Sure, some Democrats will get hit by this, cause, well, Democrats like to fuck too, but we ain't all squeamish about it.
However, the biggies will all be hypocritical Republicans. Preachin' about abstinence and morality and the sanctity of marriage with their doe-eyed wives standing next to them at a noon presser and by 2 p.m. they're hog-tied by Mistress Sabrina with a ball gag in their mouths.
I fucking hate hypocrites and a love a good come uppance (pardon the pun).
'I Abhor Injustice,' Alleged Madam Says:
"'Miz Julia' doled out a steady stream of advice, both practical and philosophical.
From her California home, she e-mailed tips to the 132 women who worked across the Washington area for the firm Pamela Martin & Associates. Her newsletters, now excerpted in court records, were a virtual how-to manual for avoiding all kinds of trouble in a business said to specialize in erotic fantasies.
'One never quite knows where evil, i.e., the vice squad is lurking in this business,' read one arch entry from 1995. 'The misogynists get a real kick out of surprising (shocking) you girls, when you give them the opportunity!!! . . . Therefore, you are to lock, double lock, triple lock all doors!!! . . . Figure it out, before they 'get cha'!!!'"
Bill Moyers Journal . Buying the War - PBS
How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? "What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored," says Moyers. "How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?"
Put Bush's 'puppy dog' terror theory to sleep:
"Does the President think terrorists are puppy dogs? He keeps saying that terrorists will 'follow us home' like lost dogs. This will only happen, however, he says, if we 'lose' in Iraq.
The puppy dog theory is the corollary to earlier sloganeering that proved the President had never studied logic: 'We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities.'
Remarkably, in his attempt to embrace the failed Iraqi adventure even more than the President, Sen. John McCain is now parroting the line. 'We lose this war and come home, they'll follow us home,' he says.
How is this odd terrorist puppy dog behavior supposed to work? The President must believe that terrorists are playing by some odd rules of chivalry. Would this be the 'only one slaughter ground at a time' rule of terrorism?
Of course, nothing about our being 'over there' in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists."
Researchers see nanotechnology treatment for spinal cord injuries:
"Nanotechnology is showing promise in treating spinal cord injuries and could conceivably reverse paralysis, according to a report on the future of the emerging technology in medicine.
The report, released at a Washington forum this week, said nanotechnology -- or the use of materials on the scale of atoms and molecules -- may also help cure other ailments believed to be intractable by repairing damaged organs or tissue.
This suggests damage from heart attacks or strokes, bone or tooth loss or ailments such as diabetes and Parkinson's disease could be treated with nanotechnology, researchers said."
The five biggest neuroscience developments of the year
"2. The neural alteration of morality. Six people with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex were presented with moral dilemmas (e.g., would you smother a baby to prevent bad guys from finding and killing people in hiding) and were found to be two to three times more willing to kill than people without brain damage. The advertised conclusion is that such willingness to kill is objectively immoral. The feared conclusion is that if brain design determines what's moral, you can change morality by changing the brain—and once technology manipulates ethics, ethics can no longer judge technology."
Can you keep your brain from aging?:
"Welcome to the age of neuroplasticity: the notion that adult brains are more adaptable, capable of reprogramming themselves, than was once thought. As a host of popularizers have begun to argue, neuroplasticity has enormous implications not only for our physical health but for our mental health. One recent example, Sharon Begley's Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves, aims to harness the self-improving yen of aging baby boomers while couching the desire in highbrow guise (offering up a dash of Buddhism, a short history of Tibet, a little biology). Even more than evolutionary psychology—yesterday's brain cause du jour—neuroplasticity has become fundamental to how we try to understand the brain, and ourselves."