Have you heard about this Marriage Vow pact that an organization in Iowa is asking Republican presidential candidates to sign? It contains the usual stuff about remaining faithful to your spouse and doing everything in your power to block all sorts of unions that don't fit the "one man, one woman" mold.

That isn't the controversial part though, this is:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African- American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President

It seems to be indicating that an African-American child born into slavery had a more stable home life than one born in the last 3 years.

What a horrible thing to say! The majority of the controversy, from what I've heard, revolves around the reference to slavery. While that's terrible, it totally ignores the fact that it is entirely misleading. The same statement would be true during any presidential administration since the 1960s, not just the Obama administration. (The article being referenced was written in 2005, years before Obama was elected) It would also be true of pretty much any race in the U.S.A. A white child, Asian, Indian, etc. were all more likely to be raised in a two-parent household in 1860 than in the last 50 years.

I'll give you two guesses as to which candidates did sign.

Of course it was Santorum and Bachman. Both signed the pledge before the above-mentioned passage was removed.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Flavery
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

The Way it Should Be

I left my Fortress of Solitude this morning at 9:30ish. My cat-minions needed food (they go through it like it's food or something1). I got into Pet Smart just a few minutes after it opened at 10am. The place was a busy as I had ever seen it! Who knew Sunday morning was the time to do all your pet shopping?

Anyway, when I got into line, there was one guy checking out, two guys waiting in line in front of me, then two women after me. The cashier called for a "backup cashier". Now, in my experience, when the additional cashier shows up, the line generally breaks in half and moves over to the second register, maintaining the original line-up.

Before we got a chance to do that, in fact, before the new teller even showed up, the last lady in line hops right over to the second register! I thought that was fairly bold, but I didn't mind too much because now there was just one guy checking out and another in front of me. I knew I didn't have long to wait.

The line hopper then has the nerve to interrupt my cashier as she's finishing up with a transaction to ask her if she can call the additional person again (because the line-hopper has "some place to be"). My cashier does, then up goes the guy in front of me. He has some sort of fish issue and is sent to the fish department. So I'm up! And the new cashier still hasn't showed! By the time I'm out of there, the new cashier is checking the woman out. She probably didn't even make it out of there before the woman behind me. I know it isn't kind, but I couldn't help but have a smile on my face as I walked out of the shop.