when the status quo frustrates.

Patriarchy is like a bra: a bad one can ruin anything, but there’s nothing better than a good one. What do you mean, I missed the point?

Thursday, November 8th, 2007

Boundless’s Heather Koerner sez: feminism is for silly girls! Thank God she grew out of that! Oh, and check out how the fascinating story of this remarkable Muslim woman can be used to add drama the story of the junior high mock election where she voted for Mondale.

My male classmates had taunted me that a woman, well, a woman just couldn’t be vice-president. She just couldn’t.

But as a pre-teen who could beat the pants off my male counterparts in math class and was wholly unimpressed with their flatulence jokes, I begged to differ. We were women, hear us roar. Her victory, I thought, would bring honor to all females and her defeat was a defeat for us all.

Looking back, I have to smile. I am thankful that Mondale and Ferraro were not elected. She does not, to put it mildly, advocate my political beliefs. I’ve realized that just because another human has ovaries, doesn’t mean we naturally share the same opinions or ideals.

But don’t take her word for it; let’s ask this Muslim! Or, let’s take some quotes from a Muslim woman and wrap them in a fresh steaming pile of WTF.

One of the latest lessons I’ve gotten came from an unexpected place — a secular article about a woman who grew up in a Muslim family in Mogadishu. In the article, Deroy Murdock profiles Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman with an amazing story. Ali now lives, writes and speaks in America, attempting to encourage the West to realize that its culture is, indeed, superior to militant Islam. As Murdock quotes her, “Human beings are equal; cultures are not.”

She particularly extends her appreciation to our culture’s treatment of women.

You go girl, my seventh-grade self might have said! We are still fighting for our equality, but we’re getting closer all the time.

But that’s not Ali’s point in Murdock’s article. Her point is simple: Here, a man holds a door open for a woman.

“When I first came to a Western country, I was astonished to find men who said, ‘Ladies first,’” Murdock quotes Ali. “I was amazed because I was born and raised in a culture that put me last because I was born a girl.”

Ayaan Ali is absolutely the perfect woman to be holding up as an example for Godly women to emulate. For example, she’s willing to say a lot of stuff The American Enterprise Institute, who are currently writing her paychecks, love to hear:

“A culture that holds the door open to her women is not equal to one that confines them behind walls and veils,” Ali continued. “A culture that encourages dating between young men and young women is not equal to a culture that flogs or stones a girl for falling in love. A culture where monogamy is an aspiration is not equal to a culture where a man can lawfully have four wives at once.”

She’s passed the door test (always, the damn doors with these people) and she really doesn’t like Islam anymore and so Heather is free to weave what was probably a masterful ass-kissing on Ali’s part into the much less interesting tapestry of her own sheltered life:

Unfortunately, not all women are as appreciative of an opened door as Ali. Some women, and men, link the impulse to open a door for a woman with the impulse to repress and abuse her. But Ali’s experience has taught her the exact opposite, and I think she is right: There is a difference between a culture where women are honored and a culture where women are chattel.

But, for me, it goes further than just “culture.” Many modern day feminists have tried to argue that they offer me honor while Christianity offers me chattel. But they’ve got it backwards. I only have to look around to see it. The hook-up culture, the abortion culture, the depiction of women in media — they’re all proof. It wouldn’t take me 10 seconds flipping the television to see that — though Ali is gracious enough to see the positives in our culture — there is plenty of chattel-like behavior towards women.

As a seventh-grade girl, I was incensed that someone would treat me differently because I was a female. Now, though, I take comfort in the fact that God commands my Christian brothers to treat me differently…Yes, some societies live that way, and it’s a shame. But that is not God’s way. God has given my husband the right, and the responsibility, to lead our family. But simply because I submit to an authority — as, in fact, all of us have to do — God doesn’t see me as inferior, as inadequate or unworthy. The true message of Christ is quite the opposite and it’s a beautiful thing.

Now I remember that every time my husband opens my door. It’s a small gesture, but it points to the larger truth.

Of course, to turn Ayaan Ali’s appreciation of getting a door held open into an ode to wifely submission may be, at best, a bit of a stretch. For it seems that while Ali is a controversial figure, one fact is perfectly clear: the woman has an enormous set of thatchers. A short list of her accomplishments include:

Running away from an arranged marriage
Lying to Dutch officials to get refugee status
Learning Dutch and getting a masters degree in political science before
Obtaining an elected position in Dutch parliament only to resign after
It was disclosed that she lied to get her citizenship but it was OK because the Dutch loved her so much that
The government bent over backwards to allow her to keep her citizenship but she went to America anyway to
Write her book

Oh, and somewhere in there she narrated the movie that got Vincent Van Gogh’s movie-director descendant killed, with a five-page death threat to her knifed into his chest.

And then she went back to the Netherlands, just because the cheap bastards would only pay for round-the-clock security when she was actually in the country, leading me to ask why the American Enterprise didn’t pick up the tab so she could stay in DC? I guess the Conservative Skinflint Uncle isn’t such a strawman after all.

So anyway, she’s a real Titus 2 woman, indeed. All of your biblical role models, your Rachels and Esthers, ended up renouncing their religion and talking smack about Islam and fighting for women’s rights until they needed bodyguards 24 hours a day. I think that we can safely assume that no matter how conservative Ali is, she’ll not be endorsing the following tripe anytime soon:

God’s balance, of course, is perfect. He commands that I be respected, but also that I respect. He commands that I be honored, but also that I honor. He commands that I submit to authority, but also commands that authority to submit to Him…

In seventh grade, and probably for years later, I would have told you that all patriarchal societies were the same — their only goal to puff men up in their own power. But not anymore.

In fact, that might be the exact opposite of her message. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes appreciating that a guy held the door for you instead of stoning you to death is not an endorsement of your western-flavored patriarchy.* Also, her political party back in Dutchlandia is soft on both drugs and fags, although they just love the free market. Or what passes for a free market economy in the Netherlands. Just letting you know. And this other post about female Muslim writers in the West, maybe that’s some good readin’.

*And keep in mind that her primary “West” experience is centered in the freakin’ Netherlands. What are the odds that in Heather Koerner’s country, a female African immigrant with Ali’s “polarizing” personality would make it as far in politics in America? Is Heather aware that the “West” encompasses a couple of continents, which is why we just don’t call it “America”?

Whoever takes new authors aside at Regnery and explains to them what’s really going on seems to have missed a couple

Wednesday, November 7th, 2007

Bwaa-haa-haaa!

Five authors have sued the parent company of Regnery Publishing, a Washington imprint of conservative books, charging that the company deprives its writers of royalties by selling their books at a steep discount to book clubs and other organizations owned by the same parent company.

Unfortunately, no major OMG! names are listed on the suit, luminaries like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan presumably having figured out what side the bread is buttered on. Instead, the authors of books like “Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America’s National Security” and “Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror” are claiming that Regnery’s trick of bulk buying their own books to get that precious NYT Bestseller sticker placed next to the Buy 3 get 1 Free sticker on the Border’s table-of-deals is shafting them out of thousands of dollars and hurting their ability to get published by a real publisher.

I dunno, maybe having your first book remaindered by the company that prints Ann Coulter’s mash notes to Joe McCarthy is what’s keeping them from being able to write real books.

The authors argue that because at least a quarter and as much as half of their book sales are diverted to nonretail channels, sales figures of their books on Nielsen BookScan, which tracks about 70 percent of retail sales but does not reflect sales through book clubs and other outlets used by Eagle, are artificially low. Publishers use these figures when determining future book deals, and the authors argue that actions by Eagle and Regnery have long-term effects on their careers.

If they can prove that 1/2 to 3/4 of their books are purchased at an actual store, I for one will be shocked and amazed. Maybe Dereliction of Duty guy has a point; the low price for his book at Amazon new and used is a respectable $8. Shadow War, however, can be bought for a penny; even Ann Coulter’s books are available for only a dollar or two apiece and you’d expect her to have some staying power. If these guys are claiming that every single person who got the books for free when they clicked something at WND or were given a copy at some church fund raiser would have paid retail if that was their only option, they’re about to find out how delusional they actually are.

h/t Amanda.

McCain ad reveals his one shining moment… and the dirty fetish of GOP faithful

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

I want you to close your eyes and imagine, if you will, that you’re in the following situation…

…Okay, wait, open your eyes, because either you can read with your eyes closed or you’ve stopped reading this post all of a sudden; neither makes me comfortable.

*Anyway,* pretend you’re a doddering Republican presidential hopeful falling behind in the polls. If you were participating in a debate with the other Republican candidates, attacking which of the following topics would score you the most points:

a) Drugs.
b) Rudy Giuliani’s secret desire to be as hip and awesome as you.
c) Hippies. Dirty, commie-loving hippies.
d) Places where people learn things.
e) Spending public money on places where people learn things.
f) Rock music.
g) Fun.
h) Hillary Clinton.
i) All of the above.

Answer after the fold.

(more…)

We *are* a country of torture, and this debate is the proof

Tuesday, October 9th, 2007

Maybe I should go back to *not* reading, because reading the running transcript of the Republican “debate” tonight nearly cost me a forehead and a desk. In case you feel like joining me in self-flagellation, I thought I would bring you the highlights I made it through, courtesy of Rupert Murdoch’s new toy.

Kicking off the festivities was your favorite fake politician and mine, Fred Thompson. As the dollar crumbles and the housing market tanks, Freddy T kicked all that under the carpet and blew sunshine up our asses:

We’re enjoying low inflation. We’re enjoying low unemployment. The stock market seems to be doing pretty well. I see no reason to believe we’re headed for an economic downturn.

Then he remembered he was in MICHIGAN, where the moderator reminded us 1 in every 29 homes went into foreclosure in the first 6 months of 2007 alone. His backtrack:

Well, I think there are pockets in the economy that, certainly, they’re having difficulty. I think they’re certainly — those in Michigan that are having difficulty. I think you always find that in a vibrant, dynamic economy.

Hear that, Michigan? It’s your Adam Smithian duty to suffer while the rest of us wipe our asses with iPods.

Speaking of Adam Smith, John McCain took Ron Paul to task for not raising his invisible hand in a Hitlerian salute to economic darwinism:

Everybody is paying taxes and wealth creates wealth. And the fact is that I would commend to your reading, Ron, “Wealth of Nations,” because that’s what this is all about.

Some would say that basing an economic philosophy on a book written before the invention of the cotton gin mightn’t be prudent any longer, but I suppose I should cut the Senator some slack. After all, back in the day, he and Adam Smith did rush Alpha Phi together.

Perhaps the most brilliant quote of the night came from the Worst Moderator Of Our Time, Chris Matthews. While attempting to set up Mike Huckabee to talk about his “fair tax” policy that taxes spending instead of income, Matthews burbled up this gobbledy-gook:

The American economy seems to always be driven by people buying things, maybe, they can’t even afford. If you put a tax on spending, as opposed to income, won’t that encourage people to hoard their money, rather than spend it…

Amazing.
1) Matthews points out that our economy is *based* on unwise and unsustainable spending.
2) He states that a consumption tax might actually cause people to stop doing this as much.
3) He seems disappointed by this prospect.
No wonder Jon Stewart dismantled him so easily.

Honestly, though, we all know that a Republican debate comes down to who can cause the most delicious shivers down the spines of paranoid Cold War addicts. Thus far, that honor went to Congressman Hunter for this gem:

But let me tell you, Chris, what is missing from this economy: 1.8 million jobs that have moved to communist China from the United States, including over 54,000 jobs from Michigan.

You know, a couple of years ago, when our guys were getting hurt with roadside bombs in Iraq, I tried to find one steel company left in America that could still make high-grade armor steel plate to put on the sides of our humvees to protect against roadside bombs.

I found one company left that could still do that.

-10 points for not mentioning 9/11 specifically (probably because of Guiliani’s trademark), but otherwise, outstanding job. He worked in xenophobia, job loss, Communism, China, soldiers, roadside bombs in Iraq, and an inability to protect ourselves in 3 sentences.

I threw up a little in my mouth after that and decided to take a break. Somehow I doubt I’ll be making it back this evening.

Not-so-strange bedfellows

Wednesday, September 26th, 2007

Paul Fromm with his other friends
Paul Fromm with some of his other friends, agitating for the release of (deported) Canadian neo-Nazi Ersnt Zundel.

The recent Daily Show segment on immigration probably amused a lot of you, but had Canadian anti-racists nearly convulsive with laughter owing to a small detail that Jon Stewart inexplicably failed to mention.

The “immigration reform” guy they interviewed about the Mexican menace is a notorious neo-Nazi. As you can see in the photo above, taken at a rally in front of the Metro West Detention Centre (I was there, counter-protesting with Anti-Racist Action), Fromm has some friends who believe in UFOs, but not the Holocaust. Essentially, when Fromm says “the immigration lawyers” in that clip, he pretty much means “the Jews.”

It’s funny watching Fromm being made a fool of, especially for those of us who’ve had personal—shall we say interactions?—with the man. But I also posted about it because the connection between neo-Nazis and the anti-immigration contingent is kind of a no-brainer. And yet, I see anti-immigrant sentiment frequently handled with kid gloves, even by progressives.

Many of us have friends and family that take a less than sensible* stance on immigration, and receive from them annoying e-mail forwards about how They’re Taking Our Jobs. Next time you get one of those e-mails, take a moment to respond. Tell them that their country’s economy is dependent on immigrant labour (legal and otherwise), send them a link to this article, and remind them that the spokespeople of their movement are probably not the sort of people you want to associate with.

* And by “sensible,” I mean “free and open borders, status for all, no one is illegal.”

How would you know I was a man unless you were abusing my crotch with your eyes? Off to jail with you!

Sunday, August 26th, 2007

I hate women and children.

Unless they’re naked.

And hopefully being abused.

After all, that’s what being a liberal’s about — harnessing the power of “perversion” to degrade our womenchattel and child sex-toys.

It’ a shame the powerful deductive mind of one Kevin McCullough (he of the oh-so-thoughtful Musclehead Revolution) had to go and figure us out:

And if protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that someone’s right to practice perversion might be curbed – liberals will come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting females be damned!

Amen brother! Preach on about how we’re out to harm the helpless while you protect them with capital gains tax cuts and voter suppression. Hallelujah!

I’m no longer ashamed of our liberal evils, and I think it’s time we relished them. But just how did Kevbo uncover who we really are? Curious, I felt compelled to read on.

It turns out that a NYC councilman wants to make lewd gawking/peeping illegal and introduced legislation to that effect for the city. According to the Times, the proposed law says:

The bill would make it illegal to look at a person’s “sexual or other intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed.”

Under the guise of calling it overvague, our liberal cthulu monster, the NY Civil Liberties Union, has opposed the legislation. I mean, I don’t see how on Earth anyone could ever be unjustly prosecuted under such precise, airtight wording, but hopefully we’ll trick the masses with our media potions and witch magicks.

Kevin sees right through us, though, and drops the logic as only a true MuscleHead can:

Donna Liebermann the NYCLU’s executive director (and reportedly a female) added her own sentiments saying, “The problem with this legislation is that it’s trying to get at this amorphous, vague behavior of looking, which is very imprecise. The language of the bill reflects how vague the activity that they’re trying to get at is, and the problem is that it’s an invitation to abuse, to selective enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police officer.” Adding, “What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore unlawful, who’s to say?”

Well Donna, any woman who’s ever been the slightest bit attractive could tell you.

I’m glad Kevin pointed out that she’s *reportedly* a female, otherwise I’d have to assume that he had participated in a lingering stare at her crotch or chest and would thus be in violation of Vallone’s proposed law.

Meanwhile, in a stunning act of clarity, McCullough included this photo in his expose:
Women running in high heels.  In Russia.
No explanation was offered, but only a doofus or a pervert would fail to make the obvious connection.

Anyway, if this law passes, it’ll be time to hand out the liberal sunglasses, the ones with extra tint for maximum perversion. We can’t let a few muscleheads get in the way of our time-honored tradition of protecting of civil liberties peeping.

You must pay for the crime of having a uterus someone else decided to populate!

Monday, June 11th, 2007

You’ve been raped and now you’re pregnant. Who better to decide what should happen to you than a room of middle-aged Catholic men?

Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), campaigning for president Saturday before the National Catholic Men’s Conference, questioned whether rape victims should get abortions.



Strikin’ a Jesus pose for my rapebabies

Isn’t it comforting to know so many men are putting so much thought into what’s best for women? You’d think they’d ask a few women for input, but I guess it’s easier to solve someone else’s problems instead of your own. No doubt these men are looking forward to the National Catholic Women’s Conference report on how many times a guy should shake his penis after taking a leak.

Brownback offered this well-considered insight into the problem of rape-related pregnancy:

“Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child?”

Hmm. Leaving aside the anti-scientific idiocy of the question, I’m intrigued by the idea that Brownback believes there are people protecting abortion rights because they think it makes rape “better.” I can see the literature now:
(more…)

8-year-old Nazi girl oppresses persecuted Bush family with liberal hate speech in sedan rally

Tuesday, June 5th, 2007

Charles Morse tried to unseat Barney Frank in Massachusetts. Twice. In 2006, he had to give it a go as a write-in candidate, and it appears he totalled a whopping 145 votes.

Where do losers like that wind up after the bootprint finally fades from their pinched up asscheeks? Why, World Net Daily, of course. And Newsmax. Morse writes for both of them, as well as oh-my-god-is-that-really-their-name Enter Stage Right, the source for today’s gem.

It’s also worth noting Morse wrote a book called, and you can’t make this up, “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism.”

Methinks Chuck has a little too much Hitler on the brain, though, because the poor guy really has no perspective when it comes to Nazi analogies:

I’m driving my 8-year-old daughter home from school along with some of her fellow students and I hear giggling in the back seat. Asking to be let in on the joke, a young girl blurts out a vulgar and ugly little ditty about President Bush, the type of limerick that might have been told by a Nazi child about a Jew back in the 1930′s.

Kudos to Chuckie for such a subtle and considered opening to his essay expressing confusion over the liberal hatred of The Dubya Mafia. I, for one, can think of no better way to demonstrate objectivity than comparing an 8-year-old’s joke about the most powerful man in the world to Nazism. Also, kudos to him for letting his daughter hang out with a modern-day war criminal right in his own Volvo. That really shows tolerance for your enemies.

Or maybe it shows cowardice. I suspect he failed to confront this hatemonger with the truth behind her words, because it looks as though he was also too scared to ask where she heard them:

This is not the first time I’ve heard a little child spew hateful trash about the President. The impressionable child no doubt picked this little gem up at the breakfast table of her good liberal parents.

Really, the kid was right there, and probably restrained by a seatbelt. Was he seriously unable to ask about the limerick’s origin? Also, didn’t his kid just hear it from another kid? Why did it “no doubt” come from liberal parents? The Chuckmeister may be disappointed to hear this, but building your whole article around a faulty conclusion about the behavior of small children may not be the best way to build a career in journalism.

It also helps when your article contains fewer than 20 falsehoods. Let’s see if his musings on why we hate Bush pass the test. (more…)

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.]

Stop denying me my wage slaves and cannon fodder, you selfish bastards!

Tuesday, March 13th, 2007

This humdinger of a hate rant by Zell Miller strips conservatives of the facade of compassion and lays bare the real motives behind elitist opposition to abortion:

“How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?” Miller asked. “Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed.”

Miller claimed that 45 million babies have been “killed” since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973.

“If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security,” he asserted.

One hardly needs a decoder ring to uncover Zell’s objective: he’s carrying on the glorious Southern tradition of railing against people poorer than him for having the gall to try and control their own destiny.

Folks like Zell don’t actually care about the “babies” for the sake of those beings. They only want them to exist as have-nots that can be manipulated, ripped off, and killed at the whim of the haves. To unpack his position a little more, let’s break down Zell’s primary complaints.

“Filling our jobs”
a.k.a.
“Why can’t I pay a janitor $.20/hr, like the good old days?”
Unfortunately for Zell, abortion access prevents people from being saddled with extra mouths to feed, meaning they’re more mobile and can be choosier about their employment options. Abortion access also ruins Zell’s fantasy of a massive underclass packed 20 to a one-room shack and begging for any work at any wage.

“Paying into Social Security”
a.k.a.
“Why aren’t more people filling my gold-lined pockets with their cash?”
Nothing would warm Zell’s heart more than making sure a hefty chunk of that $.20/hr he’s paying his wage slaves winds up back in his pocket. I’m all for Social Security, don’t get me wrong, but Zell isn’t thinking about those who need it; he’s thinking about his own Social Security check and how much he wants to protect it. Social Security may also be code for “goods and services I own, banks I own, 401ks I can bleed dry,” etc. Whatever people are “paying into” in Zell’s mind, you can be certain the ruling class owns it or benefits from it.

“Defending our country”
a.k.a.
“You can’t kill your babies! That’s the president’s job!”
This one really cinches the cold-blooded heartlessness of the conservative mentality on abortion. Zell cares so much about little unborn zygotes that he wants to grow them until they have a whole mess of pain sensors, family and friends that care about them, and the self-awareness to realize they’re being blown to bits for the sake of guarding Halliburton “cheesecake.” Obviously, we aren’t losing in Iraq because of abortion, but even if Zell’s ludicrous fantasy were true, blocking the reproductive choices of others to guarantee yourself a soldier class you can lead to slaughter for your own ends is about the least defensible moral position possible.

Zell Miller flung open the elitist closet and the skeletons are pouring out.

If he has his way, they’re be plenty more piling up.

The Oklahoma uterus rush of Aught-Seven

Monday, March 12th, 2007

Oh, man, Kyso wrote the funniest post for you guys today. I’m still wiping the tears from my eyes.

Everyone really would’ve liked it (especially the part about the alleged molestation ring over at Townhall.com), but I’m afraid it couldn’t be posted. Turns out we have a little-known rule requiring all PAB posts to be reviewed by a board of semi-intelligent geese before release. Her failure to follow this rule compels me to scrap the offending material. After all, if it isn’t properly evaluated by water fowl, how can we be sure it won’t fry your brain with Satanic idolatry?

I’d like to thank the Oklahoma House of Representatives for encouraging me to invent rules on the fly to arbitrarily restrict the flow of information. They set the bar for this sort of censorship pretty high today:

Literature which criticizes anti-abortion bills pending in the state House of Representatives was barred from the chamber today. House officials are also trying to stop the literature from being distributed to state lawmakers’ offices.

Turns out the literature lacked the Cliff Clavin seal of approval:

House spokesman Damon Gardenire says the chamber requires that literature distributed to lawmakers first be filed with the chamber’s post office to verify it is not obscene, pornographic or a solicitation.

Anyone wanna bet this little tidbit would be news to just about anyone who ever distributed material amongst the decision-making adults of Oklahoma? It sure seemed to be news to the pro-choice activist:

The head of an anti-abortion group says he didn’t know about the post office rule even though his group regularly distributes material at the Capitol. And he says he used to clear materials through the majority leaders office but was later told that isn’t necessary if the material is clearly identified with the name, address and phone number of the person distributing it.

When it comes to combatting women’s rights, Oklahoma doesn’t just stop at blocking material distribution. Unlike backwards-ass Mississippi, who technically has to wait until Roe’s repealed before abortion’s illegal even in the case of incest, the O-K state’s going after the uterus right here, right now. The House’s pending legislation would restrict abortion performance in state facilities, require extra premiums to be paid for abortion to be covered by insurance, and “change the definition of abortion to include a method in which a drug is injected into the heart of a fetus to cause death.”

At last, the Holy Grail of Concern Trolls

Thursday, February 22nd, 2007

Joseph A. D’Agostino certainly gets no pleasure from pointing out the delicious irony that because of 40 years of Western feminism, Chinese girls are on the verge of extinction.

Suck it up, ladies, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The sex imbalance continues to worsen, not improve, thanks to the ever-increasing spread of cheap abortion and ultrasound technology into more and more areas of China, India, and other countries.

…Feminists like to blame this rapidly-worsening situation on “patriarchy,” but that has been around for thousands of years and is less powerful today than ever before. What is new, is the access to abortion in so many places. And this has long been a paramount goal of feminists: To grant the “right to control her own body” to each woman on Earth via unrestricted abortion. That, combined with falling prices for the ultrasound machines that can reveal an unborn child’s sex, has produced the disastrous situation that the Asian world is in now.

I honestly almost didn’t blog this because I simply didn’t know where to start. His assertion that patriarchy is flaccid and weak in China and India, and while it may have been a factor in yesterday’s sex-selective infanticide it certianly has nothing to do with today’s sex-selective abortion or massive girls-abandoned-in-orphanage-by-able-bodied-parents problems? His weak attempt to vaguely connect sex-selective abortions in China and India with America’s sexual revolution? His wierd impression that feminism is only 40 years old? Or the fact that everything after the patriarchy-is-weak paragraph spells HI, I’M THE PATRIARCHY AND THIS IS HOW BAD I CAN GET until he finally non-sequitors over to a final paragraph about how we need to ban all* abortions in America before resident foriegners abort all their girls and then the practice will catch on and whooo willlll marrrryyyy hissss ssoooonnnnnnnssssssss?????!!!!11!

Should we wait for this problem to develop into a substantial one here before taking action? As Americans, we should ensure that this immoral and socially destructive habit does not become entrenched here as our Chinese and other immigrant communities continue their rapid growth. China and India outlawed sex-selective abortion years ago, to no effect, and their societies are headed over a cliff. Here in the United States, with our more effective regulatory structure, we should outlaw this practice and seek to eliminate it elsewhere around the world before this crisis gets any worse.

The worsening sex ratio of the world in general, and Asia in particular, is proof that abortion-on-demand isn’t practical.

But maybe we should listen to him, girls. I mean, he’s clearly concerned about the ladies.

Anyway, there is too much here for one blogger to blog alone. Please, join me in the comments. There’s enough here for everyone. And a special request for links to any good blogs on this subject – all I ask is that at least some posts are in English so I have some idea what I’m blogrolling.

*Well, not all, just the sex-selective ones. But unfortunately the reason the sex-selective abortion bans in China aren’t working are because those son-greedy she-whores can easily lie, so well, you understand…