Conscientious objet-d'or

What I do for love: queer politics. What I do for money: edit rich kids' college application essays. There's an ugly disconnect there, but there's also a Manhattan rent bill to pay and a $20/minute cocaine habit to feed.

So I get an essay just now that answers the prompt "Choose a person you admire and write about his/her qualities" with a glowing paean to George W. Bush. I remember my immature and uninformed politics at seventeen--sort of a "Fuck the racist, homophobic, chauvanistic, classist Christian Right" kind of song--but I don't remember repeating verbatim the now-familiar lies of Karl Rove's campaign machine. She says, Bush is full a courage, full a Christian moral rectitude, full a fiscal responsibility, full a steadfastiositiness.

My job is to improve this person's chances of getting into the university of her choice. I'm not sure if that would mean a thorough edit for grammar plus a more creative rewording of the gaps in reason that she has chosen to present as fact, or a thorough edit for grammar plus a correction of all the gaps in reason that she has chosen to present as fact. Should I correct "President Bush is guided by Christian morality" to read, "The Christian tenets of faith, brotherly love, and humility provide the beacon of light by which President Bush steers the country" or to read, "Although President Bush claims to be guided by Christian morality, his utter disregard of the most needy people in his society, his willingness to ream God's kingdom on Earth for potential profit, his zealotry for bloodshed and warfare, and his sacrilegious and hypocritical invocation of Christian principles for political gain prove him to be a man motivated not by the teachings of the Bible but by the power grabs of realpolitik Republicanism."

I think the latter will get me fired. But then how'm I going to pay for my gold front teeth?