Moondoggie performs the Vulcan Butt Meld:

RILEY: “I’m not even going to acknowledge this. I’m just going to close my eyes, meditate, and go to my evil place.”

Wild Things | 2 Comments »

I’d just like to take a moment to thank our good friend Bill S. for another terrific contribution. Not only did he delight and entertain with his vivisection of Ben Shapiro’s views on cinema, but he also reminded me that Ben Shapiro exists. Frankly, I thought he’d gone the way of most child stars and retired to a public-spirited obscurity to wait out his awkward years. But no, a glance at his original playpen, Townhall, shows that despite Ben’s recent discovery of an entirely new field in which to fail, he hasn’t entirely forsaken politics for poetics.

President Obama’s State of the Union address was the greatest American rhetorical embrace of fascist trope since the days of Woodrow Wilson.

Benjy prefers fascist tripe (or Fascist Flaczki as we used to call it in the Old Country), but he’s got a good point. As we know from the HUAC hearings, the only thing worse than being a fascist was being a premature anti-fascist, and since Wilson died eight months before Mussolini founded the Partito Nazionale Fascista, he was obviously too early to be a fascist, and way too early to be an anti-Fascist, even of the premature kind, so with his options increasingly limited, he had no choice but to become, simply, a “Premature Fascist,” which makes him a collector’s item, like those Cabbage Patch Preemie dolls.

I am not suggesting Obama is a Nazi; he isn’t. I am not suggesting that he is a jackbooted thug; he isn’t…President Obama is, however, a man who embodies all the personal characteristics of a fascist leader, right down to the arrogant chin-up head tilt he utilizes when waiting for applause.

Of course, that would also describe most of the performing pinnipeds at Sea World, but given the way the word “fascist” is thrown around these days, it’s good to have a clear definition.

He sees democracy as a filthy process that can be cured only by the centralized power of bureaucrats.

Whereas I see Ben as a painful, itchy inflammation of the nether regions that can only be cured by the starchy power of Gold Bond Medicated Powder.

He sees his presidency as a Hegelian synthesis marking the end of political conflict.

Which is why he seems so eager to compromise with Republicans. What’s the point of fighting when political conflict has ended? Thanks, Hegel!

He sees himself as embodiment of the collective will. No president should speak in these terms — not in a representative republic. Obama does it habitually.

Again, taken at face value, this seems to contradict observable reality, until you remember that by “Obama,” Ben means “the sweat sock with the Magic Marker face that I use to put on puppet shows in my room.” Context is important, people.

It would be pointless to discuss at length the dictatorial, demagogic nature of much of Obama’s address –

But that’s never stopped you before.

the attacks on the banking system;

Ironically, his full-throated denunciations of the Federal Reserve made Ron Paul sound like Woodrow Wilson.

the unprecedented personal assault on the Supreme Court justices;

When Obama started ranting about those “nine old men,” I thought he was going to take off one of his leg braces and beat Sam Alito to death

the dictatorial demands (”I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay”);

Ben’s Wikipedia entry notes that while at UCLA he “clashed with professors,” presumably when they told him they wanted his paper on their desk by Friday, and he replied, “enough with your dictatorial demands!” Speaking of Ben’s rather wee wiki, it sums up his professional career thusly: He formerly practiced law at the Los Angeles office of Goodwin Procter LLP. He now does independent legal consulting for major media clients, including the Washington Times and BiggUns.

I tried Googling “Bigguns” and this was the first thing that popped up (so to speak):

‘Nuff said.

He is also a film critic who is writing a biography on his favorite director, Michael Bay.

Which is sort of like saying “he is also a maître fromager who is writing the definitive reference work on his favorite cheeses — Kraft American Singles, those deep-fried curds they sell at the Minnesota State Fair, and Velveeta, the most intriguing of all the cheeses, because its orange hue, owing nothing to nature, is a happy collision of corporate synergy, a shotgun marriage between spoiled milk, the bucolic produce of middle America, and the techniques of heavy industry ordinarily used to manufacture dioxin, Play-Doh and hexachlorophene, which in agriculture is used as a fungicide, and in vagiculture is used as a douche.”

Which certainly sounds like the constituent makings of a Michael Bay film, until you note that Velveeta is a wholly owned subsidiary of BiggUns, so the reader may be excused for wondering how Shapiro’s many other corporate entanglements will impact his ability to impartially critique cheese.

the scornful looks and high-handed put-downs directed at his political opponents. It would be even more pointless to discuss the incomprehensible stupidity of Obama’s policy proposals.

As noted policy wonk Barbie once observed, “Math is hard!”

It is worth examining, however, the deeper philosophy evident from Obama’s address. From the outset, his speech was an ode to himself. He opened, bizarrely, by comparing this moment in history to past American crises: “when the Union was turned back at Bull Run …” He suggested that “America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.” This, of course, is unmitigated, self-serving rubbish — 620,000 Americans died in the Civil War because we didn’t move forward as one nation. But that is irrelevant to Obama — in his mind, today’s crisis is just like the Civil War. He is a modern-day Lincoln, and those who oppose him are benighted rebels. What’s more, only his powerful leadership can lead us through.

Let’s go to the video tape: “For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They’ve done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility, and they’ve done so in the midst of war and depression, at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It’s tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable, that America was always destined to succeed.

But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain.

These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.”

That’s the great thing about being a “critic” instead of, say, a lawyer — you don’t have to really even pay attention at work and you still get paid.

Then it was on to his critique of American politics. It should be noted at the outset that American politics is designed to produce gridlock. The governmental structure was carefully calibrated to thwart grand, ambitious programs like Obama’s socialist remolding of America; the founders deliberately shackled government by pitting interest against interest. Obama does not accept that, and so he despises the American system of republicanism.

Exactly. Let us not forget, when James Madison put himself through college working as a pimp, his street name was “Super-Majority.”

(Ron O’Neal played him in the HBO John Adams biopic.)

He acknowledged that political debate is deeply entrenched: “These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they’ve been taking place for over 200 years. They’re the very essence of democracy.” Then he dismissed the very essence of democracy in a single stroke: “But we still need to govern.”

If “democracy” was about “governing,” they would have called it governocracy. And I believe the think tank scholars at BiggUns would back me up on this.

Revenge of the Nerds | 27 Comments »

Join our Special Correspondent Bill S.as he mans the Red Carpet at the 2010 Culture War Awards:

Not content to prove that he’s stupider than Jonah Goldberg, Master Ben Shapiro has of late, tried his hand at movie criticism, in an apparent effort to prove he’s also dumber than Michael Medved. We first got a taste of this back in 2006, with his Townhall Column, Why I’m skipping the Oscars this year. Just about everyone second-guesses the Academy Awards, but only Ben, with his unique brand of dumbassery, can render this harmless pastime completely annoying. Brad at Sadly, No! already gave that piece the smackdown it deserved, but there are three additional points I’d like to add:

1. Ben Shapiro opens the column with this line:

Every year since I was old enough to stay up late, I’ve watched the Academy Awards.

Then goes on to say:

If a film tackles a “deep social issue”…you’ll have an excellent chance of grabbing a gold statuette…The combination of declining product quality and rising Hollywood disdain for mainstream America has opened the door to the agenda film crowd. It began with the 1994 Oscars

It bears repeating the Ben was born in 1984. This means his disillusionment with mainstream Hollywood movies is either entirely retroactive, it’s a pose designed to make him appear more knowledgeable (an epic fail since he seems to be saying message movies weren’t invented until the 90’s) or he’s parroting a line of B.S. his elders fed him in the hopes of winning a cookie from them. Hell, it’s probably all three.

2. I’m not sure what’s more hopeless, his math skills or his logic skills:

In 2003, homosexual agenda films like The Hours, Frida and Far From Heaven grabbed the largest share of nominations.

Um, not quite, dumbass. Let’s look at the actual tally, shall we?

Chicago 13 nominations (6 wins)
Gangs Of New York 10 nominations (0 wins)
The Hours 9 nominations (1 win)
The Pianist 7 nominations (3 wins)
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 6 nominations (2 wins)
Frida 6 nominations (2 wins)
Road To Perdition 6 nominations (1 win)
Adaptation 4 nominations (1 win)
Far From Heaven 4 nominations (0 wins)

So the three movies he listed grabbed “the largest share of nominations” as long as you add their individual nominations together and ignore all the ties. Since you could get the same result from any three movies from the above list, this proves…nothing. (Side note: since John C. Reilly has roles in Chicago, Gangs of New York and The Hours, he must have more influence over Academy voters than the gay lobby. I wonder if he knows that?)

Read the rest of this entry »

Guest Column | 23 Comments »

If you’ve ever wanted to see a grown man with a livid, almost incandescent case of diaper rash (and if I’ve learned one lesson from spending my life on the internet, it’s that there’s a porn niche for every taste, no matter how exotic), then allow me to direct your attention to Richard Cohen’s latest column in the Washington Post.

There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer.

I know that a lot of people cast their ballot for Obama because they supported his goals of reforming health care, repairing the economy, and restoring American prestige abroad, but I’m a single issue voter and I hired him to be Richard Cohen’s babysitter. And so far, he sucks! I don’t know if Obama’s been spending all his time chatting on the phone with his boyfriend, or doing his homework, or whatever, but just look at this mess. Richard’s lost his nook and his blankie, he was allowed to stay up late and watch some scary show on FoxNews, and now he’s so hysterical I don’t think we’ll never get him down for the night!

Richard was particularly upset that the Justice Department even considered holding Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s trial in New York City, because it would have allowed the 9/11 Mastermind to assassinate the Stock Exchange with traffic, and given “KSM, as he is called, a second shot at devastating downtown New York.”

This [decision] was clearly the product of some excitement down at Justice — yet another chance to show the world that George W. Bush was gone and with him the odious attempts to treat terrorists as if they were, well, terrorists. A civilian trial! Right in the heart of Manhattan!

While it’s true that we also tried Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, in a civilian court, rather than throwing away habeas corpus and condemning him to a dungeon cell in the Chateau d’If, that’s only because Condi Rice was so dazzled by his functional, yet fashion forward footwear.

In a similar example of poor judgment, an undoubtedly delighted Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was told he had something called Miranda rights and could, if he so chose, cease talking about allegedly attempting to blow up a jetliner as it approached Detroit on Christmas Day.

Sure, he was willing to blow himself up and murder 200 people, but he only stopped talking to the police when he was told it was legal to do so. After all, he’s a terrorist, not a criminal.

Abdulmutallab was Mirandized after just 50 minutes of interrogation and he, having probably seen more than his share of “Law & Order” episodes, promptly shut up.

Somebody want to Mirandize Richard? It’s worth a try.

Administration officials defend what happened in Detroit and assert, against common sense and the holy truth itself, that they got valuable intelligence

My emphasis. And my rage-driven spittle flecking the monitor — sorry about that. Is this, by any chance, the same holy truth as delivered by the prophet John Kiriakou, the ex-CIA employee who “affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, [but now] says he didn’t know what he was talking about”?

The announced closing of Guantanamo has also suffered from a peculiar Obama-style naivete. It is now apparent that there are some bad people there who should be detained way past the time they are eligible for AARP membership.

There were also a lot of innocent people held there for years, but to be fair, Bush and Cheney did release a lot of the bad ones, no doubt in some idealistic attempt to restore balance to the Force.

It’s true that the world does not like Guantanamo, but then it’s also true that the world is not an al-Qaeda target.

“Dear Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Kenya, Tanzania, Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and the United Kingdom: You can’t be in our club anymore. Signed, The World.”

KSM, Abdulmutallab and other accused terrorists should be tried.

But not by a real court, that’s too fancy. They should be tried by Judge Judy, or the Queen of Hearts, or maybe that ecclesiastical junta who taught Gallileo the meaning of justice.

But these two are not Americans, and they are accused of terrorism

And as we all learned from Schoolhouse Rock, there’s a little asterisk at the bottom of the Constitution that reads: “Offer void in Utah and in case of accusations of terrorism.”

But just so I’m clear on all this, Richard… You’d be fine trying, say, Jose Padilla in a civilian court, and respecting his constitutional liberties, including the right against self-incrimination? After how long? Could we waterboard him for a few years, and then read him the Miranda warning? Maybe we could institute a sort of probationary system, like when you get a new job and your benefits don’t kick in for 90 days. Americans who were suspected of terrorism would begin at the Assistant Citizen level — not quite Americans, but not exactly foreigners — sort of semi-Canadians, like Maher Arar. Then, after all the useful intelligence and/or trauma-induced hallucinations had been tortured out of you (not by us; we’d outsource that to the Syrians or Egyptians or folks like that, in deference to your almost-rights), you could be brought back to the U.S. to rot in a stockade for a few years while we try to figure out how to present all this tainted evidence without some judge getting up on his magisterial high horse.

A military tribunal would fit them fine. If it is good enough for your average GI accused of murder or some such thing

It’s rare you see someone punctuate the word “murder” with a yawn. Outside of Arkham Asylum, anyway.

No doubt George Bush soiled America’s image abroad with what looked liked vigilante justice and Dick Cheney’s hearty endorsement of ugly interrogation measures.

You know, I was beginning to think you had all the empathy of a spider wasp, but I take it back now that you’ve condemned torture because it looks bad.

But more is at stake here than America’s image abroad — namely the security and peace of mind of Americans in America.

Because as Benjamin Franklin once so memorably remarked, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, are all right with me!”

Bush stands condemned by the facts for Sept. 11 — his watch, his responsibility — and in all likelihood he bent over backward to ensure that nothing like those attacks would happen again.

Well, he didn’t personally bend over backward, but certain guests of his Administration were put in some very creative positions. But again, this isn’t “torture,” it’s more like sentencing a criminal to perform community service with Cirque du Soleil.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, seems to have bent over backward to prove to the world it is not the Bush administration and will, almost no matter what, ensure that everyone gets the benefit of American civil liberties. But the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security and this, sad to say, has eroded under Barack Obama.

Yeah, here’s the thing, Richard. Just like you can’t teach to the slowest learner in your class without seriously short-changing the other students, the government can’t keep pruning the Bill of Rights in order to reassure the most tremulous bedwetters amongst us, because while there’s no ceiling to their panic attacks and night terrors, there’s definitely a floor beneath which the Constitution no longer functions.

I don’t want Khalid Sheik Mohammed or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to face trial because I’m a fan of Law and Order, but because there’s no such thing as “security” if the government doesn’t feel constrained by the law. If the Justice Department and the FBI don’t feel obliged to follow the rules in high profile cases, what makes you think they’ll be any more scrupulous when they come to your house after the librarian tips them off to your subversive reading habits? Well, not you, of course; you’re immune to police misconduct because you’re white and you know Sally Quinn. But if we all squeal Havoc! and let loose the dogs of law enforcement, then sooner or later, a lot of innocent who don’t have the benefit of a Washington Post column will get scooped up and abused by a system that values enforcement over the law.

Repeatedly, the administration has shown poor judgment. Abdulmutallab’s silence is a scream that something is wrong.

If you’re in charge of anti-terrorism, the screams of your suspects should be audible, because how else will Americans know you’re keeping us safe?

No Country For Old Men | 16 Comments »

I canceled my subscription to the New York Times shortly after they hired Bill Kristol, and yet, every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in. Case in point, today’s Ross Douthat column, Sex Ed in Washington, seems to exert some weird, subversive influence on my better judgment — although perhaps it’s just the sad spectacle of Ross spending 700 words trying to talk us all out of ever having sex again, when really, a single picture is worth a thousand:

Liberals hated almost everything about George W. Bush’s presidency, but they harbored a particular animus toward a minor domestic policy priority: abstinence-based sex education.

To be fair, if Bush had devoted the same amount of time and money to promoting phrenology, I think most liberals would have shrugged it off, if only because nobody ever contracted the clap from having their skull groped by a natural philosopher.

The abstinence effort accounted for about a hundred million dollars in a trillion-dollar budget, but in the eyes of many critics it was Bushism at its worst — contemptuous of experts, careless about public health and captive to religious conservatism.

But enough nitpicking…

So last week’s news that teenage birthrates inched upward late in the Bush era, after 15 years of steady decline, was greeted with a grim sort of satisfaction. Bloggers pounced; activists claimed vindication.

Ross wouldn’t have even felt the need to defend an increase in teen pregnancies as another Bush Administration success story, if it hadn’t been for all those snotty girl bloggers doing the end zone dance and making L’s on their foreheads and getting all smarmy about Mendel pwning Lysenko.

On CBS News, Katie Couric used the occasion to lecture viewers about the perils of telling kids only about abstinence, and ignoring contraception. The new numbers, declared the president of Planned Parenthood, make it “crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work.”

In reality, the numbers show no such thing. Abstinence financing increased under Bush, but the federal government has been funneling money to pro-chastity initiatives since early in Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Yes, Republicans greatly increased both funding and ignorance by slipping support for abstinence-only “sex education” into the Welfare Reform bill, but the federal government has been bankrolling this boondoggle since the Reagan Administration.

If you blame abstinence programs for a year’s worth of bad news, you’d also have to give them credit for more than a decade’s worth of progress.

True, assuming that you, like Ross, are incapable of distinguishing between “despite” and “because.” As Jill at Feministe points out: “When the teen pregnancy rate dropped in the 1990s, it was largely because of increased contraception use.”

But under Bush, guidelines for federal grants “required states to provide assurance that funded programs and curricula ‘do not promote contraception and/or condom use.’” Also, the Administration urged the CDC to tell school girls they could catch chlamydia from a miasma, so at least those abstinence-only classrooms had a lot of cross-ventilation.

More likely, neither blame nor credit is appropriate.

Exactly. This is the sort of enlightened, let-bygones-be-bygones attitude that was encouraged by the parish priest whenever some medieval family called in a barber to treat their ailing child, and the subsequent surgery went a tad awry. “Look, my children, you asked Theodoric for help, and as far as I can tell, he correctly diagnosed your son as suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors and a bad pageboy, and took the only sensible course of action by bleeding him. True, he could have gone a bit easier with the lancet once you started bandying around ten-penny words like ‘hemophiliac,’ but let’s not bicker and argue about who desanguinated who.”

The evidence suggests that many abstinence-only programs have little impact on teenage sexual behavior, just as their critics long insisted. But most sex education programs of any kind have an ambiguous effect, at best, on whether and how teens have sex. The abstinence-based courses that social conservatives champion produce unimpressive results — but so do the contraceptive-oriented programs that liberals tend to favor.

Except, the teen pregnancy rate dropped in the 1990s, largely because of increased contraception use!

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s attended high school. What is taught in the classroom is vastly less important than the matrix of family, culture and economics: the values parents impart and the example that they set, the friends teenagers make and the activities they join, and the cross-cutting effects of wealth, health and self-esteem.

That’s true, man — I got nothin’ out of school. Everything I know about algebra and social studies I learned on the street.

(And, of course, the impact of entertainment: the MTV reality show “Teen Mom” is far more absorbing than the average sex-ed curriculum, and probably more influential as well.)

So in Ross’s considered opinion, the most effective form of sex education is a show called “Teen Mom.” Well, that explains why he can’t get an erection around any woman who’s on the pill, but I could have done without the glimpse into his porn preferences.

None of this renders the abstinence-versus-contraception debate pointless.

Just your column.

But we should understand it more as a battle over community values than as an argument about public policy.

Because it’s not like those two are related in any way.

Luker describes it, aptly, as a conflict between the “naturalist” and “sacralist” approaches to sex — between parents in Berkeley, say, who don’t want their kids being taught that premarital intercourse is something to feel ashamed about and parents in Alabama who don’t want their kids being lectured about the health benefits of masturbation.

You know, I took Sex Ed in California, which has never bought into the abstinence-only scheme, and I don’t recall pro-masturbation proselytizing, or, in fact, any editorializing at all. It was taught by the school nurse, whose obvious boredom with the task and poorly veiled impatience with us drained the subject of any potentially enlivening prurience or risibility, and was delivered in a series of brisk and vague bullet points: Here’s the rhythm method, and since this isn’t a Catholic school I can mention that it has a high failure rate. We’re not going to discuss your mucus. Here’s the pill, it has a low failure rate, but it doesn’t prevent venereal disease. Here’s a condom, relatively low failure rate, will help to prevent certain diseases, I’m going to sort of generally describe the right way to put it on, but I’m not going to demonstrate because then you’ll all start giggling and I hate you little bastards enough already.

Basically, it was like Drivers Ed, except Red Asphalt and Blood on the Highway were replaced with gruesome slides of patients with tertiary syphilis. I don’t know what fundamentalists imagine goes on in sex ed classes, but I’m pretty sure even people from Alabama would have found it dull.

We federalize the culture wars all the time, of course — from Roe v. Wade to the Defense of Marriage Act. But it’s a polarizing habit, and well worth kicking.

Because eliminating government interference in a woman’s right to choose is the same as empowering government to interfere in the rights of gay people to choose whom to marry. You’re right, Ross, your examples do make me want to kick something, although it’s not a habit.

If the federal government wants to invest in the fight against teenage pregnancy, the funds should be available to states and localities without any ideological strings attached.

No doubt you would have made this same argument for a neutral, high-minded, hands-off approach to sex education before your abstinence-funding peeps were kicked out of office, but you were probably held up in traffic.

Anyhow, while I disagree with Ross’s conclusions, I would never imply that he’s a sexually repressed gynophobe who resents women who’ve callously turned their wombs into a rocky place where his seed can find no purchase:

One successful foray ended on the guest bed of a high school friend’s parents, with a girl who resembled a chunkier Reese Witherspoon drunkenly masticating my neck and cheeks. It had taken some time to reach this point–”Do most Harvard guys take so long to get what they want?” she had asked, pushing her tongue into my mouth. I wasn’t sure what to say, but then I wasn’t sure this was what I wanted. My throat was dry from too much vodka, and her breasts, spilling out of pink pajamas, threatened my ability to. I was supposed to be excited, but I was bored and somewhat disgusted with myself, with her, with the whole business… and then whatever residual enthusiasm I felt for the venture dissipated, with shocking speed, as she nibbled at my ear and whispered–”You know, I’m on the pill…”

In a sane world — not a perfect world, mind you, just a marginally better one — Doghouse Riley would have a weekly NYT column, and this douche-nipple would be manning the steam trays at the Old Country Buffet.

You ask me, The New York Times can’t get that pay wall up fast enough.

Revenge of the Nerds | 29 Comments »

Occasionally, we like to take a break from the relentless pace of blogging around here (Ahem!), to answer some of the deep and earnest questions that Google deposits on our doorstep like so many flaming bags of dog poop. Some are quick, Yes or No affairs, while others require a bit more time-intensive exploration. And, like Shake ‘n Bake, you can help!

1. What would turn toilet seat purple? Well, as we all know, purple is the color of royalty, and the toilet is colloquially known as “the Throne,” so I guess marrying Prince Charles would be enough to do it.

2. Rush Limbaugh attractive: No. Next question?

3. putting pens in you’re ass: While this can certainly be done, it tends to make calligraphy much more challenging.

4. [NOTE: These next few queries are all thematically related, so I’m going to treat them as a single question]

(a.) boners in public

(b.) boners in school

(c.) boners in class

(d.) 13 year old with boner

Yes, you appear to be doing it right. Congratulations and FTW! as the kids say.

(e.) Great American boners

This is a medical condition that can result from excessive Teabagging, or exposure to Sarah Palin in running shorts and pantyhose.

(f.) How to get a boner

Please see Question 4, Section (e.).

(g.) boner police

This was a short-lived procedural series on Cinemax.

5. armpit groping movie: This was the Disney Channel’s short-lived attempt to compete with Cinemax After Dark. The musical numbers were quite peppy.

6. Hitler pee: Look, I’m all for fan service, but this is what we in the business call a “narrow niche.”

7. Wacky and fictitious platypus: That would be Paranoid P. Platypus (AKA “The Megalomaniac Monotreme”), who in 2007 was adopted as the official mascot of the Department of Homeland Security.

Much like the U.S. Forest Service’s Smokey the Bear, P.P. Platypus puts a kid-friendly face on important issues like enabling police state overreach, Quisling-style collaborationism, and squealing on your friends.

8. Lake gaga nude: Well, if you must go skinnydipping, I can’t think of a better place.

9. selsun blue shampoo fetish: “My junk is tingling, so I know it’s working!”

10. pubic hair oops: “Alex, I’ll take Things You’re Likely to Hear at Lake Gaga for 200.”

I don’t claim to have all the answers, of course, so in the interests of Open Source development and the unfettered exchange of ideas, I’m appending three additional questions for our commentariat to tackle. (The first one is in honor of D.Sidhe, but everyone feel free to pile on.)

1. druids trick or treating for virgins

2. “the secret” proof

3. definition of mexican Halloween sex position

Enjoy.

For No Good Reason | 14 Comments »

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has taken a brief holiday from pointing at Muslims and hissing, like Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, to spend time blaming the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for the existence of blowjobs.

Forty Years of Feminism Now Bearing Fruit

A new documentary, Oral Sex Is the New Goodnight Kiss, chronicles America’s moral decay. Sharlene Azam, a Canadian filmmaker, says, “If you talk to teens [about oral sex], they’ll tell you it’s not a big deal. In fact, they don’t consider it sex. They don’t consider a lot of things sex.” In the documentary, teenage girls talk casually about their sexual experiences and even their forays into prostitution.

One girl sums up the new attitudes: “Five minutes and I got $100. If I’m going to sleep with them anyway because they’re good-looking, might as well get paid for it, right?”

Well that certainly sounds appalling. Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time that kids exaggerated their behavior to shock adults, or a filmmaker edited her documentary with the goal of emphasizing the most sensational, if not necessarily the most representative or illuminating footage. Nor would it be the first time professional scolds have promoted their crusades on the basis of anecdotes, fantasies and urban legends (who can forget rainbow parties?) But even if Azam’s claim that most dates end, not with a chaste peck on the lips, but a Goodnight Hummer (which, by the way, was my favorite book as a child), it seems more likely to be a simple case of puberty, rather than prostitution (Pam doesn’t provide a link, but she seems to have lifted her quotes from this Good Morning America story: “I mean, we’re not looking for our future husbands,” one girl said. “We’re just looking for, maybe like … at our age, especially, I think all of us, both sexes, we have a lot of urges, I guess, that need to be taken care of. So if we resort to a casual thing, no strings attached, it’s perfectly fine.”).

Sounds like the prevailing attitude toward sex when I was in high school. Boy, things sure have…changed.

Azam said that this was going on in good homes right under parents’ noses: “The prettiest girls from the most successful families [are the most at risk]. We’re not talking about marginalized girls.

Because who cares about underprivileged girls’ hymens?

[Parents] don’t want to know because they really don’t know what to do. I mean, you might be prepared to learn that, at age 12, your daughter has had sex, but what are you supposed to do when your daughter has traded her virginity for $1,000 or a new bag?”

Make sure you get your cut? After all, Daddy rented a tux for Baby’s Purity Ball, so her deflowered hoohah owes him like 75 bucks.

This is the bitter fruit of forty years of feminist domination in the United States.

It’s because of feminist dominatrices that otherwise serious online journalists feel obliged to vlog in their bikinis.

Virtue, self-worth, and man’s moral value are DOA in the age of the cultural domination of the left. What an awful stench this decaying corpse gives off, lying in a smoldering, fetid pile of ash.

Cremation: You’re Doing It Wrong.

This is how the phony feminist movement empowered women? Girls selling the it for a handbag?

Sure, The Feminine Mystique had a lot of boilerplate about equal rights and such shit, but most women bought it for the convenient sex-act-to-accessory conversion chart. (Flipping open my old dogeared copy at random, I see that in 1963 a handjob translated to a Jackie O-style pillbox hat, while anal sex could be redeemed for a pair of 1/4 karat diamond stud earrings in a white gold setting.)

Those men-hating parasites have ruined the glorious exaltation of women in 20th-century America.

Ah yes, back in those glorious days when spousal rape was legal. You gals didn’t know exhaltation when it smacked you in the face with a closed fist.

I know. I grew up in it. All one has to do is watch movies from the forties, fifties, and sixties (before the left culture rout) to catch a glimpse of the status of women. We were then formidable, respected, treasured, and above all…revered. It was as good as it gets.

Absolutely! After all, who do you girls respect more? Joan Holloway…

…or this unformidable, unglorious bitch?

To say that feminism was one of the worst things to happen to women is being easy.

And as we all know, a woman who’s “easy” is a woman who has sex!

It has been worse for men.

For men, the 19th Amendment is like the 14th Amendment — in reverse!

The demon seeds of the “liberation” movement are everywhere — including the epidemic of single motherhood, the breakdown of the American family, the street vernacular of “bitches and hos,” the emasculation of men, and the bone-crushing responsibility of single moms acting as mother, father, breadwinner, chief cook, and bottle-washer.

If only Andrea Dworkin hadn’t invented rap music, women would still be treasured, and our bottles would be filthy.

And what has Obama done about all this? He has appointed Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), to be his Safe Schools Czar.

Gay men are the worst men-hating parasites.

But this is no surprise, of course. A breakdown of sexual mores and a flouting of convention is part and parcel of the agenda in every society to which socialism has come.

Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be lefties.

Every child in America, all 73.7 million of them, should be kept safe from the leftist inculcation of the public school curriculum. Taxpayer money should be used to help set up home-schooling networks and resources across the country.

This will force women to quit their jobs and stay home and teach their children geography. Nothing could be more freeing.

We spend more per capita on education than virtually every other nation, and yet we rank close to the bottom in math and science — so busy are our children being force-fed global warming junk science, the LGBT agenda, a whitewashed Muhammad, and other assorted propaganda.

Home-schools will vastly improve our scientific literacy, and fortunately, it’s a cinch to start your own. All you need is a home, a copy of the Old Testament, a picture of Muhammad, and a can of wood stain (Cuban Mahogany Heavy Distressed or darker).

This is how the left has been destroying America since they took over in the ’60s. Now the teenage girls in Azam’s documentary are reaping what the left has been sowing for decades.

You may have a point, Pam, but honestly, I respect, treasure, and revere you as a woman far too much to listen to a frigging word you have to say.

Wingnuts | 52 Comments »

As you may have noticed, the commercial space on the left side of the blog occasionally summons the likes of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and other wingnut harpies, demons, and succubi, so whatever algorithm Google is using to place ads, I assume it involves a Ouija board and a chalice of ram’s blood. In other words, online target marketing is not an exact science. Even so, it strikes me that this ad may be casting it’s net a bit too wide, even for Facebook:

The text reads, in order of increasing incoherence:

“TONIK. Simple, affordable health insurance.”

“I’m happy with my current skin tone.”

“Let me at that eco-friendly app.”

“Legal.”

I don’t know what they’re trying to sell me, but as advertising copy goes, it’s a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.

For No Good Reason | 16 Comments »

Moondoggie: Man, what a week!

Riley: I’m too pooped to poop. I didn’t think that was even theoretically possible.

Wild Things | 15 Comments »

Our old friend, Theodore “Vox Day” Beale, “Christian libertarian,” and (by grace of his millionaire dad’s donations to Joseph Farah) WordNetDaily columnist, decided to abandon his usual wingnutty tropes today, and tell Haiti to Drop Dead.

The black hole of Haiti

While Vox, thanks to his religious scruples, is above the sort of seamy sexual innuendo practiced by blogs such as this, he has been known to loosen things up with the occasional racist double entendre.

The impulse to want to help the people of Haiti, particularly in tragic moments such as these, is entirely understandable. It is good. It is human.

Fortunately, Vox “is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and IGDA,” and has evolved beyond primitive human emotions (and most consonants).

But doing something is not always better than doing nothing, and in these particular circumstances, it is also mistaken.

George W. Bush had the right idea: Victims of natural disasters are like hornets; if you don’t bother them, they won’t bother you.

There are already 10,000 aid organizations active in Haiti, one for every 1,000 Haitians.

I’m always inclined to trust conveniently round figures with no supporting links.

How many more are required to make a substantive difference? More importantly, at what point do people begin to recognize that because sending money to Haiti is the root of the problem, it cannot be part of the solution?

I thought a massive earthquake was the root of the problem, but it turns out those 200,000 people were killed by Sally Struthers.

If Haiti needs anything from the United States, it is the 30,000 Haitians who are presently in the United States illegally, and thanks to the Obama administration, will now be permitted to stay another 18 months.

When starving and injured Haitians are asked what they most urgently need at this moment, the vast majority respond, “more mouths to feed!”

Since the Haitian diaspora is made up of Haiti’s most entrepreneurial and productive individuals, Haiti is far more in need of them now than ever.

Sure, we could leave these productive individuals alone, and allow them to continue sending desperately needed remittances back to their impoverished relations, but if they really wanted to help they’d go home and open a tanning salon, or a Pinkberry.

The earthquake is not a sign that people should begin helping Haiti. It is entirely the opposite. It is a powerful warning that people must stop trying to help Haiti.

It’s an international aid program Vox has been developing called Tough Hate®.

Instead, they must leave the Haitians alone to help themselves, which, of course, it is possible they may not be willing to do after decades of dependence on external support.

If you’d like to Read More About It, check out the following books:

1.) FEMA Guidelines for Disaster Preparedness and Recovery
2.) Lord of the Flies

Even the best-intentioned interference can trigger harmful effects capable of lasting decades, as we are unfortunately witnessing in the aftermath of the earthquake. Haiti’s problems are best left to the Haitians for the simple reason that no one else is capable of solving them.

After all, if you can’t lift that collapsed roof off yourself with your own bootstraps, maybe you don’t deserve to not be buried alive.

Can I Peek Under Your Hood? | 54 Comments »