when the status quo frustrates.

Is Amanda losing out to “confectionary Christ” and his chocolate ding-dong?

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

Behold the new face (and cock) of evil:

Yep, that’s supposed to be Jesus. And he’s made of milk chocolate. And contrary to the selective memory of some Christians, Jesus had a pee-pee. It’s even possible (probable?) he had the gall to be staked to the cross without the loincloth commonly found in the family-friendly death scenes displayed in your neighborhood churches.

And now that Catholics pitched a hissy, he’s being taken down.

I knew there was quite an uproar over the choice of a NYC art gallery to display what MSNBC referred to as a “confectionary Christ,” but I had no idea that Super Christ had gotten involved:

Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever.”

I realize Amanda Marcotte might be considered by Donohue to be the worst assault on Christian sensibilities ever, but those are strong words, stronger even than the ones he used to describe the horrible atrocities commited on tEh interweBz by Amanda and her gang of Satanic pandas. I’m worried she’s been surpassed by naked chocolate Jesus on the evil-o-meter, and if so, I’m wondering how she can reclaim the belt from this delicious usurper.

What if we made a chocolate sculpture of Amanda performing that oh-so-famous scene from The Exorcist? What if we made it out of aborted fetus tissue?

I suppose she could rape and plunder a Christian nation, but the Muslims seem to have cornered that particular brand of victimhood (suckas!).

What if Amanda used the Shroud of Turin as toilet paper then wiped the Pope’s face with it? What if she wiped Bill’s face with it?

If Amanda took video of an assisted suicide and put it to a Jars of Clay song, would that do the trick?

Then again, maybe there’s nothing we can do. Amanda doesn’t have a brown dick that makes you want to put it in your mouth, and maybe that’s the worst thing Bill could ever encounter.

I wonder if he’d be this mad if it were made of white chocolate.


Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.

Mexican farmers are setting ablaze fields of blue agave, the cactus-like plant used to make the fiery spirit tequila, and resowing the land with corn as soaring U.S. ethanol demand pushes up prices.

But ethonal isn’t…but monocultures are…but overdependence on corn will…but…but…but…nooo! not the tequila! noooooooo!!!!!!! You bastards!

*gasp* hate….U.S….energy…policy…*choke*

Why did they bother to even have a f*)K#ng survey?!!?

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

The Young Christian Person’s Conference is all wrapped up, and photos are available online. Lots of bluish haze and fresnels pointed directly at the audience, the hallmark of an lighting designer who totally knew someone who once did the lights for a Coldplay tour, but alas will never design the lights for Coldplay himself. But he’s still cool.

Our young heroes, Alex and Brett (who, to my infinite disappointment, are NOT as hot as their blog photo would have you believe), gathered their rebelutionaries and divided them into home groups, presumably to play patriarch. Let’s compare the photos (Alex vs Brett) and see who wins!


Patriarchy Catagories:



Size of household



Gender makeup of household



Control over the bitches







Final Commentary:

Brett starts out strong in important patriarch categories such as overall household size and ratio of valuable boys to resource-sucking females. However, both slip when it comes to keeping the wiminz under control: despite the much-lauded Modesty Survey, both boys’ groups were heavy on the t-shirts with decorations on the bust, and both showed signs of feminine kneecap. What points Alex’s team gained for proper use of lip gloss and shiny, lustrous manes they lose for low necklines and peak-a-boo camisoles. Brett’s team loses points mostly for bust-centered t-shirtage and excessive make-up, and the harlot standing second from the right. Now there’s a girl who took the modesty survey as a how-to guide to titillate her Christian brothers, 80′s style.

I award the harlot 10 points for the flirty knee-skimming skirt, 10 points for the sexay top, 100 points for that retro perm, and 500 points for that awesome belt. She also gets 10 NYT points for being up-to-date on clavicle style, 10 Chris Muir points for holding herself in an awkward, hip-and-butt enhancing pose, and 10 smug sense of self-satisfaction points because look at that smile: she knows she’s hot.

Convention winner: Harlot, for reading between the lines of that ridiculous modesty survey and serving up a steamy dish of hawt during a rare chance to get some face time with one of our well-funded wonder twins. I’ll give her another 1,000 points if it can be shown that an eligible male took her aside to ‘talk’ to her about her dress, and she feigned shock that her attire was at all inappropriate and asked said male to help her discover what the Lord says about modest dress, starting with a sincere prayer of repentance. The other five girls may hate her guts, but if you’re gonna play the boys’ game, ladies, you’d best play it to win.

Not all European nations are as tasteless as the Dutch

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Kyso has a point about the Dutch sinking to new lows on the reality TV front, but at least the French stepped up to the plate — the Cannes Film Festival rewarded a political film with the Palme d’Or:

A harrowing film about illegal abortion in Communist-era Romania beat 21 movies by well-known directors such as Quentin Tarantino, Ethan and Joel Coen, and Wong Kar-wai to win the Cannes Film Festival’s top prize Sunday.

Romanian director Cristian Mungiu’s low-budget film, “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” depicts the horrors a student goes through to ensure her friend can have a secret abortion.

I was too busy coating myself in Axe Body Spray and watching UFC to hop across the pond and catch this year’s festival, so I can’t tell you if the film is deeply feminist or even any good, but I’m happy to see the international film community rewarding works of art that address the issues of the body.

Hopefully, members of the blogosphere can encourage as many “regular” Americans as possible to see the film when it arrives on our shores. Harrowing secret abortions may not only be a thing of the past over here; they may also be a thing of the near future.

Dutch TV producers kick off season by opening dialouge about the banality of evil

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Just when you thought reality tv couldn’t get any more tasteless, the Dutch, of all people, set a new bar:

A Dutch TV station says it will go ahead with a programme in which a terminally ill woman selects one of three patients to receive her kidneys.

The donor, a dying woman, will chose the winner with help from YOU! the viewer. Doctors are, of course, appalled:

“The scenario portrayed in this programme is ethically totally unacceptable,” said Professor John Feehally, who has just ended his term as president of the UK’s Renal Association.

“The show will not further understanding of transplants,” he added. “Instead it will cause confusion and anxiety.”

But the producers have managed to convince themselves that they are doing a public service…

“We think that is disastrous, so we are acting in a shocking way to bring attention to this problem.”

…which is understandable, seeing as you’d pretty much have to convince yourself that the world needs you to be as shameless and unethical as humanly possible in order to get through the show development meetings without killing yourself. And if you’re not spending all of your time defending your latest season of ethically suspect bile then you might have to really deal with your role in last year’s mistakes:

The outcry comes at a difficult time for production company Endemol, who were censured by Ofcom last week for their handling of the Celebrity Big Brother racism row.

The Australian version of Big Brother has also drawn criticism for not telling a contestant that her father had died.

And you can already just barely look at yourself in the mirror as it is.

Why would an intelligent designer program free will into his most elite yes-men?

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

There’s a young Christian person conference going on somewhere in America and our friends at the Rebeloution are all over that like white on rice. All kinds of people are liveblogging the event and it seems like your standard mega-church guitars-and-slick-packaging revival-cum-indocrination, until John Piper decided make things a little hipper and edgier by bringing in the Simpson’s reference.

A Discernment Test

1.) Who is the most God-centered person in the universe?

Answer: God is the most God-centered person in the universe.

2.) Who is upper-most in God’s affections?

Answer: God is upper-most in His affections.

3.) Is God an idolater?

Answer: No. He has no other God’s before Himself.

4.) What is God chief jealousy?

Answer: To be known and admired and trusted and obeyed above all others.

5.) What is the chief end of God?

Answer: To glorify God and enjoy Himself forever.

6.) Do you feel most loved by God because He makes much of you, or because He frees you to make much of Him forever?

Answer: This you must answer for yourself.

7.) Are you God-centered because God is supremely valuable to you? Or because you believe you are supremely valuable to Him?

Answer: This you must answer for yourself.

Lisa, Jr. : Amy said that there are lots of religions. Which is the right one?
Homer : Well, not the Unitarians. If that’s the one true faith, I’ll eat my hat.
Ak : If the Lord is all-powerful, why does He care whether we worship Him or not? Ak just saying.
Homer : Well, Ak, it’s because God is powerful, but also insecure, like Barbara Streisand before James Brolin. Oh, he’s been a rock.

Capitalism fails to support Ace’s theory of a matriarchal obsession with tight, youthful vagina

Sunday, May 27th, 2007

At first, I wasn’t sure about Pandagon’s new google ad bars at the top and bottoms of the pages. But upon reading this post, I was convinced that the hilarity and opportunity for discussion provided by an ad bot on a feminst blog outweighs the fact that it kind of clutters up the page.

I always thought google ads were pretty good at selecting ads that were relevant to the topic on the page. However, seeing ads for “femmytight: naturally tighten the female private parts” and “healthy vagina spray” on a feminist post about mocking an insecure man who thinks that (wants to think that?) women tighten up their vaginas to impress each other makes me think that maybe google should re-tool the algorithm a bit.

The ad for SweetSpot Labs (ooh, scientific!) sums up the patriarchy right off the bat:

Shower, shave, oil, cream. Lotion, potion, SPF. Cleanse, tone, treat, moisturize, antioxidant, pro-firming, sunblock. With all the daily steps that make a girl perfectly sweet, there’s still something missing.

Are you sick of having an acidic vagina? Could you be one of those women (if we could call them that) who are just using ordinary hair conditioner to condition her pubic hair? Do you suffer from a “sweetifier” deficiency, the number one cause of our nation’s stank pussy epidemic? If you answered yes to any of these questions, SweetSpot Labs has the solution for you.

Now sweetness marks the spot. It’s the first and best way to balance pH, nourish skin, condition hair and keep that oh-so-fresh feeling-all in a single spray. Use there and everywhere!

Formulated to complement and complete your Intimate Grooming® ritual, this fabulizing mist luxuriates with premium-grade sweetifiers including vitamins, botanicals, pH balancers and for-purpose essential oils. Voila-your sweet spot is sure to find its center.

Who knows, it may actually be the ‘something missing’ that’s keeping you from being perfectly sweet, although with the millions of things that could be wrong with your disgusting self it’s highly unlikely. Better buy one of each of SweetSpot’s many products just to hedge your bets.

But like beauty, sweet cunt is only skin deep. It’s all for naught if you’re vagina isn’t up to snuff. If there’s any problem today’s modern woman can relate to, it’s trying to keep her status as the favored wife. Women in polygamous marriages in isolated rainforest villages know that when it comes to making sure you have the status necessary to ensure that your children get their share of the food and survive to adulthood, you simply can’t neglect a single feminine detail. Can your secret garden compete with your husband’s latest child bride’s? If not, the problem is you, not the culture.

Femmytights tightening technology is based on an centuries old tradition of local people in the tropical rainforests. In those communities it is not uncommon for a man to have several wives, The local women use these very same herbs to keep their vagina tight and elastic in order to stay the favorite wife, as they often had to compete with younger women.

Nothing says “I am in full compliance with my duties as a member of the sex class” like shoving a teabag full of god-fucking-knows-what vaguely defined “unique variety of healing herbs from the tropical rainforest” up your twat while using a Sitz bath. That’s right, you are supposed to brew magic tightening tea using only your vagina and one of those toilet accessories used mainly to help ease the discomfort of just having given birth.

If someone can come up with a reasonable explanation for femmytight without using the word or concept of ‘patriarchy,’ I will post it as a guest post, because I’d really like to see if that could be done. Come on Ace, explain that one.

Given the choice between being filthy and being unnatural, can we trust women to make the right decision?

Thursday, May 24th, 2007

Via Amanda, ABC wins some sort of record for cramming the greatest amount of anxiety over menstruation possible into a single article. I was honestly shocked to go back up to the byline and discover that the damn thing had been written by a woman.

The curse. Aunt Flo. Riding the Crimson Wave. And, in British-bashing Australia, the red coats are coming! Women across the centuries have had names for their monthly “friend” — some laced with humor and many whispered in tones of taboo.

Quite frankly, The Onion’s euphemisms were better.

I prefer “Falling to the communists”, but that’s just crazy little me, with my having been educated to a high-school level of biology and not projecting some kind of gender blood-magic to my monthly Mudslide in Crotch Canyon. But upon learning that women now have the option of not “Ordering l’Omelette Rouge” (oh man, this is fun!) some people’s minds immediately jumped to the obvious problem:

“There may be important health consequences that we don’t know about,” said Christine L. Hitchcock, an endocrinology researcher at the University of British Columbia. “I don’t think we understand everything that the menstrual cycle does well enough to say with confidence that you can abolish it and not have any consequences.”

I’m just kidding, Susan Donaldson James didn’t have that anywhere in her article. That was already covered by sane publications. Susan has more profound concerns:

It’s unclear whether women will embrace this new pill, which contains the same formulations of estrogen and progestin used for birth control pills for decades, but its arrival marks yet another step toward the blurring of the genders.

As 21st century women dominate the universities and continue to climb the executive ladder, and metro-sexual men explore their feminine side, it’s harder to define what it means to be a woman.

Shit, maybe if we hadn’t encouraged men to exfoliate or use mousse, we’d have enough wiggle room to play around with our “red dollar days.” But we did! We did get that degree and we did take the promotion and our husbands did get their backs waxed, and now woe! Woe befalls those who tamper with the last remaining distinction between men and women!

Look, I know that for some women, this is actually an issue, but it is clearly an individual woman issue, not a social issue. Put two extreme women side by side, one of whom thinks that “serving up the womb steak medium rare” puts her in some sort of life-affirming granola-fuck moon cycle woman thing*, and another that finds “trolling for vampires” to be an absolutely reprehensible experience. Can you tell, just by looking, the difference? Nope, they both look like women to me. Whew! That settles that. Or does it?

Most of us are in the middle, and will choose yay or nay based on how squicky the idea of not “rebooting the Ovarian Operating System” makes us feel. It would help, however, if certain *cough* journalists would refrain from doing this:

Lybrel, manufactured by Wyeth, stops the growth of the uterus, sending it into hibernation.

Or this:

But other women worry that taking Lybrel is tantamount to tampering with nature, and some doctors have warned that the pill is not 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, particularly for overweight women. Total bleeding stopped in only 80 percent of women in the trials, according to gynecologists. Iron retention can also be a side effect.

“I personally would not opt to take the pill,” said Erin Stahl, 28, an educational administrator in New Jersey. “I think it does seem a wee bit unnatural and physically frightening.

The first is just so inaccurate as to be mind-boggling. Unless it’s not, and my uterus is growing right now, in which case, holy crap! It’s about time someone made something to stop it before it eats my stomach or something. The second is a scare tactic disguised as legit medical information.

And someone please explain to me this complete non-sequitor:

Today, both men and women have different attitudes toward menstruation. Indie rock vocalist Ani DiFranco sings with 21st century attitude about her monthly cycle: “I woke up one morning covered in blood, like a war — like a warning that I live in a breakable takeable body.”

What in the fuck does that first sentence have to do with the rest of the paragraph? Ani DiFranco, as much as I love her, is only one woman. No other women or men are quoted at all, but hey, Ani provides a shocking quote, so maybe no one will notice, right?

So what stereotypes have we had so far? Let’s see, the ball-buster, the young idealist, the nervous woman…what’s left? Oh yeah, the really messed up:

“Someone else might choose to do this because she doesn’t want to menstruate because it makes her feel unfeminine,” (emphasis mine)

I don’t enjoy “playing banjo in Sgt. Zygote’s Ragtime Band” all that much, but it sure as hell ain’t because it makes me feel ‘unfeminine.’ Although it was kind of neat that Susan began this article tsk-tsking over how failing to “fly the red flag” might make us less of women, and ends with a quote about a hypothetical woman who would chose to stop that filthy, shameful cunt bleeding in order to feel more feminine. It’s a circle of misogyny so perfect it makes a grown woman weep.

*This is going to get me flamed with a vengance, I can just tell.

Fair Use explained in the most appropriate of ways

Monday, May 21st, 2007

It’s “Shake and Lay Off Everyone and Close Forever,” and AFA helped!

Sunday, May 20th, 2007

Robert Knight of the American Family Association gazes upon the havoc that his flying monkeys have unleashed upon Ford, and by havoc-releasing-flying-monkeys I mean he pats himself on the back for being around to kick Ford while it was already down. He derives no small satisfaction from the idea that while, sure, he can’t prove that the massive AFA boycott of Ford over their gay-lovin’ ways actually hurt Ford in the least, surely it didn’t help, and close is close enough to warrant a press release.

Have you driven Ford crazy lately?

That would be a good question for the nation’s business media to ask the American Family Association (AFA), which has been boycotting Ford Motor Company for the past year.

Since March 2006, the AFA and 18 other pro-family organizations have targeted Ford over the company’s donations to homosexual political groups and advertisements in homosexual-themed magazines. You’d never know it from media reports.

True enough, the closest thing I’ve seen to regular ‘media reports’ about the boycott are Pam’s occassional mocking posts; her posts every couple of months on the subject make her seem comparatively obsessed next to the deafening silence of every one else on the topic, up to and including Ford which has, as always, slightly more urgent problems:

What’s new: Ford Motor Co. has completed excavation of industrial waste at nine of 12 sites where paint sludge was found at the 900-acre former iron mining site in Ringwood. That brings the total amount of lead-tainted sludge and contaminated soil removed since 2004 to 25,000 tons, Ford spokesman Jon Holt said….

Ford and Ringwood continue to disagree over paying for cleanup work. Ford says the borough has accrued penalties of nearly $17 million — $32,500 per day since November 2005 — for not complying with an EPA order to help pay for the work. Borough officials replied that the town has complied by offering to pay for some of the work and by spending more than $500,000 to aid residents affected by sinkholes that appeared near two areas being cleaned up.

Nearly two dozen salaried workers were involuntarily separated
from Ford Motor Co. in April, a company spokeswoman confirmed.

Ford said the permanent layoffs came before Ford CEO Alan Mulally told shareholders and journalists that layoffs likely would not be necessary for the struggling automaker to meet its turnaround objectives.

A plummeting new-vehicle market share at Ford Motor Co., maybe the sickest of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, has led to anemic customer traffic. In 1999, the Pacifico dealership sold about 300 new and used vehicles a month; in 2007, it expects to sell 190 a month, which is an improvement from a nadir in 2002, when vehicle sales sank to 140…

Economic reality is hitting Ford auto dealers. According to a leading trade publication, the Philadelphia region – even with the closings that have taken place – has the third-highest concentration of Ford dealerships in the nation. There are just too many of them, dealers say, and one-fifth of the 50 or 60 Ford dealers in the region could eventually close.

Everyone knows that Ford is hanging from a noose that it tied for itself. The AFA is only embarassing itself when it tries to insinuate that less than a million people taking the time to sign an online petition is at all responsible for Ford’s 13 billion-with-a-b loss in 2006.

Being a sinner is so 12th century, y’all

Friday, May 18th, 2007

Ask a liberal who drives an SUV if they feel guilty about their emissions and fuel consumption, and more often than not they’ll fall all over themselves explaining just how badly they feel about it. They may still try to excuse their need for a mini-monster on the road, but few will deny its harms.

Does that make owning the vehicle a morally defensible choice? Not at all. But at least they aren’t kidding themselves about the damage it’s doing.

Ask a conservative who drives an SUV if they feel guilty about their emissions and fuel consumption, and more often than not they’ll either deny that any damage is being done or argue that other people are committing far greater sins than driving one little SUV.

Where a conservative will usually argue any position that minimizes individual accountability for anything bad, many liberals have made peace with the interpersonal reality of “do as I say, not as I do.” After all, it’s nearly impossible to live a hypocrisy-free existence in the modern world. Certainly there are degrees of awfulness, and we have a duty to minimize our selfishness. If you live in a city, though, odds are you purchase/borrow/benefit from environmental ugliness, and we know this.

But it doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to take up the cause of environmentalism. In fact, it’s one of the main reasons we favor legislation to deal with such sweeping problems — it forces all of us onto a level playing field and blocks the individual temptation to screw the future for the sake of the present. We acknowledge personal weakness and understand its power.

Unfortunately, to many conservatives, the above paragraphs probably sound nonsensical. Take Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at Stanford. His editorial in today’s Chicago Tribune takes liberals to task for giving to green companies as “penance” for personal consumption:

Take the idea of “carbon offsets” made popular by Al Gore. If well-meaning environmentalist activists and celebrities either cannot or will not give up their private jets or huge energy-hungry houses, they can still find a way to excuse their illiberal consumption.

Instead of the local parish priest, green companies exist to take confession and tabulate environmental sins. Then they offer the offenders a way out of feeling bad while continuing their conspicuous consumption.

You can give money to an exchange service that does environmental good in equal measure to your bad. Or, in do-it-yourself fashion, you can calibrate how much energy you hog, and then do penance by planting trees or setting up a wind generator.

Either way, your own high life stays uninterrupted.

What an absurd reason to chastise someone. In the midst of an American culture destroying itself via its excesses, that some individuals choose to mitigate their personal damage by doing equal amounts of good should be cause for celebration. Instead, all this conservative can see is people who commit the same sins they’re trying to fight, and that hypocrisy simply doesn’t compute.

If you think about it, this kind of self-denial helps explain why so many conservatives continue to refute the existence and consequences of global warming. If all of it were true, then they’d be personally guilty of crimes against humanity, and they simply can’t own such a thing.

This also explains the blind allegiance to the moral correctness of the US debacle in Iraq. It’s simply unfathomable that the country they support would be anything other than the good guy each and every time it takes up arms. Again, anything else would make them partially culpable for its evils.

Hanson’s article ridicules liberals purchasing carbon offsets for acting like “medieval sinners” trying to buy off their sins. Of course, what’s ridiculous is asserting that trying to offset one’s harm is the same as trying to buy away its existence. However, Hanson’s analogy may provide one of the keys to assuaging the conservative fears that inhibit social progress.

I’m pretty sure that somewhere in Christian mythology it reminds us that we’re all sinners. Each of us makes terrible mistakes for selfish reasons, but that doesn’t mean we should excuse them or pretend they aren’t harmful. Rather, we should work to minimize our collective evil while acknowledging its individual existence.

In this case, it’s not okay to sin against the environment, but it’s understandable to be an environmental sinner. We’re all one at some level or another. So now that we all share in the blame, howzabout we share in the solution?

[And yes, I promise your kids and their lacrosse sticks will fit just fine in one of these.]

Don’t you hate it when you plainly and simply fuck up?

Wednesday, May 16th, 2007

Boy, I sure do.

Today we launched a website I redesigned for a really fantastic client, and a big announcement was sent to all their contacts asking them to come check out the exciting new content.

If you visited in Safari or Firefox on the Mac or Firefox on the PC, you had a blast. If you showed up in IE7, you probably thought you had double vision. And the only reason it happened is that I failed to double check my final set of style changes in IE7. Which ANYBODY knows I obviously shoulda done.

Let’s just say “I feel badly” doesn’t even begin to cover it. Sigh.

Anybody else step in it today?