Can we at least separate the church from the bras (and the Catholic priests from the k..)

[Please click on the following to read original article]

Cancer is a big deal. Breast cancer is worse. Why?

For one, we don't have a cure for it, heck, we don't even catch it on time.

So, we need people to be aware of the disease and it's seriousness.

On that note, a tiny radio station decided to dangle bras off a street in some random city.

Enter the Catholic School Principal, their motto being: "Do as we tell you, our priests of course are exempted".

Is it not enough that Roman Catholics actually do not want patients to get treated for cancer?

Apparently, this Principal claimed that "children should not see undergarments". Excuse me? Don't we want them to wear some so that they don't catch diseases or priests of a certain religious following, er, certain diseases don't catch them?

So don't kids already know about undergarments? And isn't most of our perversion achieved through the sexification of items, rather than the items themselves?

So, we are extremely unsuccessful from getting the Catholic Church's teeth off Presidencies (Obama wasted public money visiting the Pope), or Supreme Courts (which is overflowing with Catholics).

And now we can't separate the damn (yes, I said it) church from Cancer or it's priests and Principals from our kids....

Please: Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way...

For more on this 21st century re-enactment of the 14th century stranglehold that Catholic Priests and Principals have on America and the rest of the world:

http://www.ketv.com/cnn-news/20992916/detail.html

Claimer: Views presented in this article probably or definitely allude to people real, unreal, imaginary, virtual and otherwise. Any harm or libel cast on people dead, alive or transient is either intentional or otherwise. The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author, however he refuses to take responsibility for said views and believes the use of "airquotes" to be a birthright. Claims not included in this claim are also claimed.

And this week's "Idiots we bailed out" winner is...Bank of America

So, there is this man who does not have arms, apparently due to a birth defect walks into Bank of America and wishes to cash a check made out to his wife. Bank of America ABSOLUTELY needs a thumbprint from you. Your disabilities? Your own problem! Don't you get it? What, are you slow?

Anyway, read the despicable account here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/07/armless_bloke/


I guess their new and bailed out motto is: Bank of America - where the handless and other invalids are not allowed.

Of course, the progressive tax payers should be pleased at the turn of events.

Before you scream "WHAT!", let me explain.

See, bucking the trends from states like Texas, Bank of America now believes in EVOLUTION - survival of the fittest. Of what good is cash to a man without hands and can't spend the cash anyway? Why should the bank oblige and waste time?

Call it cost cutting, if you will!

It's just like when the monkeys won't pick up their babies if they fall down. It is just too much to take care of a monkey with a broken back. Awfully cute, but what's the point?

Of course, if he had only opened an account with BofA, everything would have been well. Some people just don't get it.

(A serious side note - Darwin, the father of evolution was not right in presuming "survival of the fittest".)

Hmm, wonder if Bank of America will adopt more such changes, just to help us with nostalgia - such as "Bank of America, W****s Only".

And here I was, thinking my bank, Wells Fargo was the Devil's sole spawn...

Why?

Read about that tragedy here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/business/economy/04wells.html?hpw

Angered? Bank of America Customer? Call them and ask them about their policies on Americans with Disabilities, and also definitely talk to them about the Florida incident and ask them what specific remedy have they done, other than random balderdash lip service...

Claimer: Views presented in this article probably or definitely allude to people real, unreal, imaginary, virtual and otherwise. Any harm or libel cast on people dead, alive or transient is either intentional or otherwise. The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author, however he refuses to take responsibility for said views and believes the use of "airquotes" to be a birthright. Claims not included in this claim are also claimed.