The amount of money for which the government put taxpayers on the hook through bailouts -- undeserved rewards for people who took risks that didn't work out -- went from a shocking $7.7 trillion under George W. Bush to an utterly incomprehensible $12.8 trillion during Obama's brief time in office so far. The anti-bailout majority of Americans are justifiably angry. They were angry when Bush got this mess started and are really angry now that Obama has made it worse. People who played by the rules, took care of their families and paid their taxes are going to pick up the tab for special interests on Wall Street and in Washington.

Bill Maher makes the same mistakes as other pundits when he writes that he doesn't know what the "tea party" protests were all about and then goes on to imply that it is all about President Obama's race.

I went to the protest in Yorba Linda because I am concerned about the inevitable inflation that will result from spending trillions of dollars we do not have to spend.

What is bothering Republicans is the plain fact that they lost the last two elections and haven't a clue what to do to clean up their sorry act.

Instead of acting like grown-ups and working together with the new guy, they can do nothing but pout and rant and call Obama silly names.

Hey, GOP, I've got a flash for you: You were beaten fair and square by Obama, an intelligent, hardworking guy who will get this nation back on its feet, even if you won't lift a hand to help him do it.

There are three problems with Bill Maher's new movie mocking faith: It misunderstands religion, misconceives God and gets human nature all wrong.

Geoff Boucher of the Los Angeles Times brings us a review on "Hollywood Father/Daughter Purity Ball", which is apparently presented in a Mexican restaurant in West Hollywood.  I could probably stop there and you’d already know enough, since West Hollywood is well known as a homosexual activist headquarters.

He initially describes the show this way:

a feisty satire of the purity ball movement that has become a staple of evangelical communities in Bible Belt states.

He then goes on to explain:

A purity ball, for the uninitiated, is a formal dance where young girls (usually teens and pre-teens but sometimes as young as 6) and their fathers come as a couple and each takes a pledge to protect the daughter's virginity until her wedding night. The dads often present their gown-wearing "date" with a ring to symbolize the commitment and then everyone dines on white cake.

So far, so good.

Purity balls began nine years ago in Colorado Springs, Colo., and supporters praise them as lovely galas that strengthen the bond between fathers and daughters and allow the youngsters to dress up like a ballroom princess in a wholesome setting laced with Christian imagery. But there's a considerable number of outsiders who reflexively find the whole concept more than a little unsettling; the plunging necklines, slow dances and constant talk of protecting "flowers" drifts a bit too close to those child beauty pageants that another Colorado resident, JonBenet Ramsey, once competed in.

It’s quite a stretch to link purity balls to child beauty pageants.  The latter often sexualize children, while the former aims to conserve and protect their innocence.  Plunging necklines?  Have they seen the way girls are dressing?  I guess a rave, freakdancing, or those spoiled-brat MTV Sweet 16 parties would be better?

He goes on to further describe the show as…

a bawdy spoof from a creative team that includes writer-producer Maggie Rowe, producer Laura Summer and Emmy-winning writer Jim Vallely ("Arrested Development"). Rowe has experience in tweaking born-again themes: "The Hollywood Father/Daughter Purity Ball" gets its inspiration from Christian-minded purity balls.

In 2004, she was behind "Hollywood Hell House," which presented a tongue-in-cheek adaptation of the "Hell House" script used for regional Christian haunted houses. Those real Hell Houses, an entrenched Halloween tradition in the Heartland, show gory images of the consequences of homosexuality, drug use and premarital sex.

The Hell Houses date to the early 1970s, but in recent history one of the most influential sponsors of the scare-them-straight events has been Pastor Keenan Roberts of (you guessed it) Colorado. As Rowe put it: "What is it with that state? When did it get so creepy?"

So it is “creepy” to present traditional values in a way that attempts to be relevant and entertaining?  I think it is creepy to sexualize children.

(The show got another last-minute curve ball when Bill Maher, scheduled to be the faux pastor for the show, backed out for personal reasons; Rowe said he is expected to be on stage Saturday.)

Ah yes- Bill Maher, the man who contributes so much to society.

The program centered on the fictitious Pilsner family, a screeching brood from Aurora, Ill., with three daughters and a son of questionable sexual orientation who, the audience is told, is fresh from Bangkok, where he does missionary work with local boys.

Ha ha- it is so funny when Christian parents have a child who is sexually confused.  Yes, that joke is just so original, isn’t it?  And let’s knock missionary work while we’re at it, as if there aren’t people all over the world right now sacrificing to help people who were strangers to them and living on the other side of the planet.

Also on stage was Fishes With Loaves, billed as an Orange County Christian folky improv group (think Will Ferrell's acoustic shticks on "Saturday Night Live") and the slightly lascivious Pastor Larry, portrayed by comedian Larry Miller, who riffed on the most current political sex scandal. "There's no toe-tappers here," he bellowed, "but we all take a mighty wide-sized stance."

I’m disappointed, Mr. Miller.  And here I wanted to run out and buy your book.

Rowe takes personal glee in lampooning the grass-roots theater of fundamentalist Christians.

Such theater can be ripe for lampooning – that I do not deny.  But so can mainstream hedonist theater.  I wonder if people really know what they are talking about, though, when they throw around the term “fundamentalist”?  Or does it simply mean to them “Someone who knows what they believe and why, and that I disagree with.”?

She said the "insidious" message beneath the surface of the purity ball scene is that young girls are "property," first to their fathers, then husbands, and always to God.

So, being slutty and fornicating somehow proves you aren’t property?  And I dare say that we - male and female - do belong to God.  He made us.  He will judge us.  He also created sex.  God certainly delegates to parents the task of protecting their children.  I think the real message they find insidious here is that sex is for marriage.  They don’t want to live by that standard, so they trash anyone who lives by that standard or suggests living by it.

"Marriage is a property transfer, and these events also completely festish-ize these little girls."

Property transfer – interesting words when it comes to marriage.  I’m assuming Rowe has never and will never accept alimony or anything that her husband earned?  Marriages without specific prenuptial agreements certainly are property transfers.  And what would you call a date where a woman fornicates with a man because she thinks he has money and/or he has spent a lot of money on her?  Isn’t that her conducting a “property transfer”?  As for “fetish-izing” the girls – the events extol the value of their bodies and hearts and the girls as people.  While the Godless hedonists cheapen and devalue sex, the true Christian highly values sexuality.

It isn’t hard to find criticism of purity balls from feministas, hedonists, sluts, players, cads, Leftists, and anyone who hates the notion that sex is for marriage.  They claim, as noted above, that girls are being treated as property.  They also say that these sorts of things are stifling the sexuality of these girls and making them feel shame if they don’t live by the standard of saving sex for marriage.  Also- what about girls who have already been raped?  And finally, they say that there are incestuous undertones to these events.

I’ve already dealt with the “property” criticism.  As for “stifling” – it is healthier to have boundaries than to tell children to go ahead and indulge their hormones and peer pressures with decisions that may have consequences for the rest of their lives.  Shame?  Shame is a good thing.  We should not drop our morals in order to protect someone’s feelings.  Rather, someone should be moral if they want to avoid shame.  As for rape- purity is more a matter of the heart than a physical thing.  A girl who has been raped is not in the least bit devalued by the Christian standard.  She is a victim of evil, not someone who has given herself away to someone else in fornication.  But just because there is the reality of the evil of rape does not mean we should refrain from celebrating and encouraging purity.

Their assertion that the purity balls have an incestuous overtone is especially insulting, given that it is their agenda that is more likely to lead to incest or incestuous thoughts:

-If it feels good, do it.
-What happens between consenting adults their own business.
-Sexualization of children.
-Immodesty
-Porn (How likely is it that a father whose daughter has appeared in pornographic materials may inadvertently stumble across that material?  Likely, if he has the same loose morals.)
-Encouraging sexual “experimentation”
-Being “nonjudgmental”
-Casual fornication, shacking up, divorce, remarriage, blended families, adultery, “reproductive technologies” that result in anonymous parentage
-Easy access to abortion on demand (thereby covering up incest).
-Sending underage girls to have abortions and right back into abusive households by fighting parental notification laws on the grounds that perhaps her father impregnated her in the first place.  Since the girl can get an abortion without telling any authority that a family member impregnated her, no authority will know she needs to be removed from the home.  Back she’ll go into that home!

But I have to wonder- do these people also oppose father-daughter dances at wedding receptions, or fathers escorting their daughters down the aisle at weddings?  Many of these women who bash the traditional belief that sex is for marriage still want the tradition of the engagement ring, the bridal showers, the wedding ceremony complete with white dress, and the honeymoon.  Yes, they still want those traditions, but they don’t want the values and morals that gave meaning to them.  They just want parties where they are the center of attention, gifts, vacations, and jewelry, because they are shallow, hedonistic, and materialistic.

Perhaps the critics had weak, absent, abusive neglectful, or otherwise bad fathers (picked by their mothers, I’d like them to remember) and thus can’t understand the value of a father’s participation in this aspect of raising daughters.  Surely, this will help more of the girls save sex for marriage.  I think it is better that more people strive to maintain the standard of saving sex for marriage as opposed to encouraging behavior that leads to a long trail of broken hearts, emotional baggage and dysfunction, STDs, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, abortions, children living without one of their parents, and so forth.

Purity balls can give girls many positive messages, such as that they are valuable children of God whose bodies, hearts, and sexuality are too important to give away and expose casually; they are of worth to men without fornicating with them; they are more than just sex objects; that their fathers will actively seek to protect them from those who would prey on them, pressure them, and take advantage of them instead of being indifferent of encouraging them to indulge their hormones and give in to peer pressure.  Underage girls are still learning to manage their impulses and feelings; their brains are still maturing.  They need their parents to guide them and guard them in many ways, including physically – including making sure they get enough sleep, eat right, maintain healthy hygiene, get proper medical care, and yes, have a healthy moral attitude towards sexuality.

Look, I don’t think fornication is the end of the world.  I actually think it is far worse for someone to marry the wrong person or marry too young out of horniness than it is too fornicate.  But those aren’t the only two options, and I do think it is best to save sex for marriage, and I think that purity balls, if done right, are a positive thing.  If you don’t want to to save sex for marriage, and you don’t want to promote the idea that saving sex for marriage is the ideal, you certainly have that freedom.  You also have freedom of speech, but why mock or work to undermine those who encourage their own children to save sex for marriage?  It doesn’t harm you if they do, and you don’t gain if they don’t – unless you are trying to fornicate with them or sell them abortions or you otherwise profit from fornication.  Perhaps you protest just a little too much.  Maybe, deep down, you understand that saving sex for marriage is the ideal, and you hate it that you can see that truth, even if you don’t live by it.