Dennis the Peasant

A Selection Of Republican Sing-A-Longs...

This is Michael Steele's favorite, as it should appeal to the youth vote:

Why I Am An Ex-Republican, Reason # 1,463 (The Sanford Edition)

1,463) I can keep my cock in my pocket.

Why I Am An Ex-Republican, Reason # 1,462 (The Ensign Edition)

1,462) I walk my cock; my cock does not walk me.

Yet Another Great Moment In Principled Femnism...

One of the most endearing aspects of today's femnist movement is the joy of watching femnism's leading lights ditch their femnist principles whenever they feel it to be necessary (or convenient). For example...

Feministing's Jessica Valenti spilled barrels of ink and wrote thousands of words denouncing traditional weddings as yet another oppressive contrivance of The Patriarchy... Until, of course, it came time to get married herself. That, it seems, was different. Jessica, it turns out, could have a traditional, by-the-books Patriarchal wedding without compromising herself or her femnist principles. All it took was an slightly off-white wedding dress and providing wedding guests the opportunity to make donations to the politically correct charity of their choice.

Violà! Problem solved.

In a similar vein, Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte can't seem to go more than a day or two without denouncing The Patriarchy for subjecting womyn to all sorts of oppressions, humiliations and degradations. However, when her choice for President - John Edwards - managed to get himself caught fathering a bastard child with some new-age featherhead while his cancer-stricken wife battled for her life, Amanda stuck to her femnist guns and decided that in this case, a man cheating on his terminally ill wife simply wasn't any of her business.

Take that, Patriarchy!

Now along comes Beatrix Campbell, OBE. For those unfamiliar with the British version of the species, Campbell is a femnist. And not just any sort of femnist... She's a communist, lesbian, atheist, revolutionary femnist! And as such, one might be forgiven for thinking Campbell would refuse, with an appropriate show of revolutionary contempt, an offer of becoming an Officer of the British Empire. Right?

Not on your life!

It seems Beatrix Campbell managed to find a way to both accept recognition by the capitalist, heteronormative, Christian empire she's dedicated her life to overthrowing (that is, at least theoretically, what revolutionaries do, you know) and remain true to her femnist (and communist) principles. Her justification, published in The Guardian, is an absolute howl:

Why I accepted my OBE

Being conferred a Queen's honour means my country needs me – a republican with politics rooted in Marxism and feminism

Once upon a time, a long time ago, I was chatted up by an intergalactic film star. "No, No, No," I said. "I love women, not men." "Yes, Yes, Yes," he insisted. It was one of those moments – apparently an offer I couldn't refuse.

I did refuse. But when I told my female friends, they all hollered: "You should have done it! Then you could have told us all about him!"

That moment came to mind recently when I was offered an OBE. This was an offer I didn't refuse. Not that refusal wasn't my first reaction. And I didn't accept it because I wanted to view the inside of a palace or see the shoes of the Queen or because I could give my nearest and dearest a day out and then dine out on it.

The OBE was conferred for service to equal opportunities. A noble reason. But it isn't even this. It's a signifier of something else – that a kind of radicalism is recognised as necessary.

My politics comes from Marxism and feminism; it's republican, it's gay and it's green. It isn't about "good works", but its works are all towards the good of society. And that can't be realised without the most radical transformations. It belongs to networks whose mission is to create ways to empower the most marginalised and to call power to account.

For sure, the political establishment has not adopted a benign tolerance for those who seek its undoing. But there is a recognition that the movements to transform relations between genders and generations and to confront the causes of inequality are indispensable.

This is not self-evident – the ethic of the last three decades of parliamentary politics has promoted the opposite, they are a riposte to the new social movements. And for all the hype about Blair's babes somehow signifying a new era of feminism-friendly governance, in its bones New Labour is misogynistic.

The survival of an honours system clothed in royalism and imperialism is a reproach to New Labour's craven sentiment about pomp and power. It's timidity about reforming the constitution and its indulgent accommodation of the monarchy encourages the belief that these institutions are somehow natural, that radical renewal is too painful – that powerful people's feelings would be hurt.

That creates a contradiction in moments like this. Looking at the community of great feminists who have been "gonged", there is a pattern of unyielding creative challenge. They're not ladies of a certain kind who've mellowed into sweet old girls – they're women who just don't give up, who've deployed their politics and their cleverness to change what can be known, what can be done, who we can be.

These gongs announce: their country needs them!

If there's a crisis about getting gonged, it is because the archaism of our constitution hails values that are inimical to the values being celebrated by the gong.

By clinging to symbols and rituals that belong to a cruel imperial order the government compromises the gonged.

You ask yourself the question: how can I accept anything from this horrible imperial regime?

And yet, getting gonged confers recognition of "citizens" contributions' to a good society – in my case equality – and the gesture affirms our necessity; the radicals – not the royalists – are the best of the British.

Want to know what sort of "radicalism" the capitalist, Christian Patriarchy considers necessary? The safe, self-satisfied, ineffectual sort, of course. In the U.S., Beatrix Campbell would be considered a "Suburban Marxist". I have no idea whether the terms fully translates to English Types; perhaps they have their own special term for the likes of Beatrix Campbell. 

It's worth noting that Campbell's justification for taking the OBE has met with widespread derision amongst The Guardian's readership. Here are a few of the more interesting comments, and remember, the typical Guardian reader ain't the British equivalent of your typical Fox News watcher:

Dear God......good thing I haven't eaten in the last hour or two.

The ancient Order of the Brown Nose.

So you have joined an exclusive group for service to equal opportunities. Was the irony lost on you?

Look lady, did you want the OBE or not? You took it so I guess you did. Actions speak louder than words...

You can't be republican and marxist and accept a gong... you just can't! It really really is jaw-droppingly hypocritical... and there's no way you can spin it Bea...

I think I know why you really accepted. The day will come when the government announces some policy you disagree with, and you'll be able to huffily send the OBE back - and write a long, tortured piece for the Guardian about how you owed it to generations of persecuted women to Make A Statement. I predict it right here.

'It's a signifier of something else – that a kind of radicalism is recognised as necessary.' Or perhaps it's just that gay, green, marxist republicans aren't regarded as any real sort of threat to the establishment these days.

More confirmation of own personal maxim: Rebellion is a phase people pass through on their way to becoming traitors.

I never cease to be amazed at the Chinese Circus-style level of ideological contortionism these so-called "progressives" or "radicals" come up with whenever their egos are seduced by titles and honours from the very institutions they purport to reject - sometimes they even use their parents as an excuse, as in "Of course I would not accept such and such honour for myself, but for my mum/dad/nan/great-uncle/pet hamster etc etc...", while others like "Sir" David Hare simply say it was "his friends" who persuaded him to accept a knighthood - but of course darling, of course!

As a marxist and a republican, apols for being boring, there is no damn way can you have accepted this thing. There was a post a couple of months back when people were trying to defend Hobsbawn 'cause the Mail was being beastly about his gongs. Well in that instance (& prob for the only time ever) I actually agreed with the Mail. If Hobsbawn had stayed true to his claimed politics he would have refused the baubles of empire and reaction.

[Note: The commenter above is referring to British Marxist historian (and ardent communist) Eric Hobsbawm, who has never been particularly shy about accepting whatever prizes the capitalist plutocracy and/or empire threw his way, irrespective of his deeply held communist principles.]

Laugh-out-loud funny - we gotta bring da system down from within, innit! Oddly redeemed by Campbell's willingness to subject herself to well-deserved ridicule by penning this disingenuous nonsense in justification. Marxist my arse.

This is the funniest thing I have read in the GUARDIAN in YEARS!! Probably you really accepted the gong because on some perhaps subconscious level you realize how much monarchy and empire have done for you, yours, and the rest of the planet . . . not the least is your establishment's comparatively benign attitude toward its adversaries. Millions, nay, billions, would be ecstatic to live under a cruel imperial order like yours ...

Being of a leftist persuasion myself, nothing makes me angrier than those who 'fight the power' until the 'power' dangles a ribbon and medal in front of them. Go on Beatrix, if you feel you need to be validated by the bourgeois state, feel free, but you have completely sold out. Did you know that amongst those who have refused an OBE is that well known marxist-feminist revolutionary Nigella Lawson? How come the daughter of a Conservative Chancellor can knock it back but you can't? Nothing worse than a left wing hypocrite.

Finally, there is this comment, quoting poet Benjamin Zephaniah - who refused the OBE when offered - which hits the nail on the head perfectly:

What Benjamin Zephaniah wrote in the Guardian rings even more true now:

There are many black writers who love OBEs, it makes them feel like they have made it. When it suits them, they embrace the struggle against the ruling class and the oppression they visit upon us, but then they join the oppressors' club. They are so easily seduced into the great house of Babylon known as the palace. For them, a wonderful time is meeting the Queen and bowing before her presence.

I was shocked to see how many of my fellow writers jumped at the opportunity to go to Buckingham Palace when the Queen had her "meet the writers day" on July 9 2002, and I laughed at the pathetic excuses writers gave for going. "I did it for my mum"; "I did it for my kids"; "I did it for the school"; "I did it for the people", etc. I have even heard black writers who have collected OBEs saying that it is "symbolic of how far we have come". Oh yes, I say, we've struggled so hard just to get a minute with the Queen and we are so very grateful - not.

I've never heard of a holder of the OBE openly criticising the monarchy. They are officially friends, and that's what this cool Britannia project is about. It gives OBEs to cool rock stars, successful businesswomen and blacks who would be militant in order to give the impression that it is inclusive. Then these rock stars, successful women, and ex-militants write to me with the OBE after their name as if I should be impressed.

One thing is clear, whether she be an American Third Wave or Classic British Lesbian Lefty, if you value your life, never stand between a femnist and what she wants for herself.

Ever.

 

...She Said, Without A Trace Of Irony.

Wow. Over at Feministing, we have Amanda Marcotte's long lost sister (or so you would think) writing about the similarities between femnism and animal rights. It's the sort of thing you can't make up:

I'll admit, this is a subject that I have been craving to post for quite some time now. Let me start off by introducing myself, this is my first post, although a true fan of feministing and an avid supporter of all things feminist, my interest and concentration in graduate school is more along the lines of animal rights, sociology of animals and ecofeminism, I have been a feminist probably since high school and an animal rightest since undergrad. It is only within the last few years that I started to really develop an passion in ecofeminism and the relationship between women's rights and animal rights. I write this post, because the more I learn about feminism and animal rights, it is obvious to me that a profound and deep correlation exists between both, although some feminists may argue otherwise.

Jesus. Another bimbo in grad school.

I wonder what an animal rightest is. Could it be an animal that has decided to become an anti-abortion neo-nazi skinhead? You can't get much righter than that, you know.

I write this entry because it is my passion to begin a deeper conversation with feminists [and others] about women's rights, animal rights and the interrelationship between the two. I am vegan and believe that my passion for "rights" in general encompasses all individuals, including those that are non-human or nature for that matter.

Nature is an individual? Who knew?

So is there a difference between us (women) and them (nonhuman animals)? This leading question is a profound cornerstone in many philosophical and social conversations. As a very proud feminist and vegan, it was always clear to me that there was a distinct connection between both feminism and vegetarianism. Throughout my career as a social activist, it has become increasingly fascinating that there are many feminists who are not vegetarian and vegetarians who are not feminists. In addition, there are many women who are part of the feminist movement, but not part of the animal rights movement and vice versa. Although, some individuals are not simultaneously part of both movements, the objective for both feminism and vegetarianism works to create a society that is equal for all living beings [and the environment], that is not oppressive and exploitative.

You know, I read the above paragraph and wonder just how much difference there is between a femnist and a cherrystone clam... At least in terms of higher brain functions.

Vegetarianism is deeply connected to the Women's Suffrage Movement. This connection illustrates a long desire for social equality for all (Leneman 1997). Many leaders in the Women's Suffragist Movement were vegetarian and advocates for other progressive movements (Leneman 1997) (George 1994). Vegetarianism is deeply connected to the Women's Suffrage Movement. This connection illustrates a long desire for social equality for all (Leneman 1997). Many leaders in the Women's Suffragist Movement were vegetarian and advocates for other progressive movements (Leneman 1997) (George 1994). Many women during this era made the connection between the killing of animals for food and the killing for fur. One woman, Maude Arncliffe- Sennett (1913) remarked on an advertisement of a model wearing a fur coat: "these women all seem to me hateful - they represent so much killing!"

"Many women during this era made the connection between the killing of animals for food and the killing for fur..." So did the neanderthals, sweetie, so I'm not sure it constitutes a bragging point.

Margaret Cousins was a woman heavily involved in the Vegetarian Movement and the Women's Suffrage Movement. When addressing the Vegetarian Society in 1907 she stressed that women should adopt a simple diet of grains/fruits/nuts to reduce the amount of time spent in the kitchen in preparing meat meals (Leneman 1997). Cousins declared that if women switched to a meatless diet they would have more time to think about social problems and use their intellectualism (Leneman 1997).

"Cousins declared that if women switched to a meatless diet they would have more time to think about social problems and use their intellectualism..."And it takes 100+ years of thinking about social problems and using their "intellectualism" to end up in grad school writing blogs about the interrelationship between womyn's rights and animal rights. How'd that work out, eh?

Women that were activists in the Vegetarian Movement also became advocates for the Anti-Vivisection Movement. Women were identifying the victimization of women and victimization of animals. "It [anti-vivisection movement] taught that if there is this kinship physically between all living creatures, surely responsibility rests upon us to see that these creatures, who have nerves as we have, who are made of the same flesh and blood as we are, who have minds differing from ours not in kind but in degree, should be protected, as far as in our power lies, from ill-treatment, cruelty, and abuse of every kind" (Louise Lind-af-Hageby 1913).

Where womyn being victimized by vivisectionists in 1913?

This historical connection is only one example regarding the interrelationship between woman and animals. There are other significant cultural influences that suggest a gendered relationship between these two populations. Carol J. Adams, author of "Sexual Politics of Meat" and "Pornography of Meat" illustrates this example better then I ever could ever explain, her works are a powerful resource to connect this relationship. She discusses that our language is a precursor to exploitation of women and animals.

God, you just knew she'd have to drag Carol Adams into this brainfart, didn't you?

Adams (1990) suggests a popular example when a woman has been victimized by a man, "I felt like a piece of meat" (Adams 1990: 53). The aforementioned phrase is used frequently by battered women and illustrates that they do not want to be treated in the terrible fashion that animals are treated. Women that are victimized by men experience feelings of exploitation and objectification. Using phrases as the latter indicate that animals are treated poorly and that women do not want to be treated in the same way. In regard to the victimization of women, they express that the killing experience for animals is equitable to the experience of rape or violence against women (Adams 1990).

The above paragraph qualifies as some of the worst writing I have ever seen out of anyone not named Amanda Marcotte. It takes a special sort of talent to fuck up a paraphrase of Carol Adams.

Finally, the feminist movement and animal rights movement signify the values of equality, justice, and rights. However, I write this piece because it is continuously perplexing to me that these movements do not come together in "mainstream" activism (albeit ecofeminism does this). This "joint movement" could assist in creating an equal society for all oppressed individuals.

What sort of value, exactly, is a right? 

The purpose of this entry was a small sample of one my interests, in which I hope to begin a positive conversation about this subject with the feministing community. My questions to the community are: Do you believe that feminists should be vegetarian? Do you think that there is a strong interrelationship between women and animals?

 And my questions to the community are as follows: 

• Is grammar and syntax gender specific? If not, then why can't I find a femnist who can write a simple declarative sentence of, say, 30 words that doesn't contain at least 5 errors of grammar and/or syntax?
• Aren't too many femnists vegetarians and vegans as it is? One read of Femnisting, Pandagon or I Blame The Patriarchyand you have to suspect that these womyn are not getting enough protein. Or oxygen, for that matter.
• So if we all stop eating sliders at White Castle tomorrow, the world will be that much closer to some sort of de-gendered justice?
• If you were a dim-bulb ecofemnist fucking around in grad school and The Patriarchy came up with a magical way to transform you into an animal, what sort of animal would you be?
• And finally, let's see some ecofemnist explain the deep and profound intersection between womyn and the geoduck.

 

 

Meanwhile, Back At The Bush, Er, Obama White House...

Separated at birth?

 

"Transparency? We don' need no steekin' transparency!"

 

"Um, what he said..."

Comments are open, so...

LET THE EXCUSE MONGERING BEGIN!!!

How To Be The Perfect Enviroweenie Wedding Guest...

From the bowels of examiner.com (San Fransisco, of course, via Cleveland) comes this bit of dreck:

10 Tips On How To Be A Green Wedding Guest

And you know what? Enviroweenies deserve the sort of wedding guest Patti Lew suggests you should be. Here's all you have to do...

1) Avoid snail mail. RSVP online or via phone if you can. This will save another piece of mail having to go through the system of being trucked and flown across the country and releasing carbon emissions.

Wedding invitations release carbon emissions? Who knew?

2) Try not to buy a gift off-registry. You want to make sure the wedding couple will truly enjoy and use the gift you give them, so pick from what you know they already want.

Especially if they want things like fireplace tool sets, large outdoor grills or a bolt-on turbo kit for their 4x4 monster truck.

3) Opt out of the extra gift wrapping if you’re having the wedding gift shipped. Not only will it save you an extra $5, the wedding couple will appreciate not having to deal with tossing out yet another box and spool of ribbon. Just think, most items already come in their own store packaging. If you get it gift wrapped, they’ll stick that into a gift box, and then stick the gift box into yet another box for shipping. Why ship one item in three boxes?

Nothing says thoughtfulness like sending that his-and-hers sex toy gift pack in the original packaging.

4) Give Green. Donate to a charity that’s meaningful to the couple, in their name. Or give a micro-loan through Kiva. You can make a loan in their name to the country they’ll be honeymooning in, or give them the power to change lives themselves with a Kiva gift certificate. Not only will the couple get the funds back to spend on something they like later — or use it to re-lend to someone else in need — but you’ll also be giving an impoverished entrepreneur a chance to succeed.

Nothing says "I'm a sanctimonious twat" like passing up buying someone a useable gift so you can send money to Al Gore so he can fly around the world 28 times this year. And didn't you just say not to buy off the registry?

5) Travel light. Carpool with other guests to the wedding site. (This is also great for arranging a designated driver.) If traveling, share a rental car, and don’t forget to choose a hybrid if you can.

Sure, rent a Toyota Prius and then try jamming four people and some luggage into it. That ought to guarantee everyone being in a pleasant mood upon arrival.

6) Stay in a green hotel. You can find listings for sustainable hotels at the Green Hotels Association and Environmentally Friendly Hotels sites.

Why not put a pup-tent in your Prius?

7) Hold onto your wine glass or drinking glass throughout the event and reuse it. If you’re going to have another round of the same drink, ask the bartender to just give you a refill instead of a brand new glass that they’ll have to wash. Also consider using the same glass for the champagne toast.

I dare anyone to suggest the above as a way of being "green" to a group of strangers. I'll lay out cold hard cash that you can't do it and either (a) keep a straight face, or (b) have at least one of the strangers laugh in your face.

8) Eat green. Pick the vegetarian option for your entree. According to the United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, meat is the number one cause of global warming. Raising animals for food generates more greenhouse-gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined — that includes all cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes in the world.

And if there isn't a vegetarian option, bring a pb&J sandwich and some carrot sticks so you can wave off the entree and show everyone what kind of enviroweenie you really are. Better yet, bring a casserole dish of organic tofu surpise so you can share...

9) Purchase carbon offsets for your transportation and lodging, and for your footprint at the wedding event itself. San Francisco based TerraPass and CarbonFund.org both have wedding specific carbon footprint calculators that you can use for you and whoever is in tow.

Lots of enviroweenies seem to have ungodly amounts of time on their hands. You have to think up this sort of nonsense.

10) _____________. Tip number ten is up to you. Share ways that you’ve been a green wedding guest by emailing patti@greenereverafter.com. The top ideas will be compiled and posted in a future Green Weddings article.

It would seem to me that number 10 could simply be that one skips the wedding altogether. Of course, if anyone tries out a couple of Patti's suggestions, there's an excellent chance they'll never be invited to a wedding again anyway. Problem solved!

Last Week's This Week's Amanda Sentence, With Bonus This Week Sentences Thrown In...

Sentence #1:

It seems like this is the most obvious reason to someone like me, who lives in a town where there’s an endless array of quality, independent restaurants that offer the same medium-level prices and mixed drinks as the casual dining chains, but don’t suck so bad that you feel like you just had sex against a dumpster with your sworn enemy after you eat there.

66 words. Evidently Amanda has experience in the matter of having sex with a sworn enemy against a dumpster after either (a) eating at a casual dining chain restaurant, or (b) eating in the dumpster she was having sex against. The sentence isn't real clear on the matter, and as I wouldn't put either event past her, you'll have to decide for yourself.

Sentence #2:

I experimented with a review of Against Love by Laura Kipnis by putting the polemic up against a couple pop culture expressions of the widespread American resentment of marital monogamy---the fascination with the Obama marriage and bro comedies that work with the incorrect assumption that marital drudgery is something imposed on men by the all-powerful matriarchy.

58 or so words. How is fascination with the Obama marriage a manifestation of "widespread American resentment of marital monogamy"? The last time I checked the marriage there was only Barack and Michelle involved, and neither was complaining about the arrangement. Is everyone pissed off that they can't have Barack or Michelle for themselves, or what?

This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For The Clearest Possible Expression Of The Virtual Certainty That Amanda's Best Chance For A Meaningful Long-Term Relationship Will Be With A Divorce Lawyer:

But the reality of American life is we aren’t encouraged to view marriage as we do any other relationship.  With marriage, we’re told that you should live to hold the relationship together, and put endless amounts of time and effort into it, and the success of the relationship is gauged by whether you hold it together, not really whether it makes you happy.

This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For The Second Clearest Possible Expression Of The Virtual Certainty That Amanda's Best Chance For A Meaningful Long-Term Relationship Will Be With A Divorce Lawyer:

The thread turned into a long digression about the concept that “marriages are hard work”, which I agreed with Kipnis is a depressing idea that, since it’s so widely believed across the country, is a major factor in why people rebel against marriage, primarily through cheating.

This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For The Third Clearest Possible Expression Of The Virtual Certainty That Amanda's Best Chance For A Meaningful Long-Term Relationship Will Be With A Divorce Lawyer:

But in reality, Date Night is pushed not as a selfish pleasure you demand for yourself, but as something you must do for the good of the marriage.  Because marriages are hard work.  It’s a miserable contradiction, because Date Night sounds fun, but if you’re contextualizing it with work metaphors, it’s not so much fun. In addition, it’s undeniable that there’s so much pressure out there to work on your marriages because it’s considered an objectively horrible thing if marriages break up left and right.

Sentence #3:

Completely dumping the concept of monogamous relationships is probably beyond a lot of people, including myself, because there are a lot of benefits if you play your cards right.

29 words. "Play your cards right"? Warmth, thy name is Amanda.

This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For The Most Bizarre Manifestation Of Amanda Marcotte's "I've Read Way Too Much Ann Landers" Induced Paranoia:

For instance, the Relationships Take Work mentality fucks people in two different directions.  One, people are encouraged to stay with people who are obviously bad fits, because they think that all the problems that keep cropping up can be massaged out with more and more work.  Two, we’re encouraged to negotiate on every little thing, because of both the Relationships Take Work mentality and the police state mentality.

"Police state mentality"? As an aside, at some point you'd think Amanda might twig onto the idea that if one actually put a bit of work into a relationship, one would discover those "obviously bad fits" prior to marriage...

Sentence #4:

After a week of reading wingnuts go into faux conniptions about the horror of feminists who are too occupied with domestic terrorism and real assaults on women’s rights to care about real issues, such as someone said something nasty about Michelle Malkin---something that is fine and downright clever when said about women who are ass-sucking anti-feminists, but of course is a grave violation of the foundation of feminism when said about a woman who hates other women---I thought it would be nice to honor the new levels of bad faith reached by wingnuts with a Friday Genius Ten.

101 words! Bingo!!! "Ass-sucking anti-feminists"?

Sentence #5:

Hard as it may be to believe, but the wingnut sense of entitlement reached new levels this week.

18 words. Has any other writer in the history of writing been more deserving of a cadre of very patient editors?

This Week's Grand Jury Prize For That Extra Special Touch Of Class We've Come To Expect From Amanda:

I’m not comfortable putting women who allow semen near their nethers without submitting to marriage or childbirth in the same category as adulterers.

That's a relief.

Sentence #6:

But it’s true that I think lying, and sleazing around like a pervert whose desire to control and whose voyeurism slide seamlessly into each other should not be banned by the government until that point where your voyeurism/control issues create a situation where you directly try to control a woman by stalking, harassment, or violence.

56 words. Try to make sense out of that hummer. I dare ya...

Sentence #7:

So, a mix of bitter men with personality issues that made it hard for them to charm a woman into sexual and domestic service, and they blame feminism for making it hard to nail someone down after a drunken mistake, naive kids, and people who’ve sold out their own selves to a strict patriarchy and resent anyone who hasn’t.

59 words. Mix it all together and what do you get? Another hummer, another dare.

This Week's Special "What The Fuck?" Moment Courtesy Of Amanda Marcotte:

Men and women’s interests dovetail pretty nicely on the subject of whether or not it’s moral for a woman to risk bearing a child every time she has sex.And both genders resoundingly believe that it is moral, even if they’re more afraid to say it quite like that then they are to praise pot-smoking as a fine way to spend their time. 

This Week's Grand Jury Prize For This Week's Amanda Marcotte Deep Thought:

As far as pleasures go, sex should top the list of morality.  True, like most things, it can be abused, but most of the time it’s a pleasure that doesn’t do anything bad to the environment, doesn’t hurt anyone else (and practiced correctly, improves at least one other person’s day), and, in the grand American tradition, is a healthful practice that should have a veneer of morality just for that, especially since conservatives and liberals agree that reaching your target heart rate on a regular basis is a valuable practice, if difficult to maintain in our sedentary society.

There you are, kids. Vote early, vote often. No prize this week, on account of Somali pirates brazenly hijacking a cargo ship full of genuine (made in China) Pandagon Vagina O' Death Combination Nail File and Bottle Openers off the wind-swept coast of Ohio.

Meanwhile, The Fundies Work Tirelessly To Deny Gays Equal Rights... Oh, Never Mind.

This sort of thing could only happen in George W. Bush's Amerikkka, except that it didn't:

The Supreme Court today declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, a move that could effectively leave it to the Obama administration to resolve the long-controversial issue.

...........

In the "don't ask, don't tell" case, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it. The court thus spared the administration from having to defend in court a policy that the president eventually wants to abolish pending a review by the Pentagon.

The Obama Administration had to defend that particular policy? Really?

Pending a "review by the Pentagon"? Really?

Bullshit. Bull.Shit.

Had the Obama Administration wanted to, it could have sided with Capt. Pietrangelo and asked the court to declare it unconstitutional.

Or *gasp* Barack Obama could have actually ended DADT months ago, had he actually (a) a real commitment to the issue, and (b) a spine.

And...

The Pentagon began reviewing that policy during Bill Clinton's first term. There's nothing left to review, folks. Nothing! It's been fucking reviewed out the blow hole!

Honest.

And just how much attention did this development get from progressive/liberal/Democratic bloggers? How many of those same bloggers roundly condemned the President for his administration's actions in this case? On both counts, virtually none.

Yeah, I was shocked too.

 

"Hey, there's always next term... I guess."

Comments are open. Let the excuse mongering begin!

Monday's Really Big Question Of The Day...

Why, dare we ask, would President Barack Obama nominate Phillip Mudd as intelligence chief for the Department of Homeland Security...

 

While at the same time running around the Middle East apologizing to anyone who will listen for "torture" committed during the Bush Administration? 

Monday's Other Really Big Question Of The Day: Does anyone besides me wonder if General McChrystal enjoyed the Cairo speech?