when the status quo frustrates.

Every time a woman direct deposits a paycheck, the Visigoths get that much closer to sacking Europe.

Tuesday, May 15th, 2007

Vox Day, whom I know I should just ignore, has managed to get mentioned favorably by my favorite anti-feminist’s spunky sidekick, Mrs. Alexandra.

Mrs. Alexandra doesn’t have as much time for the internets as one would think a blogger would, so it’s probable that she didn’t travel all the way to Vox’s personal blog and wallow in the comments for awhile; if she did, she’d surely be reminded of some pithy, folksy homestead saying about how the company you keep is a reflection on yourself and maybe then she wouldn’t like him as much. Since she didn’t, (and she has a bit of a history of kinda missing the big picture) she was taken in by Vox’s rather purple Mother’s Day ode.

Mother’s Day is, to be honest, somewhat of an annoyance. It’s manifestly one of those tedious Hallmark holidays wherein everyone is supposed to run out and support the revenue stream of cardboard manufacturers in the name of expressing gratitude to mothers, fathers, grandparents and anyone else to whom we might be related.

Hmm, the old “Everyone else is jaded, but I still know what’s important!” trick. A bit worn out, to be sure, but leave it to Vox (a professional writer, mind you, a good one) to give it a fresh twist:

I imagine it won’t be long until Sept. 18 is declared Anonymous Sperm Donor’s Day, which will probably be celebrated by giving matching card sets to one’s two mommies and lighting a candle for dear old anonymous sperm donor, whoever he might be.

Ooohhhh-kay, that little slice of masculine castration anxiety kinda came out of nowhere, but it might be a workable idea. Assume 150 million American women, maximum 5% lesbian, say half the lesbians pair off into child-raising couples and assume a rather ambitious 3/4 of them go with IVF and anonymous donation, and we’re looking at maybe selling about 1,500,000 or so card sets every September, plus the candle sales. Hallmark could probably afford to float that idea around some of your more liberal markets. (I think a small, quick-burning candle shaped like a sperm would be appropriate. Nothing too big, or you’ll see a big dip in sales that second year.)

My only question, why September 18?

But on to why Mrs Alex is swooning over the chivlarous Mr. Day:
(more…)

15.05.2007 For the ladies, Godbaggery, Shame on you for being a woman 30 Comments

Weekend project: Learn how to make mash-ups

Sunday, May 13th, 2007


Look out, it’s a mash-up!

[Actually, it's two of them.]

For several months I’ve been obsessed with downloading mash-ups from folks like Party Ben, Matt Hite, DJ Earworm, and DJ John. This weekend, I finally decided to download the trial version of Acid Pro 6 and figure out how all teh kIdz these days are dissecting and combining their favorite tunes into delightful new tracks.

First I introduced the Beastie Boys to cheeseball synth pop. Then I decided Thom Yorke and Talib Kweli had some things to discuss.

I’m sure these are obviously first efforts, but I hope you’ll take a moment to give them a listen. And if you feel like passing on any feedback, I’d love to hear it.

13.05.2007 Punkass!, A Punkass Original Production, Music 18 Comments

New toys at Kyso’s place reveal little biases everywhere

Saturday, May 12th, 2007

My roommate just brought an X-Box 360 home. It is one sexy box. And I mean sexy. The damn thing is actually vaugely shaped like a woman’s torso. I suspect one of those little doors actually hides a hole you can masturbate in.

49030

Upon hearing my “thing looks like a disembodied female torso” theory, I was roundly shouted down and decleared to be crazy. Then, without missing a beat, boyfriend observes: ‘people seem to like to stand it on it’s side like that. I haven’t seen many people lay it flat.’ Roommate then declared that you could make it look less girly by getting the camouflage one, and decided to completely miss the point when I said that a woman in a cammo bathing suit is still a woman.

12.05.2007 Asides 11 Comments

“Can we do this again sometime?”
“Sorry, I only date men who aren’t afraid to make more specific demands — men like David Zinczenko!”

Thursday, May 10th, 2007

Remember David Zinczenko? He’s the star quarterback of Men’s Health and Yahoo’s resident expert on dudery. He’s also one of my favorite whipping boys, due mostly to:
1) his appalling lack of basic congitive functions, and
2) his sincere desire to pretend like all of us must be wired that way.

His latest embarrassment comes in the form of a dating advice column. More specifically, David would like to share with us 5 Things Never to Say on a First Date.


I dated Rose McGowan so you better give me my propers!!

His article starts to go off track here:

We all know that first dates are the ultimate relationship chess match.

Unfortunately, that also happens to be the first line of the piece.

It’s always nice to open your dating advice column by framing the daters as opponents trying to trick each other for a win. In case that doesn’t make you hate your next first date, he reminds us everyone’s probably lying about everything anyway, a “thought process” which leads him to this:

But if the goal is to determine whether the two of you may be a good match, then part of the process is not just detecting the lies, but also knowing the best things to say-and avoiding the worst. Do that and you’ll be well on your way to being the kind of person who will engage, interest, and intrigue your across-the-table mate.

Shorter Zinkie: Your date’s probably making up all that crap about liking their parents and doing volunteer work, but you should still try and win them over with amazing chit-chattery.

Is anyone even clear on why he’s writing this column anymore?

Whatever the reason, he launches into his 5 things to avoid on your antago-date thusly:

Say This: What do you do for fun?
Not That: What’s your job like?

I hope someone asks me that someday so I can say “For fun, I like to point out just how embarrasingly vapid David Zinczenko is!” Then again, I’d much rather it be my job. At any rate, David informs us that asking about job crap is boring. Plus, if we’re assuming our dating opponent’s lying anyway, presumably a more open-ended question should allow him or her to spin a less yawnworthy tall tale.

That might be getting a little deep, though. Let’s move into shallower waters:

Say This: You look fantastic
Not That: Good to see you

It may very well be good to see her, but that greeting is about as vanilla as a McDonald’s shake.

…

…

…

Whooo! [Wiping tears.] That guy is FUNNY.

He’s also really super non-sexist, because he wants you to know that being strictly appearance-oriented isn’t just for guys anymore:

The tactic isn’t just for men to use on women, but can be especially effective in the reverse.

Next up, David hopes you’ll refrain from asking important life questions. And anyway, why would you do that when you can talk about surfing and bikinis?

Say This: Got any cool summer trips lined up?
Not That: What do you want to do with your life?

Apparently David would also like us to avoid dating between the months of September and December, when that question would make you look pretty stupid. I’d stretch out on my own and guess that I could ask about Christmas trips over the fall, but I’d need clearance from the Zincmeister before proceeding.

Say This: How’s next Thursday?
Not That: Up to anything interesting this weekend? Want to meet up again soon?

Why be coy? Leave the game-playing for computer solitaire, and you’ll come off as confident (and more appealing) by being unafraid to take the initiative. Plus, you’ll strike the perfect balance-appearing like you have a busy schedule, but also eager to try a second date. This works especially well for women saying it to men, because men are so used to feeling like they have to make the first, second, and third moves before a relationship gets its bearings.

I’m glad someone finally stood up and pointed out what a burden it is to be a guy in the early stages of dating. With great power comes great responsibility, and just once I think David would really appreciate it if you ladies would acknowledge how hard it is to win the chess match and get in your pants sometimes.

Say This: Where you headed for vacation? What’s on your iPod? Read any good blogs lately?
Not That: Can you believe Sanjaya made it that far?

Current events, pop culture, and hair-boy’s shaky voice all make for great conversation-starters-and of course, they can show that you’re worldly, smart, and interested in other things besides your own life. But soon after talking about the world at large, you need to find a way to bring it back to the world of your dinner companion.

Got that? Zinczenko wants you to be sure to indulge the obvious self-absorbtion of your dating foe, but you also shouldn’t forget that talking about American Idol makes you seem worldly and smart.

10.05.2007 Zinczenko'd 8 Comments

What was I saying about HPV again?

Thursday, May 10th, 2007

Because it looks like it _can_ wreak cancer havoc across the gender divide:

Oral sex has been linked to throat cancer in a new study by the New England Journal of Medicine.

Human papillomavirus (HPV), which can be transmitted during oral sex, is the main cause of oropharyngeal (throat) cancer, researchers found. The study is the first to prove the link.

Man or woman, it turns out that if you’ve put your mouth on 6+ sets of genitals that aren’t your own, you’ve got a notably higher chance of acquiring oral cancer. Fortunately, it’s still not _that_ likely:

“People should be reassured that oropharyngeal cancer is relatively uncommon, and the overwhelming majority of people with an oral HPV infection probably will not get throat cancer,” said Gillison.

10.05.2007 Asides 6 Comments

Lady lawyers anger Patriarchy despite prominent display of boobs

Wednesday, May 9th, 2007

It’s a poorly kept secret that the easiest way to distract the Patriarchy is to flash some cleavage. Unfortunately, that method isn’t entirely foolproof.

In Chicago, an all-female legal firm rocked the moral foundation of the universe by placing this billboard above a happening singles bar area:

Normally, advertising featuring a gravity-defying rack like that would satisfy the Patriarchs, but the billboard commits 2 cardinal sins against maledom:

1) It shows an equally artifically hot manbody
There are a million reasons this is never okay. First, it implies men might also be held to some absurdly unreachable standard of beauty, and we’re too busy eating mozzarella sticks to compete with that. Plus, bodily shame is the HPV of esteem issues. It’s been successfully quarantined amongst the ladies, and guys are _not_ down with it mutating into something we can catch. Second, the ad implies women might also pursue sex as an end unto itself. This threatens the universally accepted definition of sex as “stuff you to do stimulate a penis until it comes.” Once you add (or *gasp* replace “penis” with) woman-parts like the clitoris, you create chaos from order. [Astute males should also be questioning whether there actually IS a clitoris. Even the name sounds more like an elf queen from Lord of the Rings than a real body part.] There are other reasons this sucks, but I’m sure I’ve scared you enough already.

2) It denies the sanctity of marriage
Patriarchy rule #8: The whole thing hinges on chicks spending their entire lives wanting nothing more than to be married and have our babies, so thou shalt not fucketh with that. And yet here we have some Ally McBeal wannabes daring to promote the idea that you don’t have to be, and maybe even shouldn’t be, married to enjoy life to its fullest.

Frank admisssion: If #1 hadn’t happened, #2 wouldn’t be that big of a deal. If the sign just had tits on it, the message would’ve been targeted at guys alone. That would’ve made it a humorous wink-nod-nudge-fingergun to the fellas, reminding us that if we ever want a new concubine with sexxy saline implants, we can just sever ties with the old wench and bring in a new model. After all, boys will be boys.


See? Totally un-noteworthy.

But that masculine washboard stomach is there, creating the galling impression that women should be just as free to happily walk away from their marriage as men.

Check out how many men this pissed off:

“It’s grotesque,” said John Ducanto, past president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “It’s totally undignified and offensive.”
…
“It trivializes divorce and I think it’s absolutely disgusting,” Rick Tivers, a clinical social worker at the Center for Divorce Recovery in Chicago, told ABC News.
…
“This has to be the Academy Award of bad taste,” Raoul Felder told ABC News.

Notice how strong their language is — “grotesque,” says one. “Disgusting,” says another. Those are pretty strong sentiments, all from males.

There was also at least one woman who voiced protest:

Karen Enright, president-elect of the Women’s Bar of Illinois, shared similar feelings. “It’s actually a disappointment to the profession and to the institution of marriage, which is something our community holds as sacred,” she said. “Our profession, and lawyers in general, have been under attack for advertisements similar to this and I think,” she said, pausing. “I think that it’s not in good taste.”

While it’s nice that Karen trumpeted the sanctity of marriage, I’m sure the Patriarchy will dock her points for not acting outraged enough. “Disappointment” and “not in good taste” pale in comparison to the statements of male outrage above.

Ultimately, the owners of the parking garage featuring the sign took it down despite being paid in full for the ad. Good soldiers for the Patriarchal cause, eh?

ABC also knows how to put uppity gals in their place. Along with claiming that she likes to “recycle catch phrases,” check out ABC’s subtle dig at female lawyer/ad-whore Corri Fetman:

“By the way, the male body on the billboard? That’s my personal trainer, Chuck Sanow,” Fetman told ABC News, her girlish voice rising just so. “He’s a Chicago firefighter and he owns a gym.”

You may be flaunting your undeserved sexual freedom, but you still sound like a girl when you do it.

Zing!

09.05.2007 Shame on you for being a woman 14 Comments

All your protected speech are belong to them, and they are tattle-tales.

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

Hey kids, remember when we talked about the right to privacy?

Yeah, I’m kinda wishing that was more concrete right now, and not because I could use a recreational abortion.

Verizon is seeking to have a lawsuit filed against it for allegedly illegally helping the government eavesdrop on its customers and data mine their call records dismissed. The company argues that the suit infringes on the company’s First Amendment rights.

That’s right. Verizon, which just wants this messy, potentially expensive legal hassle to go away, is arguing that listening to your conversations and then tattling to the government is protected speech.

Also, due process is unconstitutional.

Verizon additionally argues that the Electronic Communications Protection Act or ECPA which largely prohibits telecoms from revealing sensitive customer data without legal process, is unconstitutional.

This is just one part of many attempts to get the case thrown out (a slightly less “whaaa?” argument says that just talking about what super secrets they gave to the government will endanger national security) just in case Bush fails to win all the telecoms their “everything after 9/11 doesn’t count” immunity that everyone involved so desperately wants. Of course, if the immunity is granted for some period of time, or the case is thrown out on national security grounds, then that sucks but the suckage is generally contained. If Verizon can successfully argue that a corporation which collects money from a customer has First Amendment rights to turn everything about that customer over to the government without due process, then that’s really, really, unfathomably bad on levels I can’t even comprehend right now. But they’ll do it. They’ll walk into that courtroom and place the entire First Amendment on ice and twist the definition of Free Speech for years to come if it would save them a few million in court fees and damage payouts.

Fuckers.

08.05.2007 A million ways to mortgage the future, HUH!?, Politics 2 Comments

Back when women were in the house, a shoeshine cost a tuppence, and the BBC didn’t suck

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

From the comments at Twisty’s place, a crotchety old man says things were better back before women were people.

British TV standards are deteriorating because the BBC is “run by women”, astronomer Sir Patrick Moore has said.

The Sky at Night host also described female newsreaders as “jokey” and called for separate channels to cater for the needs of the different sexes.

I’d feel outraged about such an opinion if the man holding it wasn’t so clearly one foot in the grave. One look at Sir Moore and I can’t be mad at the loveable old coot: I can only laugh at him and then feel kind of bad about laughing at the ridiculous old man.

“I used to watch Doctor Who and Star Trek, but they went PC – making women commanders, that kind of thing. I stopped watching.”

Yeah, yeah, we know. Things haven’t been the same since women got the vote and they stopped selling codeine over the counter. Shake your fist at the march of time, and die happy. Delusional, yes, but satisfied that we’ll see! Things were better then! We’ll all see!

It’s a good thing he’s so pissed off about women, because otherwise he’s have to punch that BBC PR guy for being so patronizing:

A BBC spokesman described Sir Patrick as being one of TV’s best-loved figures and said his “forthright” views were “what we all love about him”.

Hey, half the payoff for spending 50 years on TV becoming a national icon is so that you can spend your golden years saying whatever fuck stuff you want. That young whippersnapper at the BBC should feel proud to have to mop up after such a respectable luminary while keeping a straight face. Or, as a commenter at Twisty’s put it:

I do find it hilarious that the photo of him shows him as an entitled old white dude wearing a monocle.

08.05.2007 Entertainment, Purposefully Inflammatory 4 Comments

Does this mean if I changed the name of our blog to Heroin that we’d get busted?

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

Ummm-um-um-um-um! You can’t sell a product with a naughty name in this country or else you get in big trubs with our dictatorial overlords. Just ask the makers of the energy drink name “Cocaine,” who have decided to temporarily halt production of the brand after receiving “threats” from the FDA.



Cocaine energy drink: now in powdered mix form!

Confession: other than my continuing fascination with the Tab Energy Drink, I have zilcho interest in the energy drink phenomenon. To me, they seem like a wussy stand-in for some blow… which is precisely why I like the idea of calling one what people really wish it was. Maybe in the interests of accuracy they should’ve called it “Cocaine, A Pale Imitation Of” or “LoserBlow” or “Emergency Buzz For When You And Your Dealer Are On The Outs,” but that’s more of a quibble.

The bigger issue ought to be why this is a real cause for concern for the FDA. Shouldn’t they be worried about industrial pollutants in our food and such? Shouldn’t actual ingredients be more important than some lame PR stunt by a company trying to carve out a niche in a flooded market?

What’s really the worst that could happen here, anyway? I guess some kids could assume there was real coke in the drink. Then they might start running around with their Izod collars up and Risky Business sunglasses on acting like Charlie Sheen in Wall Street because they think they’re hopped up on the real thing. But those kids would have to be morons, wouldn’t they? Because everyone already knows cocaine is illegal. And if it were ever legal, it wouldn’t come in a can. [Maybe a Pez Dispenser, but I'm saving those diagrams for the day when it *is* legal and I can make millions off people wanting the ironic satisfaction of flipping back Speedy Gonzalez's dome for some nose candy.]

And what “threats” could the FDA be leveling at the company? Are they gonna send an army of Christian pharmacists after them to pelt them with birth control pills until they change the drink’s name to “The Blood of Christ?” Honestly, I can’t imagine what “threats” they could be making.

We live in a weird country. Last I checked, alcohol is often more dangerous than cocaine or marijuana, especially when driving. Then again, so are cell phones. But not only are coke and weed illegal, invoking their names on a label is apparently verboten. Meanwhile, books like Fast Food Nation engender almost no response from the FDA, which is more interested in playing games with Plan B than meaningfully policing the food and drug industries.

I think I’ll change my name to PCP. That way, my business cards will have the extra cache of being contraband.

08.05.2007 Conformity, Drugs 10 Comments

Who could have seen this awful tragedy coming?! Besides all the people who did, of course.

Monday, May 7th, 2007

Terrorists could strike again at any moment — you don’t, nay, CAN’T know when it’ll happen again.

We were caught completely unawares by the villainy on 9/11… except for those memos floating around indicating plane-based attacks by al-Qaeda were imminent. Oh, and those briefings in which certain a “high level” government official told analysts they had covered their asses by explaining the same thing.

IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN ANY TIME ANYWHERE WITHOUT WARNING. At least, that’s what the media and certain fearmongers in the White House would like to have us believe, even though we actually did have plenty of warning even before we turned up our espionage, torture, and paranoia to 11.

But it isn’t just foreign terrorist boogeymen we’re supposed to fear — I’ve heard the same tropes rolled out in conjunction with the Virginia Tech killings by Seung-Hui Cho. Talking heads on multiple networks have droned on and on that ANYONE at ANY TIME could be the next Cho, and that we should all be very afraid. Certain state governors are so convinced of this they believe we should carry loaded weapons on us in church and at bars just in case.

Of course, Cho didn’t just act without warning, either. Not only did his neighbors and classmates know he was deeply creepy, but he was found to be a threat and ordered by the courts to receive mental health treatment:

The gunman who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech failed to get the mental health treatment ordered by a judge who declared him an imminent threat to himself and others, a newspaper reported Monday.

Seung-Hui Cho was found “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization” in December 2005, according to court papers. A judge ordered him into involuntary outpatient treatment.

What happened? Well, it turns out no one followed up on the court’s orders. Mental health officials and the court itself failed to enforce the ruling.

You can’t sum it up any better than this:

“The system doesn’t work well,” said Tom Diggs, executive director of the Commission on Mental Health Law Reform, which has been studying the state mental health system and will report to the General Assembly next year.

Our court system labeled Cho a risk and ordered him to be put away but no one actually did it… which is kinda like how our president knew we were at risk before 9/11 but failed to act.

Our media and our government create the perception that plane terrorists and gun terrorists spontaneously appear and perform acts of horror like silent ninjas skipping over tripwires. But the truth is that the alarm has almost always been sounded. The only question is whether anyone bothered to respond to it.

07.05.2007 Deaths, Governmental Failures, Media hackery 4 Comments

McCain awash in zeroes

Sunday, May 6th, 2007

Aww. America’s Official Cranky Old FussbudgetTM waddled out onto his lawn to make the peace with the neighborhood kids causing all that digital ruckus with their interwebs.

An audience of far younger and far more liberal Google employees sparred politely with Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who praised the mostly 20-somethings Friday as “the future of the nation.”

Though they asked him tough war questions and what-not, apparently they were also easily amused by a little string dangled in front of their face to distract them:

He also won the crowd over with a promise to buy his daughter a Prius when she graduates from college.

Riiiiight. Good call, Googlers. Because that’s the best thing a powerful legislator can do to combat global warming. It certainly makes up for all of his recent official acts of energy injustice.

I would’ve hoped the people who will soon control the flow of information in America would’ve been a bit more discerning in handing out their kudos.

And can I just say that I question the Google Nation’s liberal credentials? They turned down punkassblog as an advertising partner, and I have to believe it’s either because the word ‘ass’ appears in our title (along with it being prominently featured on network sitcoms these days, I might add) or because we have a middle finger for a logo (whereas I say if it was good enough for Goose it should be good enough for Google).

Can any group so prude actually be liberal at heart? What’s next for Google ad partners — swear jars that dock them revenue for every word of which the notably un-liberal FCC is afraid?

Remember these trends in 10 years, when Google is morally policing our tubes. Which by then will be their tubes. [And no, John McCain's artificially animated corpse still won't understand them.]

06.05.2007 Punkass!, McCainery, Technology 10 Comments

“You’re not naive enough to think we’re living in a democracy are you?”

Saturday, May 5th, 2007

The Bush Adminstration continues its effort to make 1984 a reality:

Retroactive immunity from prosecution is a beautiful thing if you’re a major telecommunications provider in the US, and phone companies are about to receive it if the Bush administration gets its way…

The issue of whether any of this behavior was legal is not important. The government has already argued that legality doesn’t matter when it comes to the phone companies, since even a ruling that their actions were illegal would expose the existence of the intelligence-gathering program in question. Therefore, such cases should not even be considered by the courts.

Business picks up on the ‘we can do whatever we want so nyah!’ vibe and starts to apply it themselves:

“With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn’t a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels’ music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA’s affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not.

People old enough to remember stuff are feeling a little deja vu, maybe a reassuring sequel will make them a bit less queasy:

A sequel to classic 1987 film Wall Street is to be made with Michael Douglas returning as money-crazed mogul Gordon Gekko, according to reports…

The character came to represent the worst corporate excesses of the 1980s.

05.05.2007 A million ways to mortgage the future, Media hackery 2 Comments

Previous Entries
Newer Entries