When are uncomfortable questions fair?

Was it appropriate to ask Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann if she would, as president, be submissive to her husband? The question was asked as part of a GOP debate in Iowa and is based on Bachmann's own previous statements.

The question asked by Washington Examiner's Byron York question was prefaced with the back story: "In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, 'But the Lord said, "Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands."'"

Some folks are calling this an unfair tactic, arguing that it's inappropriate to ask a presidential candidate about statements she made five years ago.

Well, no. It is not unfair. It is not sexist. It is not anti-religion. Yes, it is a hard question, but this woman who seeks to be the first of her gender to lead our nation damned well better figure out where she'll get her marching orders - and then make clear to the general public what that will mean.

Bachmann clarified (sort of), babbling about how wonderful her marriage was, how long it lasted, and then claiming that submission was just the same thing as respect.

(Funny, but (1) I'm not particularly submissive; (2) my husband and I respect each other; and (3) he would never have told me to study something I did not like - because he loves me and we respect each other.)

Members of the GOP are calling the question a religious or sexist attack. It is neither.

The question asked a political candidate to explain something from one of her public speeches. The question asked that she indicate if she is her own woman, or if she will continue to "submit to her husband" (and her husband's will) when she is elected.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

This really bothers me

We had breakfast this morning at the Tref Cafe (okay, you probably know it as "Cracker Barrel" - where almost everything involves pork fat). Our server greeted us, told us she was new, and them proceeded to prove it in every possible way.

That included the wrong food, the wrong sizes, stuff we didn't order, not getting us stuff we did, and then really bolluxing up the check.

The food was fine. We left stuffed. But we did ask to speak with a manager, since the bill bore almost no resemblance to what we got served.

We *knew* we'd been undercharged, and we wanted to fix that and let them know there were issues they should check into.

Instead, the manager refused to charge us for anything.

Now, there's very little that will bother people who are trying to do the honest thing than having someone say, "Nah, you don't have to pay us a cent."

Really, the food was good. It always is. That's why we come back.

We didn't want you to buy our breakfast; we wanted you to know there was a problem.

*sigh*

So I just donated twice the value of our meals to Action Against Hunger.