the relationship quite clear with each woman at the very beginning. We're not getting together to "share who we are" any more than two people who get together once a week to go bowling, play bridge, watch sports on TV, or whatever, get together to "share who they are". We all have casual acquaintances with whom we get together for sole or limited purposes and no one laments the lack of "soul sharing" in these relationships. So, why not sex, too, between two sexually compatible people who are just looking for great sex?

Burned

I've been using Ebay for eight years now, since the fall of 2000. In all that time, I've never had any problems with the purchases I've made.

Until now.

About three weeks ago, I bought two books from two different sellers. I got an automated response from both sellers acknowledging my order and that the payment had gone through. The first seller also contacted me personally to thank me for my order, advising me of when the order would be sent. The second seller never contacted me personally, but using Ebay's tracking system I saw that my order had been marked as "shipped".

The first order arrived promptly within a week. Great -- another smooth transaction completed. The days, then weeks dragged by, and the second order never arrived. Every day I'd check my mailbox, to find nothing but ordinary mail in there.

I went back to the seller's page to read their feedback again and found that new negative feedback had been left for them -- the customer never received their book and the seller never responded to the buyer's emails. I began to get a bit nervous, but considering that this was the seller's first negative feedback, I hunkered down to wait it out.

When I reached the last day of the estimated shipping times for the book, I contacted the seller, in accordance with Ebay policy, and waited the required 48 hours for a reply. Unsurprisingly, the seller ignored my email, just as they had with the previous customer. I left scathing, negative feedback for the seller, warning other potential customers away. I've filed a claim and now I'm waiting for it to be resolved. I don't really want money back -- I just want the damned book I ordered!

Have any of you been burned on Ebay or another site, and how did it eventually turn out for you?

2008 Political Bumper Stickers

Repower America.
Obama/Biden '08

A Working Person Voting For a Republican
Is Like a Chicken Voting for Colonel Sanders.*

Republican Health Plan:
Don't Get Sick*

Trillion Dollar War.
McCain.

Obama/Biden
For a Return to Sanity.

Enough!
Obama/Biden '08

Vote For Obama
Isn't it time a
Smart Guy was Elected?*

I knew McCain 2000.
And you, McCain 2008 are no McCain 2000.

McCain:
Sad Pawn of the Religious Wrong.

McCain:
Lockstep with Bush

McCain:
A Nuclear Temper

News to McCain:
"Yee-haw" is not a foreign policy.

John McCain
for Retirement

Are you Better off Now
than you were Eight Years ago?

Ban Books.
Vote Palin/McCain

McCain/Palin
A Bridge to Nowhere

Palin's Bridge to Nowhere
"I was for it before I was against it."

Palin's Alaska:
So much Pork she's at risk for Trichinosis.

Vote Obama/Biden '08!
(Wolves & Polar Bears approve this message.)

McCain:
Ridin' the Double-Talk Express

McCain/Bush
(Gutter) Politics as Usual

Jesus was a community organizer.
Pontius Pilate was a governor.*

A Perfect Summary

This blogger perfectly sums up why Sarah Palin is unqualified to run as Vice President of the United States. It's short, sweet, and says it all.

Sarah Palin is the distilled essence of wingnut. She has it all. She is dishonest. She is a religious nut. She is incurious. She is anti-science. She is inexperienced. She abuses her authority. She hides behind executive privilege. She is a big spender. She works from the gut and places a greater value on instinct than knowledge. And most dangerous of all, she is supremely self-confident to the point of not recognizing how ill-equipped she is to lead the country.

In my opinion, Sarah Palin is Ann Coulter, Peggy Hill, Delores Umbridge, and Phyllis Schlafly all rolled into one.

Your thoughts?

Is There a Monogamy Gene?

A recent scientific study of Swedish twin brothers suggests that there may be a genetic component the ability of men to be monogamous and how strongly they bond with their mates.

The gene involved modulates the hormone vasopressin.

"Our main finding was an association between a variant of the vasopressin receptor 1a gene and how strong bonds men reported they had to their partners," said lead researcher Hasse Walum, of the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. "Men carrying this variant scored on average lower on a scale measuring the strength of the bond compared to men not carrying this variant."

This study was begun in response to results from a similar study with voles. "Studies in voles have shown that the hormone vasopressin is released in the brain of males during mating," Walum said.

The more vasopressin in the brain, the more male voles wanted to remain with the female after copulation is over, the study showed . This effect was more pronounced in monogamous voles.

Of course, voles and humans are quite different, so the research team focused the vasopressin 1a gene, which is shared by both species. Variations in this gene strongly influenced vasopressin activity in the male vole, so researchers wondered if it might be the same for men.

The research team looked for variants of the vasopressin 1a gene among the 552 pairs of male twins that participated in the study. All the men were currently in a relationship that had lasted at least five years, with 18 percent being unmarried. The men were given psychological tests that measured their ability to bond and commit.

They found that men with a certain allele of the vasopressin 1a gene, called 334, tended to score markedly low on the Partner Bonding Scale, which is a psychological test. They were also less likely to be married than men with another form of the gene. Carrying two copies of the 334 allele doubled the odds that the men had undergone some sort of marital crisis.

Dr. John Lucas, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College said that the findings made sense to him, as genes help drive much of human behavior, including mate bonding.

He pointed out, however, that this gene wasn't the only factor involved that influence a man's ability to form bonds and/or be monogamous.

"It's unlikely to be a single gene—it's likely to be multiple genes that are expressed incompletely and interact with the environment," said Lucas. He said that inborn temperament, which is likely hard wired by our individual genetic makeup, and interacts through time with our environment through training and experience, forms our personalities. Personality, in turn, involves the ability to commit.

Walum also noted that the finding would likely not be applicable to women, since vasopressin appears to be tied to social bonding in males, but not females. Further studies focusing on females would be needed to indicate what affects the ability to commit for women.

He also stated that the results of this study would not be sufficient to predict future behavior in any given man.

For me, personally, monogamy is a bad fit that has always felt unnatural. And through experience and observation, I've come to the conclusion that some people naturally have an easier time living monogamously than others. it's quite interesting to find that medical studies that back up what I've always known instinctively.

I think a follow-up study should be conducted to see why the variation in alleles exists, as it apparently serves a biological purpose that would indicate that a variation in mating strategies, rather than monogamy for everyone without exception, is beneficial to the human race.

Thoughts?

Libertine FAQ

What is a libertine, anyway?

A person who espouses or practices libertinism (q.v.)., which is:

1. Defiance in thought, word, or deed of the prevailing sexual mores (q.v.).

2. Sexual activity as such -- that is, without unwelcome admixtures such as the violation of another's freedom -- conducted in rejection of what others think is proper as expressed in laws, social mores, or codes of religious purity; licentious sexual behavior. The pejorative tag is "liberty without virtue," although that tag falsely implies that all people who practice libertinism in this sense lack virtue.

3. The view that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is acceptable.

4. The view that one is morally free to engage in sexual activity without incurring marital obligation, whether first or afterwards, with as many willing people as one wishes.

Isn’t libertinism the same thing as promiscuity; being a slut?

Similar, yes. However, many libertines have actively chosen this lifestyle, unlike many promiscuous people who merely drift into such behavior without much conscious thought or choice. The difference in outlook being that, for many people, promiscuity is a manifestation of other issues going on in that person’s life, whereas, for the libertine, it is a matter of philosophy and a way of looking at the world that goes beyond mere sexual expression.

What’s the difference between a libertine and a sex addict?

Choice and control. The libertine has chosen sexual freedom with a clear conscience and is in control of with whom, when, where, and how they choose to have sex, whereas the sex addict is acting out of compulsion and feels much guilt. See my blog entry “Libertine vs. Sex Addict” (30 Aug) for a more in-depth comparison.

Are libertines polyamorous and/or swingers?

Though all three have sex with multiple partners, libertinism isn’t the same as polyamory or swinging. Both forms of non monogamy are too structured to be true libertinism, where the emphasis is on unrestrained sexuality.

Polyamory stresses love and generally involves limiting oneself to a set number of partners. Swinging, on the other hand, generally doesn’t limit the number of sex partners, but swingers are usually legally married and are emotionally monogamous.

Libertines do not like to limit themselves either emotionally or in their availability to having new lovers. Rather, libertines prefer to remain open to all possibilities.

Do libertines have long term love relationships? Or is it all about the sex?

Libertines can fall in love just like anyone else. Unlike monogamous people, who confine their sexual expression and romantic love to a single partner, libertine relationships run the full gamut of possibilities, usually with several, of different levels of intensity, going on simultaneously.

The types of relationships typically include one night stands, fuckbuddies, sexual friendships, and love relationships. There may be one or several of each type going on concurrently, though the typical pattern is to have fewer “in love” relationships and one night stands, and more fuckbuddies and sexual friendships. Fuckbuddies and sexual friends are quite similar, differing mainly in frequency and feelings. Fuckbuddies are now and then lovers, at the emotional level typical of acquaintances, where one may love (but not be “in love” with) a sexual friend and usually sees them on a more regular basis.

Of course, every libertine manages it differently; some are indeed, “all about the sex”, where others lean more toward the polyamorous end of the spectrum. Any way is good; the key component being individual preference.

Can one be a libertine and be celibate? Monogamous?

Yes. Being a libertine isn’t only about behavior; at the core, it is an attitude, a philosophy, a way of looking at the world.

Though no libertine wants to be celibate, sometimes libertines are obliged to be celibate by circumstance: sickness, old age, etc.

Similarly, there are those who might be married and have many unavoidable responsibilities and do not have the time to pursue libertinism at certain points in their lives.

There are active libertines, and there are also libertines merely by belief.

Do libertines make promises they don't intend to keep just to get someone into bed?

Jerks come in all types, libertines included. So, the less ethical among us might do that, but anyone who’s been successful as a libertine for any length of time has learned that honesty is the best policy and prevents most types of hassles.

What about STDs?

The first thing to remember is that all forms of sexual expression carry risks; the only thing that is 100% guaranteed to be safe is abstinence. And for nearly everyone, that isn’t a workable or acceptable option. That being said, it is true that those of us with active, non monogamous sex lives do have a greater risk of contracting STDs, and it is important for us to be aware of and practice safer sex methods, especially with new lovers and those of short duration.

Condom usage and periodic testing for STDs is important, as is taking some care in choosing partners. Of course, this isn’t foolproof, but it does reduce the likelihood.

Life itself comes with risks -- driving a car is risky, flying in a plane is risky, crossing a busy city street on foot is risky. Consenting adults all have to decide for themselves what is an acceptable level of risk to have in their lives, and then take responsibility for their choices and any such consequences that may result.

And again, honesty is essential. Before getting involved with us, potential new lovers deserve to know that we are not monogamous in order to be able to make an informed decision whether to consent to sexual involvement. Giving others the opportunity to assess their own personally acceptable risk level is the only ethical thing to do.

------
Note: This is a reprint of the FAQ I did on my original blog at Blog City in 2004.

Voldemort/Umbridge 2008?

A few days ago, I wrote a post comparing Sarah Palin to Peggy Hill. While listening to her acceptance speech at the Republican convention the other night, her tone of voice and simpering little laugh immediately reminded me of another fictional character, one far less benign than Peggy Hill.

Save for the lack of a British accent, Sarah Palin reminded me strongly of Delores Umbridge, the evil witch who takes over Hogwarts in the movie, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix".

It seems as if I wasn't alone making this connection. Someone on Facebook did a comparison of the two women, which I've reproduced below:

The similarities are astounding. Here's a few:
1. Palin has enjoyed a meteoric rise to the center of politics. Umbridge, likewise, came from nowhere to take over Hogwarts.
2. They resemble toads, wear glasses, and have an affinity for all things pink.
3. Both like censorship. Umbridge censored using wands and having fun, and Palin tried to censor certain books in a public library that were against her morals (bizarre because Palin was a communications major -- turncoat!).
4. Both were selected to high posts by really old dudes. Come to think of it, McCain might even be Cornelius Fudge...hmmm...
5. They both have acidic personalities--either agree with them or leave. Umbridge polarized Hogwarts while Palin, upon being elected mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, asked a bunch of her staff to resign if they supported the former mayor.
6. Both ignore obvious problems. Umbridge ignored the constant evidence that Voldemort was returning to power, whereas Palin ignores the fact that her daughter is living proof that abstinence-only education is retarded.
7. Both have a tendency of being wicked with a sunny disposition. Umbridge, among other things, make Harry scar himself with pointless discipline, with a smile, while Palin is willing to send our troops to die for an unjust cause, with a smile (idea compliments of Charles Mitchell).

The list can go on, and I'm sure over time it will. But the fact is that we as a country are seriously considering a Fudge/Umbridge--I mean, McCain/Palin ticket.

Actually, I'd say a Voldemort/Umbridge ticket, if the pictures I posted the other day comparing McCain and Voldemort are any indication.

If You Can't Stand The Heat, Stay Out of the Kitchen

Aielman wrote an interesting post today, And The Smear Machine Ramps Up, concerning the reactions to Governor Sarah Palin since she was nominated to be John McCain's running mate. I felt moved to leave a comment and I ended up leaving a novel over there, and I decided to post that comment here as my blog entry for the day.

Before reading my comment, which follows below, please read Aielman's entry first, so that my comment is read in the proper context.

My comment:

First of all, anyone McCain would have picked would have been under intense scrutiny. McCain is 72 years old, has had a few bouts with cancer, and no doubt has residual chronic health concerns that stem from his time as a POW.
The VP pick has taken on a new emphasis in light of this, because that person could quite possibly become president if McCain is incapacitated or dies in office. Comparing the two VP candidates, if anything was to happen to either McCain or Obama, which one would you feel more confident with running the country? I don't know about you, but I'm more comfortable with Biden, who has been in the Senate since I was 14, and still manages to be younger and more energetic than McCain.

Secondly, Obama is a lawyer, who received his education from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, which helps to somewhat offset his lack of experience.

Thirdly, as both a State Senator and a US Senator representing a large, heavily populated industrial state, what experience he does have carries quite a bit more weight than being a mayor of a town of less than ten thousand, and of being governor a state with fewer than a million residents.

It's not necessarily a matter of raw intelligence, but Ms Palin is not broadly educated nor does she have the breadth of experience that Mr Obama has had with the type of experience he has.

In other words, it's the TYPE of experience that matters when comparing the two, rather than the LENGTH.

Senator McCain has also shot himself in the foot with this choice, as he'll not be able to use the experience argument any longer while campaigning against Senator Obama.

I agree with you that it's a cheap shot to drag Governor Palin's family problems into the campaign, but Republicans are hardly immune to doing this themselves. Do you not remember the cheap shot taken at Chelsea Clinton during the campaign where a "joke" is made that says she's so "ugly" because her parents are Hillary and Janet Reno? And of Rush Limbaugh calling her the "White House Dog" when her father was president -- and she was only twelve years old? So cheap shots are not limited to any party or viewpoint.

And because they're cheap shots, I will not use Bristol Palin's pregnancy as a way to criticize her mother on my blog.

There is one caveat to this, however. I'm sure you've read that she boarded a plane after going into labor with her fifth child -- she was actually leaking amniotic fluid which can be serious if not promptly attended to -- took an 8 hour flight and then drove another 45 miles to give birth in a small hospital not equipped to deal with emergencies that could result from her high risk pregnancy. While that is essentially her own business and her right to do so, it does call into question her powers of judgment, as nearly any sensible person would have checked into a world class hospital right there in Texas and not taken any chances with the birth.

So far as how one treats a female candidate -- Republicans apparently didn't worry about chivalry when attacking Hillary Clinton -- nor should they have. On the same line, Sarah Palin shouldn't expect the "little lady" treatment, either. It's not respectful, as it treats her as less than an equal, if she's treated like a fragile little eggshell, bound to burst into tears at the least criticism. I would give her Harry Truman's advice: "If You Can't Take the Heat, Then Stay Out of the Kitchen".

Sarah Palin: Too Dumb To Be VP?

In 2006, when Sarah Palin was running for Governor of Alaska, she answered a series of questions from a right wing group, Eagle Forum Alaska. Her answer to the following question clearly betrays an appalling lack of knowledge about basic American history.

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Sarah Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

And this woman is a college graduate? I'm actually surprised she made it through high school.

Doesn't she know that the Pledge of Allegiance wasn't written until 1892 -- decades after the Founding Fathers had died?

Doesn't she know that the phrase "under God" wasn't added until 1954? The original pledge was written as: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Do we really want someone who doesn't even know the basics of American history as our VP? I don't think she's competent enough to teach a junior high history or civics class, let alone be second in line for the Presidency.

Thoughts?