I agree, but still wish we would spend more time at the moment on the EPA than the ERA.

I support the ERA because it will be used by the Roberts Court to ban reverse discrimination against men caused by affirmative action for women.

Does this mean that men will be included in the decision whether or not a woman should have an abortion?

Pink helicopters, Kevin. Pink. If we don't keep our conspiracies straight, and our paranoias sorted out, we're at the mercy of unmentionable evils, which I won't mention. Except one, which is the destruction of American feminine purity occasioned by confronting the seat left up in all those unisex bathrooms.

I thought it was teal helicopters. With cute little high-heel landing gear.

Second, we're going to hear endless prattling about unisex bathrooms and radical lesbians who have infiltrated the UN and are planning to take over the country with their black helicopters.

Don't you mean lavender helicopters?

You underestimate the wingnuts.

There *will* be terrorist bombings from the evangelicals, if ERA passes. I guarantee it.

But the real worry here is the endless hours of debate on CNN and Faux we have to look forward to, over the term "Manhole".

AH, Al,

Which Confederate Generals are you parroting? Have you the same concerns about the 14th ammendment? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Voting Rights Act of 1965? The Bill of Rights? Right to assembly!? But, but, but... What if poor people get organized!? Send 'em west...

btw, there's no such thing as 'reverse discrimination.' Discrimination is discrimination no matter one's skin color. Calling discrimination against caucasians 'reverse discrimination,' as though it were some special class of discrimination, is discriminatory in itself, as it suggests such actions against whites are somehow unique, or especially atrocious. Jesus Christ, get over yourselves. White males are aren't discriminated against. In fact, white males have enjoyed our own affirmative action programs in the United States sinced 1789. Cry about it.

that NRA pamphlet is AWESOME. why don't we have quality propa- er, educational material like this?

wow. I read the NRA's pdf file. Wow.

Does that stuff work? Is there a bunch of red-blooded americans sitting around thinking about how their gun range closed down and the kids at the high school wear baggy pants so they better load up on the weapons for the looming final confrontation the bible and NRA predict? Especially with a democratic president probable and a democratic congress...

I especially liked the crazy quotes from George Soros. it was nice of him to be available for the NRA.

What's their obsession with George Soros, and does such transparent propaganda still work?

Wow, those 2nd amendment nuts have got some bucks behind them. Those illustrations are expensive. The graphic design is pretty good too.

Will the ERA will bring back bra burning?

Re the NRA piece: Page 21 was good, sure, but for my money, the hairy-legged, tattooed, animal rights-supportin' "lady" (and they use the term loosely) on page 18 is the best.

Love the illustrations, so reminiscent of Soviet propaganda. No one ever argued that the NRA is pitching its stuff to subtle minds. I know many gun owners, and not one of them will have anything to do with this organization.

As for Phyllis Schlafly, good lord, she must be at least 110 by now.

AH

I'd join you in proclaiming you to be the asshole that you are, but you are doing a good enough job all by yourself.

I think we should pick our battles and there's no reason for this to be one of them.

What exactly are we expecting the ERA to do that we aren't able to do otherwise? Or is the Right correct and we're actually out to get those unisex bathrooms?

I'm thinkin' we'll need all the guns we can carry to protect our vital male fluids against all the muscular, hairy-legged, bomb-totin' wimmen the ERA is going to unleash.

Yeah, can someone explain exactly what the ERA will change?

earl

Where do you people live that you don't already have a lot of unisex bathrooms? About half the potties I pee-pee in have been previously baptized by menfolk.

AH,

African-American community development doesn't bother me. And no, I don't have a problem with "white" community or "white" family programs, or "black" community or "black" family programs so long as they're not discriminatory, or hateful. And don't tell me that these organizations don't exist and thrive, because they do. The Sons of Norway is one obvious, well known, organization that promotes 1) European-American (in this case, Norwegian) ethnic pride, 2) stereotypical (but harmless) conceptions of what it means to be Norwegian, and 3) ethnic-based civil society development. You see, it's harmless. The SoN doesn't advocate violence, or Scandanavian hegemony. Senator Obama's church doesn't advocate black hegemony, nor does it support the Africanization of America - it would be dishonest to draw parallels between these organizations and, say, the Aryan Nation or the KKK. Those organizations are, indeed, hateful, discriminatory, and use (gasp) terrorist tactics (or atleast, have in the past) to re-establish racial (and even religious) hegemony in the United States.

AH, are you huffing glue?

Seriously, don't do that shit. You've already got enough brain damage.

Pink helicopters, Kevin. Pink. . . .
Posted by: Michael O'Hare on March 28, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

You don't know many lesbians, do you?

Black, or grey, or olive, or camo - all would be just fine with most lesbians. You think rednecks overcompensate? Lesbians don't even have penises - so you can imagine the lengths they'll go to. . .

. . . The SoN doesn't advocate violence, or Scandanavian hegemony. . . .
Posted by: Everblue Stater on March 28, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Ah - but there's a lot of romanticization of the Viking Age. You'd better look out for those SoN. Latent sackers and looters, the lot of them.

(of course, you'll never find an ethnic group that has spread by force, as much as the Scandinavians, and who also has a long and consistent history of trying to "blend in" ethnically, once they move into an area. This is what happens when your main cultural legacy consists of fish, pickled with lye.)

Conservatives criticize liberals for being secular and not being Christian, and they criticize black leaders for always asking the federal government to solve their problems rather than promoting self-reliance and working to fix the mess in their own communities. So a black Presidential candidate raised atheist converts to Christianity and joins a predominately black Christian church that emphasizes working to build up their own community, and how do conservatives react?

He's a racist, obviously.

(Sigh)

Here's the take on the smearing of Obama's church. Note, it is a favorite of the likes of Hannity, Carslon, and other rightist bigots.

Extradite Rumsfeld,

I never understood the whole "Scandanavian Pride" thing. I mean, everybody knows that the Italian heritage is the one that has contributed most to the merits of Western civilization. Everyone knows that! ^_^

Does this mean that men will be included in the decision whether or not a woman should have an abortion?

Last I looked, there were plenty of men on the SCOTUS, the Congress and various state legislatures, so I'd say the answer is yes regardless, jackass.

Will the ERA change the percentage of men who get custody of children in divorce?

Extradite Rumsfeld when your main cultural legacy consists of fish, pickled with lye.)

Man, that is one great pamphlet. With regard to best spread in it, there is such an *embarras de richesse* that it's hard to chose, but I'll go with the preppy family man, complete with Lands' End polo shirt, hunkered down behind his chimney with his AK-47 or whatever. And hey, better trolls please. If they can't raise a more horrifying specter than the unisex bathroom, it's time to quit.

Joe,

Probably not, since those placements are normative judgements based on what is best for the child. Sometimes gender is a part of the equation, sometimes it is not. But I wouldn't call it 'discriminatory' since there is nothing about one's 'man-ness' or 'woman-ness' per se which dictates the placement of children during a divorce. If the judges' logic is "well, she's a woman, so she gets the kids" without any justificastion or qualifier ("this child is a daughter, and all things being equal, it appears that she would be better off with her mother", as opposed to "well, mom smokes crack, but she is a woman, so she gets the kid...") then yes, the ERA would likely apply.

I mean, everybody knows that the Italian heritage is the one that has contributed most to the merits of Western civilization. Everyone knows that! ^_^
Posted by: Everblue Stater on March 28, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Too true; I know few Scandanavians who are not big fans of Italian cuisine.

I mean, everybody knows that the Italian heritage is the one that has contributed most to the merits of Western civilization.

Well, sure, if your most important standards of measurement are food, sex and art. Wait. I see your point.

Wendy,

Unisex bathrooms are a non-starter. The EPA will likely be treated much as the 14th ammendment and the CRA 1964. Laws which discriminate based on gender will be judged based on the concept of 'strict scrutiny.' Which is to say, things like unisex bathrooms are not likely to be the norm as there is a compelling governmental interest in establishing sex-based restrooms and men and women are not insular minorites who have limited access to majoritarian democratic mechanisms to affect change.

African-American community development doesn't bother me. And no, I don't have a problem with "white" community or "white" family programs, or "black" community or "black" family programs so long as they're not discriminatory, or hateful. And don't tell me that these organizations don't exist and thrive, because they do. The Sons of Norway is one obvious, well known, organization that promotes 1) European-American (in this case, Norwegian) ethnic pride, 2) stereotypical (but harmless) conceptions of what it means to be Norwegian, and 3) ethnic-based civil society development. You see, it's harmless. The SoN doesn't advocate violence, or Scandanavian hegemony. Senator Obama's church doesn't advocate black hegemony, nor does it support the Africanization of America - it would be dishonest to draw parallels between these organizations and, say, the Aryan Nation or the KKK. Those organizations are, indeed, hateful, discriminatory, and use (gasp) terrorist tactics (or atleast, have in the past) to re-establish racial (and even religious) hegemony in the United States.

Very well put. If only Hawk had the capacity to hear it.

That pamphlet is just extraordinary. Where can one get a copy? I'd like to sock away a few of them; they'll be worth big bucks some day.

Since, oddly, no one seems to actually know what's IN the ERA, let me provide this community service:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

That's it, folks. 52 words. Nothing about bathrooms, helicopters, or leg shaving that I can see.

What strikes me most about page 21 of that pamphlet, especially in the context of the rest of the illustrations showing white people defending themselves from "chaos" with their guns, is that the NRA is really shooting themselves in the foot with thess racist images. Mexicans, as a culture, LOVE guns, and not just the few in gangs. Mexico has a gun hobbiest culture as strong or stronger than the U.S. And middle class Mexicans also want to defend themselves from the gangs that are - hello - IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS. With all the Mexican immigration, the NRA *SHOULD* see a huge pool of potential recruits. Instead they see The Enemy.

Mexcians are hard working entropeunurial family-obsessed morally conservative Catholics who love guns. And the Republicans have lost their votes for a generation because Republicans are too damn racist.

Idiots.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

In the 1970s, Schlafly and others argued that the ERA would lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms. Phyllis Schlafly yesterday warns lawmakers that its passage would compel courts to approve same-sex marriages and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows.

shortstop: …food, sex and art….

Sex?

I'll tell you this much, the Italians did not contribute the 69-position.

How do you form "LXIX"? You can do it with four people, but it doesn't look like much fun.

Thank you, Kevin. That is truly the funniest thing I have seen all week.

My personal favorite was the final image of the brave, white, nuclear family gazing into the tsunami. (But why isn't papa shooting the bad wave with his gun?)

Everblue stater,

You touched on the biggest issue with the ERA, what scrutiny would the courts apply to gender discrimination? Currently, the Courts apply strict scrutiny (the government regulation has to show a compelling governmental interest) to race and religion. In practice, strict scrutiny is a very tough hurdle. Until recently, many prisons segregated inmates by race, because inmate gangs are race based and mixing racial groups leads to greater violence and sexual assaults. The Supreme Court recently forbade that (though if the Prison Rape Commission's forthcoming report highlights race-based assaults as a critical factor in prison rapes, I suspect the Court will revisit the issue).

Gender based discrimination is currently reviewed under a "medium scrutiny" test. That's how the Court has allowed distinctions in statutory rape laws (since teenage girls face the risk and discomfort of 9 months of pregnancy and teenage boys do not), selective service registration (since males face potential combat service, and women do not-- though the facts on the ground in Iraq show that women are facing combat on a regular basis) and segregated bathrooms. Strict Scrutiny forbids single race bathrooms, it may well forbid single gender bathrooms as well (after all, if preventing prison sexual assaults isn't enough to meet strict scrutiny, its hard to see how bathroom privacy issues would trump it).

If the ERA keeps the medium scrutiny standard, it changes nothing from the present legal status quo.
If the ERA shifts to a strict scrutiny standard, it will affect a lot of laws that most people think make sense.

You touched on the big difference between race and gender. People of different races often live in different parts of town, with different levels of political power and its unusual they're related to people of other races. In contrast, in gender terms, most adults are sleeping (if not married) with "the enemy". Even if they don't live in the same house, every man has a mother and likely a sisters, daughters, nieces and every woman has a father and often brothers, sons and nephews.

The ERA is a stupid issue for the Democrats to be pushing, if there's a particular inequity they want to fix, pass a law. Trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, 1. won't get the votes neeed to pass Congress and the supermajority of the states and 2. Just gives social conservatives another reason to vote against their economic interests.

Perhaps the reason its being pushed because elite class women who'd otherwise be economic conservitves now have a socially liberal reason to support the Democrats. The problem is, however you define "elite", there are more voters who qualify as non-elite rather than elite.

Sorry--I cannot comment on this thread without getting overwhelmingly sexist. Out of respect for the community, ALL of my remarks about bra-burning, hairy armpits, chicks with flamethrowers, goosedown jackets and Pitcairn Island have been reconsidered.

To Everblue Stater @ 1:48

I would like to reply/re-ask.

In the aggregate, under the ERA, should there not be an approximate 50-50 split to the granting of custody?

All things being equal, should not the odds of the best interest of the child mean that the sex of the parent is immaterial?

I fear that the words “best interest of the child� is code words for letting the mother raise the child. If so, how would an ERA amendment change that?

Beowulf,

I tend to agree with you on this one, however, I agree with the principles of the ERA and don't think its passage would hurt. However, I wonder if the 14th amendment doesn't already cover the language in the proposed ERA.

ERA: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

14th Amend: 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of course, I'm not really a Con Law expert, so I could be off base.

Two cultural indicators to think about: about half of all Starbucks have unisex bathrooms. And Ellen is the 2nd most popular talk show host in the country, bested only by an African American woman.

None of those indicators were even thinkable the last time a serious ERA effort was made.

Franco-Italiano?

Sure, Mike. I'm not going to leave Spain out of that equation, either.

Joe,

I think you're right. In aggregate, under the ERA, there should be a 50/50 custody split. This is, of course, an over simplification, since custody settlements come in every conceiveable shape and form.

Anyway, I don't think the ERA would have much influence on child custody, as (ideally) these decision are made irrespective of sex and gender, unless a compelling (empirical) argument can be made regarding gender bias and child rearing. I think the only thing that the ERA would do when it comes to child custody is prevent gender discrimination in terms of who gets the children. i.e. "He's the father, head of household, so he gets the kids", or "she gets the children because she is a woman, and it's a well known fact that women are better child rearers." A judge would have to justify those placements based on something other than gender, or offer compelling logical (social scientific evidence) that parent-child gender makes a difference, and that this difference out weighs other variables concerning wealth, parenting history, drug abuse, etc.

There is no longer any need for an ERA. Laws and court decisions have given women equal rights.

E.g., not long ago, some states prohited women from owning real estate. It was legal to pay women less than men and to exclude women from certain jobs. All these inequalities are now illegal.

We shouldn't amend the Constitution for frivolous reasons. The ERA today is as frivolous as the Flag-Burning Amendment.

A second problem is that nobody knows what the courts would do with the ERA. It would be an invitation for activist judges to re-write various laws to their liking.

"activist judges". Gimme a break. Do you like "pro-active cops"? Aren't we done with that nonsense?

Speaking of which, it's notable how Al and AH are angling to get back into the game now that their false gods are self-destructing. But it's all too pathetic now. Shooting them down just isn't as much fun when they are already fighting back tears.

Loved the last illustration -- the one of the nookular family watching as the great tsunami rushes for their house. Are they channeling Al Gore or what? Is global warming for real then? Is it caused by lesbians? How will their home arsenal save them from the tidal wave?

For what it's worth, there's a fine post by Eugene Volokh over at volokh.com that highlights some of the things the ERA would likely ban, or at least throw into legal limbo. Sex-based affirmative action and exclusion of boys from girls' sports teams are two of them.

I hate pdf's, give pdf warnings.

Shortstop,

Gen Francisco had nothing to do with Rice a Roni. Rioja does go well with it, though.

Kenji: "activist judges". Gimme a break. Do you like "pro-active cops"? Aren't we done with that nonsense?

Unfortunately not. Many judges do not follow the logical approach of Justices Scalia and Thomas, namely base the decision on what the Constitution meant. Once original meaning is discarded, there's no fixed mooring. Justices are free to make any finding they like, using whatever justification comes to hand. (E.g., Justice Breyer based a 1999 case in part on what the courts had one in Zimbabwe.)

The ERA could be interpreted to mean that men have the right to play in the women's tennis and golf tournements. Or, maternity leave might be held to violate the ERA. As has been mentioned, the ERA could be held to provide rights for gays.

I'm not necessarily opposed or in favor of these approaches. But, if we want to enact these laws we should do so directly. We shouldn't pass an open-ended amendment that will be interpreted in unknown ways.

One man' "logic" is, well, your stupidity. Judges are supposed to be elected or appointed for their discretion, not mute administrative skills. Period.

What's their obsession with George Soros, and does such transparent propaganda still work?

Demonizing rich Jews has never worked that I can think of....

I don't care about child custody, unisex bathrooms, or other unimportant issues.

As long as the ERA requires that women want to have sex as often as men do, then I am on board.

"ex-liberal" wrote: We shouldn't amend the Constitution for frivolous reasons.

That's funny...one of "ex-liberal"'s typically dishonest talking points is how he/she/it values liberty, and the GOP is the party of liberty, so QED.

Excuse me. I'm done laughing now.

But it's strange that "ex-liberal" opposes an amendment that would codify, once and for all, that everyone, irrespective of gender, color, etc., is equal before the law.

Strange, that is, if you view "ex-liberal" as anything other than a dishonest shill here to push the neocon talking points. Those familiar with his/her/its odious postings know better.

Two cultural indicators to think about: about half of all Starbucks have unisex bathrooms. And Ellen is the 2nd most popular talk show host in the country, bested only by an African American woman.

Good pt. The day Oprah endorses the ERA, the next day it will pass 2/3s of the State leges.

beowulf wrote:

"That's how the Court has allowed distinctions in statutory rape laws (since teenage girls face the risk and discomfort of 9 months of pregnancy and teenage boys do not)...."
____________________

On the other hand, boys who are the victims statutory rape can be (and are) penalized if their rapist becomes pregnant and seeks state or federal aid. All it takes is for the rapist/mother to name the boy as the father and he goes into the national deadbeat dads database, even if he was twelve when the act took place. Once he comes of age and shows up on the list, he can (and will) be compelled to confirm paternity, to pay back all the aid provided, and to pay child support until that child reaches 18.

But I don't see how the ERA would correct this bit of discrimination. Boys in this situation would fit the definition of deadbeat dads according to the law.

I fear that the words “best interest of the child� is code words for letting the mother raise the child. If so, how would an ERA amendment change that?
Posted by: Joe on March 28, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Not in a lot of cases.

Look at the socioeconomic factors, and the mere fact that males earn more than females - children raised by fathers would probably have a better chance at a good education and a successful career. Statistically speaking.

Gregory: an amendment that would codify, once and for all, that everyone, irrespective of gender, color, etc., is equal before the law.

It's not that broad. It only provides for equality based on gender, not color, age, wealth, religion, etc. The ERA says:

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

And your problem with codifying that equality -- and therefore, guarantee of liberty -- into the Constitution would be...?

By the way, "ex-liberal," protection based on color is already codified into the constitution, so your quibble is, in fact, incorrect.

But we're used to that from you, you stinking neocon toad.

whatever else you want to say about it, the graphic design on that NRA pamphlet is really, really well done.

Yes, as the other trolls waddle off to wherever it is that dinosaurs now go to die, ex-lib rushes back in to hoist the tattered Flag of Losers--all while calling it a victory penant, of course.

(Sniff!) Radical lesbians? How radical can they be, when they can't even be bothered with picking up the check every once in a while?

Shams: Indeed, the graphic design in that PDF is excellent. (On a personal note, in some ways I wish the NRA was dead; they are not the proponents of the 2nd Amendment they claim to be- and their members pay for them to be.)

ERA - Sure. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Detractors may say that it leads to the elimination of Happy Jesus Day, Separate-Sex Bathrooms, and blur the lines of machismo. Like most things in America, there will be ups and downs until it is settled out in the courts and other laws. But the basic premise- all sexes are equal- is already American.

As long as the ERA requires that women want to have sex as often as men do, then I am on board.

ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK.

If the ERA passes, you won't be able to discriminate with respect to the gender of the person you have sex with.

First, we're going to be seeing a lot more of Phyllis Schlafly. Second, we're going to hear endless prattling about unisex bathrooms and radical lesbians who have infiltrated the UN and are planning to take over the country with their black helicopters.

You sure it isn't black leotards?

Gregory: And your problem with codifying that equality -- and therefore, guarantee of liberty -- into the Constitution would be...?

...would be that such equality is already codified in our laws and particularly in our Consitutional interpretations.

E.g., suppose for example that some state passed a law restricting a woman's right to own real property. The courts would immediately rule that law un-Constitutional. Today's courts hold that words "all men" mean "all people" so women already have the same Constitutional rights as men do.

Incidentally, the ERA doesn't guarantee liberty for anybody. It just guarantees that men and women have equal rights. E.g. the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform substantially reduced free speech, but it wouldn't violate the ERA. The incarceration of Japanese Americans during WW2 wouldn't have violated the ERA.

shortstop, et. al.

let's not forget the Irish. How the Irish Saved Civilization is actualy quite a good read, albeit Western Hemisphere-centric. Having said that, I do love French and Italian Cuisine and Art, and German engineering.

The ERA seemed essential 25 years ago. Now it would be mostly symbolic. Why not just have a national Equality Day? Have it in March or April, throw in a parade. Fun, huh?

Disputo >"...As long as the ERA requires that women want to have sex as often as men do, then I am on board."

Just one more reason to be for it.

shams >"whatever else you want to say about it, the graphic design on that NRA pamphlet is really, really well done."

Yea, I was really impressed. Too bad it is wasted on such crap.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

I can guarantee that if the ERA is enacted, liberal activists will urge the courts to adopt the "comparable pay" theory under it. That would require the courts to determine what jobs (nurses v. construction workers) were "comparable" and hence deserving in some metaphysical sense of equal pay. Can anyone here doubt that some panel on the 9th Circuit would leap at the opportunity to find that the ERA requires the courts to step in and make sure that no construction worker with a high school education makes more than a nurse with a bachelor's degree?

Can anyone here doubt that some panel on the 9th Circuit would leap at the opportunity to find that the ERA requires the courts to step in and make sure that no construction worker with a high school education makes more than a nurse with a bachelor's degree?

Not only can I doubt it, I have trouble believing anyone with a brain bigger than a walnut would take such a paranoid fantasy seriously.

Yea, I can see it now, liberal activists going to court to have nurses salaries cut to the level of construction workers....

Sorry, but "comparable worth" is sooooo 70s. It's been replaced by actually opening up job classes to men *and* women.

I hope all you America-haters end up in a co-ed prison cell with Rosie O'Donnell.

ex-liberal, you are incorrect. Right now, because gender is sorta kinda interpreted into the 14th Amendment and has STATUTORY protections, it is a "quasi-suspect" class for Equal Protection analysis. An ERA would make it a "suspect" class, like race.

The we-don't-need-it argument is a fairly transparent lie. If it's just symbolic because we've already got the equivalent, then why not ratify it? It won't hurt, right? Just symbolic, like National Duck Stamp Day.

It's been a long day, and I'm still more worried about the EPA.

ERA? 9 * earned runs / innings pitched. We have to vote on this?

If Phyllis Schlafly is right and the ERA will be used to deny Social Security benefits to housewives and widows, that means Bush must be for it. Bush is for anything that cuts Social Security, especially to those who need it most. When are we going to hear the announcement from the White House, "We must pass the ERA to save Social Security benefits for housewives and widows"? Then we'll know for sure.

Kevin, your comment re seeing a lot more of Ms. Schlafly is dead on. She came out this (AR) way a few months ago, showing few signs of having slowed down any from her Commieplot-pandering "Strike From Space" days. She did her dead level best to ensure that no trace of the ERA would trouble the waters of our legislative session.

That NRA booklet is indeed a piece of work. How come we (aka "the other side") can't make dumb-down-and-picture-up work for us?