when the status quo frustrates.

Rarely have I read an article where a reporter from a national mainstream magazine was so blatantly creaming in his jeans over the awesomeness that is teen parenthood.

Monday, September 1st, 2008

This was hard to believe. I had to check twice to make sure it was really Time magazine and not some clever decoy, you know, like “crisis pregnancy” centers like to pull when they set up facilities next to a Planned Parenthood clinic and call themselves something like “The Planning for Parenthood Center” to fake legitimacy and trick people who are looking for actual reproductive health care into their clutches. But no, it is Time magazine, and the guy who is writing the article is named Nathan Thornburgh. Actually, I was so underwhelmed by this article that I decided to do a quick search on this guy’s name to see what else he might’ve written out there, and apparently, this is but a second of a series of articles he has produced about visiting Alaska in the light of the Palin veep announcement. The other one, entitled “Where Palin Made Her Name,” opens with the following gem:

It’s Friday night, and there have got to be 500 people packed into the Sluice Box, a beer-soaked clapboard honky-tonk at the Alaska State Fair – the state’s biggest event all year – just down the highway from Governor Sarah Palin’s hometown of Wasilla. The legendary Hobo Jim, Alaska’s official state balladeer, the guy who has opened sessions of the legislature with a song, is onstage, working blue.

“Here’s to the girl from the great Northwest,” he sings, “with tits as hard as a hornet’s nest.” The crowd whistles its approval.

For the record, he’s not singing about Palin, though the curvature and comeliness of McCain’s surprise vice-presidential nominee pick are brought up by just about everyone here, man and woman, in a way that would make lower-48 liberals and feminists cringe.

Mmm…you know, there are certain things that people who don’t like a certain other set of people say that are red flags cluing one in on the fact that that person, indeed, does not like them. The above is a great example of that. It’s interesting that some journalists appear to believe that the spirit of the supposed ideal of journalistic neutrality is fulfilled by passive-aggression–frankly, I’d prefer that they just openly said fuck the whole ideal! and engaged in outright aggression. It’d leave less of a greasy aftertaste.

At any rate, it’s a strange article. He begins by stating that he thinks that Sarah Palin’s underaged daughter’s pregnancy is nobody’s business but her and her family’s, which makes the fact that he’s writing an article about said pregnancy in a nationally popular magazine rather odd. Would he like us better if we quit reading his article right then in solidarity? He then goes on to describe how they’re all real men in Alaska–hunting is apparently not something they do in any of those other 48 states, you know, the ones occupied by liberals and feminists, and Alaska also has people who’ve lost family members to industrial accidents and that go serve in Iraq, which again sets them quite apart from the 48 Contiguous Pussy States where that shit apparently hardly ever even comes up. The naturally flowing conclusion that he draws from all this is so that really, it is SO not a big deal to be an underaged mother. (You can almost hear him shout Isn’t this REFRESHING, readers??)

Yep, it gets even more unreal than that–don’t believe me? Here ya go:

The fact is, regardless of what you will hear over the next few days, Bristol [Palin]‘s pregnancy is not a legitimate political issue. Sarah Palin is a longterm member of a group called Feminists for Life, which is not opposed to birth control. So you probably can’t tag her for consigning young people to unwanted pregnancies.

Oh, my. You most certainly can, including that of her own daughter, unless you’re trying to stretch reality even further and claim that Bristol Palin is having a planned pregnancy. Let’s see, for instance, what Feminists for Life actually does have to say about contraception:

What is Feminists for Life’s position on contraception?
Feminists for Life’s mission is to address the unmet needs of women who are pregnant or parenting. Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission.

Erm, but they DO have a stated position on, for instance, assisted suicide, which seems to be a leetle further afield from the topic of pregnancy than contraception is…come on, what’s the REAL reason—?

Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons

Translated: not all of us have multiple kids, making indelicate questions about our contraceptive status unavoidable if we were to outright oppose it.

FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women.

Translated: But if we can find a health link, no matter how dubious, we’re primed and ready to jump on that bandwagon at the slightest moment’s notice!!

But how about Sarah Palin herself?

Q. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?

Sarah Palin: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.

Q. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Sarah Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

You know, sometimes it is useful to actually get to see, so CLEARLY illustrated, where the fervent support of the above positions lands the daughters of those who practice said preachery. No theories or opinions here, folks! Real-life consequences of real-life philosophies.

And after all this, here is the conclusion that Nathan Thornburgh says he’s come to:

As for the idea — sure to be floated—that the avowedly anti-abortion Palin may have pressured her poor daughter to ruin her life by carrying an unwanted baby to term, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Is my favorite part of the above sentence the pooh-poohing of the idea that having a baby at age 17 might be quite life-altering in a negative way or that any girl forced to do so is a sarcastically pooor weeeetle thaaaaang, or is it that he thinks that it’s even possible that Bristol Palin was presented with all her choices in a rational and unbiased fashion?

(sigh) I’ll let you know when I figure that out…

Unreal.

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008

Note: In its original format, this article made no sense whatsoever. The items in bold are my annotations, which hopefully will give you an easier time figuring out what’s really going on here than I had the first time I read it. Apologizing in advance for not blockquoting all the article excerpts!

No kids, no jobs for growing number of wives

By Sarah Jio, author of articles such as “Do You Mommy Your Husband?” and “She’s Just Not That Into You–Or Is She,” an article that has such story highlights as Study: Woman better at reading facial expressions, body language and Expert: Men more likely to heed woman’s words, than her actions.

(LifeWire) — “What do you do all day?” is a question Anne Marie Davis, 34, says she gets a lot. This is an intrepid attempt to instill indignant sympathy in the reader at first go, as Sarah is aware that the next few lines are going to inspire most readers to say Well…yeah, given all that, I’m kinda not surprised she gets that question a lot.

Davis, who lives in Lewisville, Texas, isn’t a mother, nor does she telecommute. She is a stay-at-home wife, which makes her something of a pioneer in the post-feminist world. This is very much like someone living in the Bronze Age declaring a flint knapper a pioneer in the Iron Age world, but if the reader doesn’t accept this as fact, they will be unable to swallow the rest of the article at all.

Ten years ago, she was an “overwhelmed” high school English teacher. “I didn’t have time for my husband, ” she says, “and I didn’t have a life.” Given that most of us work jobs that don’t even have extended winter, spring and summer vacations built in like that one and still manage to find time for our significant others and our lives, this is clearly a personal problem. However, we are obviously being invited to empathize.

She presented the idea of staying home to her husband, a Web engineer. “I told him it was something I wanted to do, and he supported it. It was a great relief.” Now, don’t you wish you had someone in your life who when you said, “I’m tired and stressed all the time and I just don’t want to work anymore, please say you’ll take care of me if I just quit my job and sit at home all day, please please please!” just WENT for it..? Aren’t you secretly just DYING of jealousy here..? Isn’t she SO lucky? …are you following the script here yet?

Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” says stay-at-home wives constitute a growing niche. “In the past few years, many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home,” he says. While his research is ongoing, he estimates that more than 10 percent of the 650 women he’s interviewed who choose to stay home are childless. Here is some background on Dr. Scott:

Sex is something that will keep men happy, Haltzman wrote in the fifth chapter of his new book, “The Secrets of Happily Married Women: How to Get More Out of Your Relationship by Doing Less,” which was released last month. The crux of Haltzman’s book can be gathered from the chapter titles alone: Chapter 1: Know Your Husband, Chapter 2: Nurture His Needs – and Yours, Chapter 4: Talk Less and, of course, Chapter 5: Have Lots of Sex.

(more…)

Taking female bloggers seriously

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008

monorailcat
It’s Caturday, after all, and I exercise my right to be a crazy cat lady on the internet.

I hadn’t heard of Rachel Lucas before today, and it’s probably just as well. (I object on principle to cutesy diminutives of the name Rachel—Rachie is bad enough, but Wachel is the worst I’ve heard. Also, people who dress their dogs in bonnets are to be shunned.) On a more substantive note, though, she’s a member of the Serena Joy school of women-bashing, the Malkins and Coulters and Dowds and Edens who believe that if they devote time to writing about how silly and subhuman women are, they’ll get a pass for their own sin of lacking a peen.

Gotta say that she’s refreshingly straightforward about it, though:

Speaking of pigs, The Other McCain dares to inflame the wound in his role as a patriarchal misogyny oppressor, and Vox Day goes further with a list of things to do if you want to be taken seriously:

1. Have at least half a brain and demonstrate that it actually functions by not writing egregiously stupid stuff.

2. At least 75 percent of your posts should have nothing to do with you or your life.

3. Don’t post a picture or talk about your romantic life, your children or your pets.

4. Don’t threaten to quit blogging every time anyone criticizes you.

5. Learn how to defend your positions with facts and logic instead of passive-aggressive parthian shots fired off as you run away.

Which led to me being dragged into this because as we all know, I routinely violate rules #2 and 3 and yet I’m one of Vox’s favorites, which was pointed out a few times in his comment thread, and thus was born the Lucas Exception by Vox Day, which states that “if a female blogger can be confirmed to be as amusingly bloody-minded as Rachel Lucas, she may post about her dogs or other non-feline pets, so long as such posts are not made more than thrice per week. Kids and cats are still right out.”

Don’t be jealous. Not everyone can have an Exception named after them. You see, Vox gets me.

Eh. You’re easy to “get.” There’s a certain class of women, who if they’re regular enough in differentiating themselves from both trivial, vacuous femininity (while still maintaining the trappings thereof, and being conventionally attractive, of course) and vocal and “unladylike” feminism, gain the temporary approval of professional misogynists. They get patted on the head and trotted out in blog wars for the menz to hide behind. It’s a survival strategy that would be pitiable were it not so damned irritating.

For what it’s worth, I do think there are substantive criticisms that can be made of BlogHer, which sounds far too corporate and fluffy to appeal to my politics. But I’m guessing that this isn’t what’s sending the concern trolls over to Feministe.

Anyway, ladies, let it never be said that I complain without providing constructive advice. Here’s what you really need to be do to be taken seriously by the misogynist blogosphere:

1. Be conventionally attractive. Post occasionally about the supposed ugliness of feminist bloggers in comparison to anti-feminist bloggers, using the same one or two pictures of yourself for comparison.

2. At the same time, mock teh femme. Complain about women who are too interested in stereotypically female concerns—menstruation, bras, motherhood, and so on. While it’s the duty of women to serve and defer to men, you get a pass to be as brash and outspoken as you want, as long as you direct your vitriol towards other women.

3. Link to and quote from well-known male conservative bloggers. Act as though you know them personally, even if you don’t.

4. Post about your guns. If you don’t currently own guns, get some.

5. Blogging about material acquisitions or pop culture that is interesting to men is Serious Blogging About Serious Issues. Blogging about material acquisitions or pop culture that is interesting to women is the reason no one takes you seriously.

6. Go farther in your far-right rhetoric than men. You must be twice as fascist to be considered half as good.

7. Dogs are better than cats, for some reason.

8. Bleep out your cuss words, because adding asterisks robs them of their power and shows that you’re a Good Girl. No one wants to marry a f**king pottymouth.

I hope this helps! *giggles and flutters eyelashes demurely*

I’m still trying to figure out why they even bothered writing this article.

Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

Maybe I just don’t understand the definition of “news.”

Main Entry: news
Pronunciation:
\ˈnüz, ˈnyüz\
Function:
noun plural but singular in construction
Usage:
often attributive
Date:
15th century

1 a: a report of recent events
1 b: previously unknown information
2 a: material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast
2 b: matter that is newsworthy

I think my problem is that I tend to expect the “news” to be skewed a lot more heavily towards being 1b and 2b above, rather than 1a and 2a. Clearly having expectations is my problem!

Analysis: Obama, McCain both have lobbyist ties

How astonishing in United States senators running for President. Really! (snork!)

During this campaign, lobbyists and trade groups donated $181,000 to McCain, while Obama received $6,000, according to the New York Times.

You know, $6,000 doesn’t look too shocking when it’s sitting next to $181,000.

In all, lobbyists reported contributions of $4.7 million to Democrats and $3.3 million to Republicans, the Times reported this week.

So are we supposed to adjust each candidate’s actual numbers by some kind of percentage based on party affiliation..? If not, I’m not clear on what that snippet is doing in this article at all, purportedly specifically targeting Obama and McCain as individuals.

Still, both candidates maintain they are above the influence of lobbyists.

$181,000 is being above the influence? $6,000, maybe, but–?

The senator from Illinois also has taken in $18.8 million from lawyers and law firms, according to estimates from the Center for Responsive Politics, and some of those firms employ lobbyists for special interest clients.

Gosh, this reminds me of studying logic in high school. Let’s see how it works out!

Obama = A
money = B
laywers and law firms = C
lobbyists = D

Given facts:

A takes B from C.
C gives B to D.

..um, there is no way to link A to D there..?

“People who are not directly registered as lobbyists but perhaps working for a company, maybe working for a company in a capacity that’s tangentially related to the government affairs, can give money,” said Lisa Lerer, who covers lobbying for Politico.

I work for a company in a capacity that’s tangentially related to government affairs. Oh, wow, I’m like a LOBBYIST!

The rest the article is much the same, a whole lot of confused and impossible-to-substantiate inferences that contradict each other, though it is hard to avoid that if either candidate IS somehow tied at the hip to the lobbyist racket, it ain’t Obama.

Do they seriously get paid for this crap? Like, more than minimum wage..? If so, I’m clearly in the wrong business.

How I Learned that the “P” in “PZ Myers” Stands for Paul

Saturday, July 12th, 2008

I’ve been following the Frackin’ Cracker story since its first appearance on the news, even before PZ’s first post on the subject. It’s turned into quite the bloody saga of PZ-hating (not to mention creative ways to desecrate a Holy Cracker) out there, with…oh, you guessed it…our bestest buddy Billdo carrying the lead torch and pitchfork to storm Pharyngula’s walls!

(First Kyso’s “ilk” and now PZ’s…wonder how many “ilks” I can associate myself with…I’m such a wannabe “ilker,” I’m ashamed, ashamed I tell you. I need to find my own person to offend.)

But anyway, PZ mentioned yesterday that there might be some mention of him in the Washington Times today. In case anyone was wondering what it would take for me to actually go online and deliberately try to find something written in the Washington Times, this is the first time that’s ever happened.

(A small side story: when I first moved to the DC area years and years ago, I bought a subscription to the Washington Post–even in Bumfuck Kansas where I grew up, I’d heard of the Post. My husband at the time remarked sniffily that I wasn’t going to get a complete unbiased picture of the news if all I did was read that bastion of blatant liberality and I should really also get a subscription to the Times as well–as I recall, he was motivated to suggest this from something some radio talk show host dude named G. Gordon Liddy said on his program. I pointed out to him that said dude might possibly have a personal reason to slam the Post, but I went ahead and bought a subscription to the Times anyway. I even tried to take the articles contained therein seriously, peppered with typos and grammatical errors as they were, but found myself unable to really swallow anything presented in such an incredibly unprofessional way regardless of the content that I gave up after a few issues. Maybe they’ve improved their print copy since then, though?)

Struck gold, too!

Professor solicits hosts to desecrate

With a super-cute picture of PZ even.

And I also now know that his first name is Paul. :)

An anti-religion Minnesota biology professor expects to receive dozens of consecrated Communion wafers in response to his public solicitation that people send him the hosts in order that he may publicly desecrate them.

They clearly pulled the wrong picture out of the archives. This one’s way more in the spirit of the story:

Photobucket

The University of Minnesota is coming over as pretty cool and sane, though, in spite of the obvious attempts by whomever was interviewing them to get them to say something juicy. Check it out.

Umm…

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008

So I was idly paging through CNN.com and came across this headline:

July 2, 2008
Poll shows Americans cool to Michelle Obama
Posted: 10:30 AM ET

Oh brother…aside from the fact that a candidate’s spouse should be a virtual non-issue and so should everybody’s opinion of him or her–

The new Associated Press-Yahoo poll shows 30 percent of Americans view the outspoken wife of Barack Obama favorably while 35 percent view her unfavorably. That compares to the 27 percent of Americans who view John McCain’s wife, Cindy, favorably and the 17 percent who hold an unfavorable view of her. Mrs. McCain is clearly less known than Mrs. Obama — 56 percent said they don’t know enough about the Arizona senator’s wife to render an opinion while only 34 percent said the same for Mrs. Obama. She’s been at times a lightning rod for criticism from some Republicans over the course of the presidential campaign, and a new poll out Wednesday suggests more Americans hold a negative view toward Michelle Obama than a positive one.

White Americans appear particularly suspect of Mrs. Obama. The poll shows those voters hold an unfavorable view of her by nearly 20 points while about 80 percent of black voters reported positive feelings about Mrs. Obama.

Those numbers are reversed for Cindy McCain: whites view her favorably by a margin of 17 points while only 10 percent of blacks like her.

In a similar trend line her husband faced during the primary season, Mrs. Obama’s favorability ratings are higher among unmarried people and college graduates while her ratings are particularly low among senior voters.

Mrs. Obama also appears to drum up stronger opinions among voters than does Mrs. McCain. About 20 percent of voters said they hold a very negative view of her while 10 percent said the same for Mrs. McCain.

Okay, well, I thought, I guess I’m not surprised (the outspoken wife–has any man EVER been referred to as the outspoken husband? sigh)…so I finished the article and continued my random clicking through the site and then–huh?

July 2, 2008
CNN Poll: Candidates’ wives viewed favorably
Posted: 01:40 PM ET

Now waitaminute…didn’t I just read–

According to the new poll, 51 percent of registered voters report a favorable view of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s wife while 28 percent hold an unfavorable view. Just over 21 percent did not express an opinion.

Meanwhile, 39 percent of registered voters hold a favorable view of John McCain’s wife, Cindy, while 23 percent report an unfavorable rating. The poll also shows she is considerably less known than Mrs. Obama — nearly 40 percent report having no opinion of her.

Conclusion: Poll results based on about 1,000 random citizens in a country of nearly 300,000,000 have absolutely no bearing on reality. I’ve always suspected as much.

THE PRESS! Hunh! Good God! What is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN’! Say it again…

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

At least not so much lately in America. Of course, cynics would say that, by merely parroting the propaganda of the powerful, they are doing PRECISELY their job, because that’s what they’re kept around for in the first place. And, well, I guess the cynics would probably be right. But appearances of speaking truth to power must be kept up, and so occasionally some journalists are let off their leash for a little bit to retrieve a juicy story.

And so, although it appears this is Punkassblog Beat-on-the-Press Day, I thought I’d just be a contrarian and point out that there is one big American press chain bucking the trend: McClatchy Newspapers. Now, granted, they’re nowhere as big as AP, but they’re no small potatoes either.

What’s got to be the biggest thing working in their favor was that they were the only major newspaper group who consistently criticized the Bush Administration’s rationales for war prior to the invasion of Iraq. (Well, actually, Knight-Ridder was, but McClatchy bought Knight-Ridder two years ago, and the same staff continues to work for them.)

Now maybe McClatchy doesn’t always manage to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”, as the trope about the press goes, but they certainly have their moments.

Just the other day, they featured this story about the response in Iraq to the complete lack of punishment to seven of the eight US marines charged in the three-year-old Haditha massacre. In which nobody denies that they killed 24 innocent civilians, male and female, of all ages from toddler to elderly.

Iman Waleed recounts the killing of seven members of her family that occurred on Nov. 19, 2005, in Haditha, Iraq.

Iman Waleed lost everyone in her family save her little brother. The 12-year-old tells the story quickly and matter-of-factly now. She’s told it at least 20 times to journalists, investigators and human rights groups.

“The Americans came in and they entered through the kitchen door. My father was in the room reading the Quran and they shot him,” she says in a monotone voice, her green eyes looking at the floor.

(more…)

Underage Pregnancy Conspiracies, Savage Lost Tribes and Don Imus is a Racist

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

This is the quality of news reporting today.

There was no teen pregnancy pact in Massachussetts.

There are no painted, spear-throwing primitives attacking Great White Helicopters in Brazil.

No shit Don Imus is a racist. Hello?

The Associated Press is losing it

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Apocalypse!

The AP is in the running for best headline of the year:

Everything seemingly is spinning out of control

WASHINGTON (AP) — Is everything spinning out of control? Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.

Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.

The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country’s sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.

Evidence that the end is nigh includes natural disasters, man-made disasters, rising gas prices, the TV writers’ strike, and steroid use in sports.

This, incidentally, is not presented as an editorial. It is FACT, people. News item: We’re screwed.

Head over to Fengi’s for the original screenshot of the piece, which emphasizes the objective fact that Michelle Obama is the Antichrist.

Barack Obama once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, went back in time, and killed Amelia Earhart while she was flying over the Pacific Ocean.

Monday, June 23rd, 2008

…or maybe it was CHUCK NORRIS!!

Apparently though, I am not the only person who has a secret addiction to Chuck Norris jokes. What is the draw..? I totally can’t say. The shameless hilarity, maybe…the unmitigated cheeze factor…it may forever remain a mystery…

I haven’t said much (okay, I haven’t said anything) about the recent Obama news in regards to public campaign financing or the FISA bill. I have my reasons and that’s all I’m gonna say, other than my usual refrain of Please Vote Obama ’08!

However, this did crack me up, and not just ’cause it’s like a big ol’ Chuck Norris joke only BETTER. Also because the hypocrisy with which so many people are fielding the above Obama news items is making me clench my jaw til it aches and this, I thought, was a much better response to the situation than that.

The Barack Obama presidential campaign introduced a new site last week, FightTheSmears.com, that it hopes will debunk persistent myths about the senator: that he’s a Muslim, that he won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. As we have argued before, restating the myths often reinforces them, no matter how persuasively they’ve been refuted.

Rather than restate untruths about Obama, the campaign would do better to start some rumors of its own.
Here’s a template e-mail the Obama campaign might consider disseminating.

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Subject: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American’s duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.

Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, “WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.” Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.

A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.

Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It’s upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

There’s only one artist on Barack Obama’s iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.

Barack Obama’s new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama’s skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.

So my godmother wasn’t insane when she hoped my X-Files fandom would make me an FBI agent

Wednesday, May 21st, 2008

I’ve never seen Sex in the City. I’ve heard it’s good, but not brainwashing, sex-zombie-creating good.

I guess something in the ending credits reminds you not to talk about that bit. And it almost worked.

You can only watch Samantha Jones bed so many gorgeous guys before wondering if 4-inch heels and sky-high confidence would allow you to do the same.

At least that’s what happened to “Lisa” (not her real name). She got hooked on “Sex and the City” when she was a 14-year-old growing up on Long Island, N.Y. It was the same year she lost her virginity. She soon graduated to ordering cosmopolitans at bars she snuck into and cheating on her boyfriend with up to seven other guys — in one week.

Not that this article is saying that Sex in the City turned Little Lisa into a Teenage Sexbot in the City (“To be clear: “Sex and the City” can’t be blamed for creating a generation of sluts.”) but…

Lisa left her “Samantha” ways behind at 19, when she moved to Utah, became a Mormon, married a man within the church and gave birth to two children. For the first year of her marriage, her husband forbade her to watch “Sex and the City” for fear that it would lure her back to her habits of sex, drugs and one-too-many cosmos.

“I had to sell my DVDs on eBay,” she said. “But now it’s OK. It took a while to get here.”

Hmm, troubled teenager raises hell for five years, then in three years manages to find religion get married and have two kids. Well, I’m convinced. I’m ready to take her word on pretty much everything. Nothing fishy going on here. I suppose she could at least give SatC credit for teaching her efficient time-management skills, at least.

So is there really danger here? Let’s ask Perfectmatch.com’s Dr Needspublicity:

“It did have some impact given that it was a sea change in how women talked about sexuality and what was shown on a network — full frontal nudity, talking about affairs, vibrators, etc.,” said Pepper Schwartz, a University of Washington sociology professor and relationship expert for Perfectmatch.com. “If it’s not permission giving, it at least demystifies and normalizes what goes on in women’s lives in a more than snickering way.” (emphasis mine)

Ah, I see. Can’t have that now, because the day women learn to admit they cheat as much as men and vibrators are freely available in all 50 states is the day our society drowns in a sea of fuck-me pump wearing cosmo snorking child whores. Not that I’m saying this will happen if Sex and the City reaches number one in the box office, but basically we’re doomed. Doomed.

That’s what Angela Hwang, 24, found when she started watching the show in cable syndication, after it went off HBO. She and her girlfriends routinely compare their experiences to “Sex and the City” episodes.

“My girlfriends and I, every single guy we’ve been with we can relate to one of the guys on the show,” she said. “We’ve all had Samantha moments. We’ll say, ‘Remember the guy I saw last week? He was exactly like the guy in episode 15.’”

Oh, my God: women are identifying with the characters and situations of a well-written show. We’re all going to die. And since I’m not a SatC fan, maybe I’m unaware of this, but do these fabulous young fans of Samantha and Whatshername actually refer to the episodes by a single number? Is it possible someone’s making quotes up here?

But Dr. David Greenfield, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Connecticut’s School of Medicine, believes there’s danger in taking “Sex and the City’s” so-called lessons off the small screen and applying them in the real world.

“With teenagers and young adults, there’s a certain degree of role modeling that goes on. There’s a certain ‘if it’s done on the screen then it’s OK, it’s normal,’” he said. “You watch ‘Sex and the City,’ you see these women go out for dinner, come back, and wake up in satin sheets with a gorgeous guy. Who wouldn’t like that? But it doesn’t show what goes on under the surface in real sexual relations. Sex is an extraordinarily complex, emotional process. No one wants to talk about that. They’re not going to see the reality.”

And the circle is complete: we are now back to the bullet theory of media consumption,meaning that Sarah Jessica Parker has actually torn the fabric of space and time, and the 1960′s are leaking into today, and soon we’ll all be burning cheap sweaters from Steve and Barry’s for warmth before death comes for us all. Great fucking job, Samantha.

No matter which language you say it in, “I love George Bush!” is always the right response

Tuesday, May 20th, 2008

I love it when the mainstream media in the US lets its liberal freak flag fly. You know you’ve found yet another true lefty when they’re writing articles about genocide abroad, the evils of Big Oil, or our health care crisis. Also, when they write an editorial titled “Why I defend President Bush when I’m abroad.



Love me.

Americans abroad can thank George W. Bush

For ruining our reputation. For reminding them why they left. For making the locals around them feel like the good guys, no matter where they live. For not causing global thermonuclear war (yet)?

for sharpening our survival skills.

Does this mean that all the international asskickings brought on merely by mentioning you’re American have been by design? I suppose we were getting soft in our hegemony.

We have weathered a sea of anti-Iraq war protests and had the intelligence of our president and those who voted for him questioned more times than we care to remember.

False assumption #1: That Americans abroad are “weathering” these insults as opposed to lobbing them.
False assumption #2: That our president’s intelligence has been “questioned” as opposed to demonstrably proven false.

In my hometown of San Francisco,

See? Liberal. This is totally going to turn out liberal.

(more…)