by Greg Method
I am not a woman.
Now, now, I know that may surprise many of you (I call those people "morons"), but it's true. I am of the male gender. I have no body parts that would indicate otherwise and, as far as I can tell, that probably won't ever change without my knowing about it.
So, why the hell would anyone care what I have to say about women's issues?
Why the hell would anyone care what any male has to say about women's issues?
And, perhaps most importantly, why the hell would anyone care what Bush has to say about women's issues??
I strongly believe Bush feels threatened by women. Sheesh, look at his mother, Skeletor. She only had an aversion to animated fiction while believing herself to be royalty. Who wouldn't feel threatened by women in that case??
But seriously, just briefly look at the females in Bush's personal life. He married a passive, submissive simpleton who doesn't express her own ideas and opinions (in fact, the only thing Georgie gave her credit for, convincing him to quit drinking, he later reaccredited to religion). He looks the other way when his daughters are picked up for underaged drinking and forged IDs, indicating a lack of discipline in the family. And...well, that's it! Everyone else he hangs out with are his father's aging friends and former co-workers. It's pretty clear that deep down this guy has "mommy" issues.
Yet he seems to feel that he's more than qualified to make decisions that affect millions of women around the country. Imagine if Norman Bates somehow got into public office and immediately made matricide legal. Or, worse yet, imagine if we had a president who couldn't tell the difference between his mother and his wife...oh wait, we've already had that.
I'll admit right off the bat that I simply do not know about all of the political and social issues that are currently affecting women. I only know a little more than what is presented in the media, the majority of which is owned by old white guys. Despite my limitations, I don't think it's ignorant to say that it seems as if every recent decade has had at least one major hot-button women's issue. The 1970s had the women's lib movement, the 1980s had disputes over equal pay, and the 1990s had sexual harassment in the workplace. And even though it's always been an important issue, it seems as if the 2000s' major women's issue will be abortion.
Ah yes, I'm-a gonna talk about the a-word. Currently the phrase "women's issues" is a euphemism for "abortion." I will actually bring up a couple of other issues later on, but right now let's get the grandmommy of "women's issues" out of the way.
For those of you who have been living under a rock for the last couple of decades and decided to check your e-mail before reading up on social issues, first of all thank you for checking out this web site. There are two major camps of opinion when it comes to the abortion debate: "Pro-choice," meaning that a person supports the idea of a woman being able to decide for herself whether or not she wants to keep the embryo she's carrying, and then being able to have an abortion if that's her wish; and "Pro-life," meaning that a person believes that a life is a life, regardless if it is inside or outside the mother, and that a woman having an abortion constitutes murder.
And for the record, I am pro-choice.
Of course, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are euphemisms themselves, but those are usually the most accepted designations. However, there are a number of extreme pro-lifers who have the temerity of referring to the other side as "pro-death." Thankfully, you won't find many, if any, mainstream activists or spokespersons for either side stooping to such levels, but once in a while there will be some bible-clutchin' redneck asshole out there who will dumb down the whole discussion by using such terminology...or they will hire Karen Hughes to do it for them.
I don't think I'm uncovering any big secrets here when I explain that the abortion debate, like many other social and political debates, is essentially a left-versus-right debate. Most left-wingers are pro-choice, while most right-wingers are pro-life. Sure there is some minor crossovers to either side, but the abortion debate pretty much falls on the political-party dividing line.
The reason I bring this up is because the right has one, very obvious debating tactic. They try to manipulate an argument by controlling the terminology used, because to them the "image" is more important than the facts. According to them we didn't invade Iraq over oil on a whim, we "liberated terrorists who possessed weapons of mass destruction." According to them adding a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage wouldn't be violating anyone's civil rights, it would be "preserving the sanctity of the institution of marriage." According to them John Kerry doesn't have different opinions on various unique issues involving the war, he "flip-flops." What's sad about that is even the Republican pundits try to convince themselves to believe the party's "terminology." You can bet Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity spent a good couple of hours saying "coalition" to themselves in private before they could do it without cracking up.
But anyway, as I said there are a select, ignorant few who prefer to use the term "pro-death" when referring to pro-choicers (or is that "pro-choosers?"). And the only reason they haven't gone beyond that term is because then people will know they're full of hot air. But otherwise they would no doubt gladly use the term "pro-murder"...because you know that's what they really want to say: "These people aren't pro-choice, they're pro-murder. They support the idea of murder. And not just any murder, but the murder of babies. These people want to murder babies."
These are, ironically enough, the same people who incite violent riots outside of clinics and attack doctors. I'm sorry, but if I want to see a bunch of mindless zombies dressed as nurses and priests, I'll go rent Dawn of the Dead.
But I think if pro-lifers get to use such an extreme term as "pro-death" when referring to pro-choicers, then we ought to be able to use a similarly extreme term when referring to them. I think "anti-freedom" fits nicely, since that is essentially what they want to do, right? Limit the freedom a woman has with her body? Of course, I personally wouldn't stoop to using such a label outright, but if some asshole out there is going to use a condescending term like "pro-death," then we should be ready with a comeback.
It's not surprising that when the discussion of abortion comes up, a lot of pro-lifers stand behind the argument of religion, usually saying something like God values all life or some such nonsense. Well, that's the first mistake right then and there. Even if we should give a flyin' crap what a fictional character thinks about those who live in reality, God is hardly the ideal example to use. According to the Bible, God flooded villages and killed first-born males out of spite. Sheesh, pro-lifers might as well use Darth Vader as an example!
While doing research for this column, I came upon a very troubling quote by New Hampshire's Union Leader pro-life columnist Kathleen Parker...and if hers is the stance of most pro-lifers, then I feel sorry for the whole lot of them to be this deluded. She said, "Your body, and the baby growing inside you, belongs to God, rather than to you." Aside from the fact that Kathleen is stealing a line from Uncle Tom's Cabin, what troubled me about this is that people really do believe this. But, have you ever heard anyone say "My body belongs to Dracula?" or "My body belongs to Harry Potter?" Why not? They're also literary characters, aren't they?
Equally troubling was another stance Kathleen had on another issue: she also supports the death penalty. I was surprised to later learn that many people also have the same two paradoxical beliefs that Kathleen has (such as Monkey Boy--err, Bush). How can you be both pro-life and pro-death penalty?? That would be like an overweight minimalist. If all life is supposedly sacred, then how come it's okay for criminals to die? I just don't get it. If it's not hypocrisy, then what is it? Is only selected life sacred? And if so, who selects it?
People, the Bible was written by a group of very lame storytellers who were trying to tell the history of the universe to simpletons. If you want to believe in its messages that's fine, but it shouldn't consume your entire life. Nothing should, for that matter. Look at Star Trek fans! The original series is the "old testament," The Next Generation and beyond is the "new testament," Spock's logic is equated as a guideline to live by ("commandments"), people create songs to sing its "holy praises" (filking), people hold "traditional" Klingon weddings, and only one episode of the mid-70s cartoon is considered to be "canon." Christians are essentially the world's first Trekkies.
Although Bush has made it clear since his first campaign that he is against women having control of their bodies, in every year of his term he has made drastic steps to push abortion rights backward.
Just to show how strongly he felt about it, on his first day in the Oval Office he reinstated the Reagan-era Global Gag Rule, which prevented the U.S. Agency for International Development from funding international family-planning organizations that provide abortion counseling, services, support, or just information! The rest of 2001 was filled with events such as Bush's 2002 budget planning to eliminate the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program, which provides health care for pregnant women during all stages, not to mention treatment to children and teens whose communities may not have adequate healthcare facilities; a plan to suspend the Healthy Start program, which helps reduce infant deaths; a proposal to cancel required contraceptive coverage for female federal employees and their dependents; new pro-life Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson's announcement to have the FDA re-evaluate mifepristone (RU-486, the "abortion pill"); and restricting Medicaid funding for said mifepristone to only cases of rape, incest, or threats to a woman's life.
The year 2002 saw two major anti-abortion initiatives from the Bush administration. In February and again in October, the Department of Health and Human Services (headed by the aforementioned jackass Tommy Thompson) tried to reclassify fetuses and embryos as individual people! Thompson designated fetuses as children eligible for funds under the State Children's Health Insurance Program, while pregnant women were still without full prenatal health care, and embryos were snuck into the jurisdiction of the Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection, which oversees the safety of human research volunteers.
The other troubling tactic that year was the administration suspending over $34 million that Congress had given to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a program that provides millions of dollars to promote contraception and safe birthing and child-care practices for poor women in more than 150 countries. The reason behind this move was because the pro-life Population Research Institute accused UNFPA of supposedly supporting China's nigh-mandatory abortion and sterilization programs to control its population, even though a State Department investigation found absolutely no evidence of such affiliation. UNFPA predicted that because of the lack of money there would no doubt be two million more unwanted pregnancies worldwide, which would result in 800,000 more abortions, 4,700 more dead mothers, and 77,000 dead children under five.
As I said, to pro-lifers only selected life is sacred.
Bush's third year in office saw more of the same of the first two years. In 2003 UNFPA lost an additional $50 million after the House of Representatives voted to block funding based on the Bush administration's own decision last year (based on accusations that, again, were not supported by any evidence). Bush ordered to expand the Global Gag Rule to now cut funding to family-planning organizations that were administered by the U.S. Department of State! So now, Bush won't even fund his own Department of State's international population programs, even though Women's eNews reported that the Global Gag Rule "has led to closed clinics, cuts in healthcare staff, and dwindling medical supplies, leaving women, children, and families without access to vital healthcare services." Meanwhile, the National Cancer Institute altered a report on its web site to resuggest the old wives' tale that there is a connection between abortions and breast cancer, despite there being a 1997 Danish study of 1.5 million women that showed no such link. And in May Congress reinforced a 1996 ban forbidding servicewomen from having abortions in overseas military hospitals, even if they offered to pay for them with their own money. The existing law states that a pregnant servicewoman would have to inform her commanding officer of her situation and then take vacation time to fly back to the United States, at her own expense, in order to have an abortion (it should be noted that male soldiers are allowed to have free vasectomies performed overseas). Bush has supported the continuation of this ban since his first election campaign.
But unquestionably the most significant anti-abortion act that year was also the most significant of Bush's term in office. On June 4, the House passed H.R. 760, which banned "partial-birth abortions," the more-sinister euphemism for abortions done in the second or third trimester of pregnancy (even though the language used in the bill is so vague that it could be used to ban an abortion just thirteen weeks into a pregnancy!). The bill allowed no exceptions, regardless of procedure or reasons. Bush signed the bill into law on November 5, smirking as a group of old men stood around him in a congratulatory way. Just days later, in a jaw-droppingly stunning act of hypocrisy, Bush assigned the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice with the job of enforcing the new ban.
Last month abortion took the center stage again, with both sides weighing in. Dickhead Cheney gave a speech to the National Right to Life Committee Educational Trust Fund, reaffirming the Bush administration's opposition to abortion. Dick said we must protect the "weakest members of our society"...not sure if he was referring to mothers or the unborn, but, if I may pull out an old chestnut, I think it's kinda arrogant for a man who's had four heart attacks in the last decade to start preaching about who in our society is and isn't "weak." He vowed that Bush would "confidently and vigorously" defend the partial-birth abortion ban.
"President Bush has often expressed his commitment that in a compassionate society, every child be welcomed in life," Dick concluded, just a year after Georgie launched a massive war in which numerous women and children have been killed.
Again, to them, only selected life is sacred.
As I mentioned earlier, the abortion debate is pretty much a left-versus-right debate, so it was perhaps no surprise when just days after Dick's rather uppity speech that John Kerry promised at a rally to continually defend abortion rights, saying that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision has never been more at risk than during Bush's presidency.
"I believe that in the year 2004, we deserve a president who understands that [a] stronger America is where women's rights are just that--rights, not political weapons to be used by politicians of this nation," he announced. Boo-yeah! It's nice to hear someone actually worry about the rights of the living woman than the unborn child who she may not have even wanted.
Kerry pledged to only nominate justices to the Supreme Court who support abortion rights. This is in stark contrast to Bush's bypassing the Senate in February to appoint outspoken pro-life Alabama Attorney General William Pryor as a judge to an appeals court.
And of course, the end of April saw the March for Women's Lives, in which approximately 800,000 pro-choicers marched through Washington to defend women's rights. It was the first grand-scale abortion rally since 1992, and its attendance even dwarfed some of the anti-war rallies the city had seen in the past year.
And how did Bush's team respond? Simple. They likened pro-choicers to terrorists.
Badger-faced presidential adviser Karen Hughes rolled out the old Republican chestnut of 9/11 when asked by CNN about the importance of abortion in this year's election.
"I think after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life," she screeched. "And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life."
Yeah, the stance of the White House, whose current leader promised to be "a uniter not a divider," is that pro-choicers are no better than "terror networks."
But Greg, you might be saying, that's just one very homely woman's opinion. She even temporarily resigned from Bush's staff a while back. Surely her opinion isn't the same as Bush's, right?
Well, hypothetical person whom I just spoke for, I would almost concede that point if not for a certain quote that was made on January 18, 2002:
"On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in this world, and that it does not value life...now we are engaged in a fight against evil and tyranny to preserve and protect life."
Take a wild guess who said that. I'll give you a hint: his presidency will be ending next January.
That quote was part of a proclamation in which Bush declared January 22, 2002, the twenty-ninth anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade ruling, to be National Sanctity of Human Life Day. On the anniversary of the ruling that guaranteed women control of their bodies, Bush called them evil and tyrannical. As I said, he's got female issues.
But, it's hardly a surprise. In 2000 pro-life groups donated $75,799 to Bush's campaign (more than they gave any other politician that year), and this year they've already given him another $2,044. Granted, that's hardly a fraction of what, say, the alcohol industry has given him over the years, but hey, to a spoiled trouser stain, money still talks.
One abortion-related issue that has taken on, pardon the pun, a life of its own during Bush's term is stem cell research. Doctors and scientists believe that extracted stem cells and tissue from dead fetuses (aborted or otherwise) could be used for medical research and study. The hope is that using stem cells for research and experiments could help uncover cures for many significant health ailments, including diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord damage, and Alzheimer's disease (you know Bush is screwed when even Nancy Reagan is against him!), among others.
However, for rather vague reasons, many pro-life people are against the idea of stem cell research. Since his first days in office, Bush has strongly voiced his opposition to using federal money to pay for such research. In August 2001, he even prevented taxpayer money from funding stem cell research that went beyond current scientific practices, essentially limiting the medical possibilities.
The question is, of course, why would he do this?!?
How is this any different from someone who leaves their body to science? Or an organ donor? What, because it was a fetus? One would think that if someone was really pro-life, then they would feel good knowing that an "unborn child" did not die in vain and that their "body" can be used to help millions of living children and adults.
But, of course, only selected life is sacred.
Despite all the moral and religious arguments posed by pro-lifers, the fact remains that while inside a woman's body, the unborn child is still an embryo and not a fully functioning living human being.
Since Bush uses the dictionary to define who is and who isn't allowed to marry, then let's again crack open the dictionary to find out what exactly an embryo is....
em-bry-o (mbr-) n.
1. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
2. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
Pro-lifers want to protect the rights of the unborn, but using that same rationale, how come they also don't want to protect the rights of the undead?
And no, I don't mean as in zombies and ghouls, I mean just a normal person who dies. If a person has rights before they are even born, then logically shouldn't they continue to have rights after they're dead?
One of Bush's self-described proudest moments is when he eliminated the "Death Tax," which prevented lazy, greedy beneficiaries from collecting every last cent from a dead relative. Where were the pro-lifers protesting that? How come they didn't feel that inheritance violated the rights of the undead?
Well, that's because many Republicans, therefore many pro-lifers, come from rich families. Look at Bush. The man owned a sports team, an oil company, was employed by the bin Ladens, and had his brother rig a presidential election for him...and he still was afraid that he wouldn't get all of his daddy's money when he dies! As far as pro-lifers are concerned, before a person is born "all life is sacred," but as soon as that person dies "I want all their money!!!"
Of course, the argument to this concept would be that a person wills an inheritance to their relatives. Ah, so a person gets to have a choice, eh? Hm, interesting.
So I have a proposition for pro-lifers out there: I call it the Unborn/Undead Proposal. For every anti-abortion law pro-lifers want to send to Congress to "protect the unborn," it must have an attached additional anti-inheritance law to "protect the undead." You can bet a lot of Republican politicians would clam up pretty quickly if abortion legislation was forever tied to inheritance legislation.
As I said at the beginning of this column, abortion is just one of the many women's issues that Bush has wiped his nose with since January 2001. Not to downplay the importance of these other issues, but let's just briefly recap what else ol' Georgie has done to try to put women in their place....
In April 2001, Bush closed the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach, created by President Clinton in 1995 to provide women of all ages and creeds with a voice in the administration. By listening to the concerns and needs of American women, this office contributed significantly to the formation of such programs and agencies as the Small Business Administration's Office of Women's Business Ownership, the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau, the Justice Department's Office of Violence Against Women, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office on Women's Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs Office for Women Veterans, and the National Women's Business Council, among others. It also helped make leaps and bounds in the areas of equal pay, women's business development, domestic violence prevention, and breast cancer research. Despite these achievements, Bush felt that the office's usefulness had run out, even though current statistics show that 63 percent of all workers earning minimum wage or below are women.
Bush's phallic need to shut down women-related programs and institutions continued that December when the Office of Management and Budget announced plans to eliminate ten regional offices of the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau, targeting offices in such major cities as New York and Chicago. Former Women's Bureau director Karen Nussbaum stressed the need to keep the regional offices open, as recent statistics showed that one third of working women still do not have paid sick leave, that women are faced with longer working hours, and that pensions and other benefits have declined. The plan to shut down the offices was finally withdrawn in January 2002.
As the abortion debate continues to be argued back and forth, the issue of reproductive health (as in "safe sex") has become more and more of a women's issue. I of course understand the connection, since it is the woman who in fact "reproduces," but personally I feel that making it a women-exclusive issue is a little risky, since reproductive health and contraceptive use should be the responsibility of both genders. In August 2001 Bush aligned himself with Sudan, Libya, and the Vatican to try to remove language from the United Nations Special Session on Children draft document that required women and adolescents to have full access to affordable, quality reproductive health care, which would help reduce both teenage pregnancies and the spread of HIV.
Approximately one million teenage girls become pregnant each year in this country, more than any other teenage pregnancy rate among industrialized countries. Meanwhile, 64 percent of teens (thirteen to nineteen) infected with HIV are female. Yet instead of supporting international policies that would help lower those numbers, Bush instead continues to parrot his "abstinence only" stance.
I again refer to this year's State of the Union. Bush said what I believe is the greatest shining example of his ignorance:
"Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases."
Um...what?!? What about blood transfusions? What about unsanitary tattoo or drug needles?? I think a fourteen-year-old is less likely to have sex than she is to walk into a seedy tattoo parlor with her friends.
What kind of backward whitebread doofus is this guy anyway?? Does he really believe that only people who have sex become infected with contagious diseases?? That's like those old wives' tales grandmothers used to say like "Don't kiss a boy while you're wearing a swimsuit. You don't want to get pregnant, do you?"
I'm sure in some original draft he was supposed to say "Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy," but why that would have been changed, I don't know. No doubt it was changed to "sexually transmitted diseases" to scare more people.
But still, wouldn't one think that someone would have caught that? The speech writers perhaps?? Surely Bush practiced the speech beforehand to sound out all the two-syllable words.
God, what a mind-bogglingly stupid thing for a "president" to say!! Grrr!!!!!
And in order to enforce his rather meaningless "abstinence only" thinking, Bush has harassed non-profit groups that have opposing views. A July 2001 Department of Health and Human Services memo called Advocates for Youth, which provides teens with sex education, "ardent critics of the Bush administration"...so the eighteen-year-old group was audited three times over the course of 2002 and 2003. The San Francisco-based STOP AIDS program also received three unprecedented audits during the same timespan, while the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) was subject to two audits in 2003. Meanwhile, faith-based non-profit groups, including those that were funded by the Louisiana-based Program on Abstinence that was "found guilty in a federal court of openly violating the constitutional tenet of separation of church and state," were not subject to Health and Human Services audits.
Bush butted heads with the United Nations again in August 2002 when he refused to endorse a treaty originally signed by President Carter in 1980. It is called the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979, it is often described as the international bill of rights for women. Although Carter did sign it, the United States is the only industrialized country in the world to not ratify it and integrate it into its own laws.
CEDAW defines discrimination against women as "any distinction, exclusion, or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights, and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field." A country that is to ratify the convention must abolish all laws that discriminate against women and establish new laws forbidding such practices.
So, why exactly would Bush have a problem with this?
So far, 2004 has been another "banner year" for Bush and his team on the female front. In February Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department subpoenaed the confidential medical records of hundreds of patients who had abortions at hospitals in Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and other states. The Justice Department defended this violation on patients' civil liberties by explaining it needs the records to defend the recently passed "partial-birth abortion" ban after being challenged by doctors across the country. Uh...huh. So, Bush wants to defend something very few people seem to agree with by invading the privacy of hundreds of citizens?? Thankfully, some hospitals are refusing to comply with the order, and so far it has weakened the government's defense in one Manhattan federal case.
Hospital records weren't the only data under the spotlight this year, as last month the National Council for Research on Women (NCRW) reported that from 2002 to March the Bush administration removed or seriously altered information concerning women's issues on various government web sites. The hardest hit site was that for the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau, which had at least twenty-five documents missing. The altered information included downgrading the effectiveness of condom use to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases to being "inconclusive" and the aforementioned report on the National Cancer Institute's web site that now suggested that abortions were linked to breast cancer.
The NCRW report also indicated that the Pentagon had attempted to disband the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, not to mention a troubling account of John Ashcroft's refusal to conduct and publish a study, required under the Violence Against Women Act, to investigate insurance companies discriminating against domestic-violence victims.
Reproduction once again became a subject of controversy earlier this month when the FDA refused to allow emergency contraception (such as Plan B, the "morning after pill") to be sold over the counter, despite two FDA panels approving of the idea back in December. The National Organization for Women believed that the FDA caved in to pressure from Bush and other conservatives who believed that making emergency contraception available without prescriptions would encourage teens to have sex. By this rationale anything sold over the counter should be banned, since it all could encourage someone to misuse it, right?
But perhaps the most significant non-abortion women's issue that Bush has gone after in his term is one that for decades has guaranteed young women the opportunity to play sports in school without discrimination, not to mention other educational equalities. That's right, ol' George Jr. wanted to change Title IX! Secretary of Education Rod Paige created the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, which from August 2002 to January 2003 conducted a number of town hall meetings to determine whether or not to continue to enforce Title IX, the 1972 law which has played a key role in opening doors for women in the fields of sports and athletics. In fact, in February 2003 the commission recommended to the Department of Education drastic and unnecessary changes to Title IX, including one that would permit educational institutions to treat female athletes as second-class citizens! Fortunately a number of high-profile protests forced Paige to support Title IX as-is.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't imagine why anyone would support a president who has done everything in his power to take away rights and liberties from half of the country's citizens.
Despite everything Bush has done and has tried to do to women these last three years, perhaps what is the most disturbing is that the administration sees nothing wrong with that. In December 2002 former White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer made a statement suggesting that discrimination against women isn't nearly as serious of an offense as racial or ethnic discrimination, which Fleischer said was a "very different category for the President."
Apparently, even reality is selective.
Link of the Month
Although Dohtem.com has been known to Photoshop the occasional Bush photo to make him look ridiculous, this site is the king of Bush Photoshopping!