Archive | September, 2008

Everyone Wins!

27 Sep

I can’t be asked to make qualitative distinctions between my many commenters with regard to the levels of awesomeness they exhibited in their entries in my recent contest. I’m just too postmodern for that (though I have been calling people porndogs and phallocrats). So, everyone wins. Send your address to my e-mail address (posting it here probably isn’t a good idea) and I’ll fire off a few stickers that you can use to vandalize misogynistic ads and whatnot. 

I’m absurdly busy with school right now (teaching takes a lot more work than I realized), so it may take me a week or so, but I’ll get to it. I’ll also be getting to some posts about Halloween costumes, the woman-as-sushi-plate trend in reality TV (please, don’t snipe this one), and my theories as to why dudes tend to like horror movies more than women do (it’s not what you think).

Bookmark and Share

42nd Street: Tits!

23 Sep

It’s my birthday today, so I decided to take a 3-hour break from reading about esoterica and take a walk. I wandered through Central Park and snickered at the faux-hawked tourists and then ended up in Times Square somehow. I always avoid Times Square because it’s packed from left to right with Texans with too much make-up on who are trying to blend in by dressing like they’re in an episode of Friends and with those weird Midtown office workers, but I fucked up and wandered too far down Seventh Avenue before I noticed what I was doing. Maybe I was distracted by the Drive Like Jehu (or was it Scandal?) I was listening to. Anyway, I noticed a few things along the way that have made me question the general public’s appraisal of today’s Times Square. 

Even people who don’t live here have heard the story of what Rudy Giuliani “did for” Times Square. He’s supposed to be a big hero because he “cleaned up” 42nd Street and made the area safe for people who wear buttpacks with no hint of sarcasm to hang around in. I cannot count the number of times I’ve read self-indulgent little bits of doggerel about the former glory of the Deuce in local publications in which some (invariably old, white, boring, male) writer will pine away for the glory days of 42nd Street when the entire area consisted of nothing but peep shows, strip clubs, massage parlors, and random crime. You can almost hear the tiny violins playing when you read these guys’ lamentations over the “Disnification” of the area that has taken place over the last decade or so.

Now, I’m just as bummed as anyone when an area with its own character and style turns into yet another Starbucks-American Apparel-T Mobile-Chase Bank-Jamba Juice-Chipotle-Gap strip mall, but I don’t know that 42nd Street’s past is anything to mourn, or that it’s even changed all that much. Only a maudlin, entitled weenie could whine about the loss of a bunch of shithole exploitation emporiums, but we all know there is no shortage of those, especially in the New York print media. 

As of now, Times Square is dominated by chain restaurants that are basically souped-up, double-priced incarnations of the kinds of places people eat at on Friday nights in Marietta, Georgia: Outback Steakhouse, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Chevy’s, TGI Friday’s, Chili’s, Applebee’s, and Hooters. (I don’t know that they’re all represented, but you get the point.) It’s basically a giant mall, billed as “family-friendly” because it’s got an MTV store, a Disney store, and a Hurley outlet (ugh). 

Things have changed. One really has to make ten seconds’-worth of an effort these days to find, tucked away between the t-shirt shops and gray-market electronics outlets, the little doorways that lead to second-floor strip clubs and massage parlors (AKA sex-trafficking depots, AKA rape rooms). It’s just such a shame to see the area lose its gloriously exploitive past. 

Or has it? I don’t see the recent history of Times Square as a story of seediness’s supplantation by generic middle-American consumer culture, but rather one of generic middle-American consumer culture incorporating, co-opting, and corporatizing phenomena that were formerly deemed unfit for women, children, and “good” family men.  Times Square has gone from a shitheap of independently owned sex trade establishments to a shitheap of corporate exploitation and objectification depots. The sleaze has gone mainstream in the form of two Hooters franchises, a Hawaiian Tropic restaurant (where the waitstaff wears bikinis, even in January — in New York), and Club Jenna, a nightclub owned by porn indsutry poster-girl Jenna Jameson (equipped with a 40-foot billboard with Jenna’s face and boobs on it, with a little nipple exposed on each), and who knows what else (I couldn’t stand to wander around there for too long). 

So yeah, Times Square does suck more now than it used to, but these windbag writers (who ought to be sent out to pasture so I can take over their jobs and tell the public what’s really up) have no clue as to why. Times Square sucks now more than it used to not because its bordellos have lost their uniqueness, not because it’s safe to walk around in at 4 AM, not because it’s full of places that sell drinks with names like the Wallaby Darned and the El Nino Margarita, but because it’s a glaringly obvious manifestation of the mainstreaming of porn culture.

A family vacation in New York now includes a look at a 20-foot wide close-up of a porn star’s tits, a good look at a few waitresses’ tits, and a souvenir t-shirt based on the Hello Kitty brand that (oh, so cleverly) says “Hello Titty” on it and turns the former kid’s toy brand logo into — that’s right — a pair of tits. 

Bookmark and Share

Bill Maher’s a liberal. That means he supports your right to suck his dick.

19 Sep

Bill Maher sucks. Playboy liberalism sucks.

I don’t think there’d be any possible way for me to exaggerate about how much I hate Bill Maher. In fact, people I know often ask my opinion about him, pretending not to know, just in order to see me get all flustered and angry. For some reason I’ve of late received a few queries on what Bill Maher’s problem is, and on what the fuck is wrong with liberal dudes in general (can you believe someone had to ask my opinion on something?), so I figure the time has come for me to explain myself on this matter. 

I’ll be the first person to bemoan the lack of liberal messages in media of all kinds, and I’ve had a few well-meaning (har har) associates point out a seeming contradiction between my complaining on that subject and my complaining about Maher and his ilk. They tell me I ought to lay off of liberal comedians and liberal talk show hosts because we have so few of them, and that it’s people like me that destroy the unity of the party.

As if I give a fuck about that. First, I’m not a Democrat. Democrats are namby-pamby pansy-wansy centrists these days, and I’m fairly radical in my political and social views. That doesn’t mean I’m for armed revolution or anything, just that my gradualism looks different from their gradualism, which has been moving to the right since about the late 1960s.  Second, liberalism doesn’t allow for anything like the kind of “party unity” we see on the right. Liberalism’s foundation is the free exchange of competing ideas, not “party unity.” Know who was all about “party unity”? Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-shek, and Stalin. Party unity is the road to a dictatorship, and that’s why a liberal party won’t ever display the kind of unity you see in a conformist, jingoistic, right-wing outfit that simplifies every issue under the sun, no matter what its complexities, into a contest between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. If the Democrats get any more unified they’ll become Republicans. No thanks. Third, how liberal is Maher? I mean, yeah, he’s opposed to the Bush administration and its policies and spends half his show every week verbally licking Bill Clinton’s ass, but what does that mean other than that he agrees with, like, 80% of Americans and is impressed with a dude who is better at convincing women to get naked than he is? Finally, Bill Maher isn’t a comedian. He’s just some talentless asshole who gets paid to act like a smarmy tool on television. I’m not required to pretend that someone who is still telling Lewinsky jokes in 2008 is funny just because we both realize that starting a war in Iraq wasn’t a good idea.

My beef with Bill Maher isn’t limited to his shockingly stupid and derivative material. I’m also nauseated by his general attitude toward himself and toward other people. He’s clearly vainglorious to a degree that would make any rapper blush, and it couldn’t possibly be less warranted. He’s a short, unfunny half-wit who looks like Spuds Mackenzie with Dan Cortese’s hair. There aren’t a lot of grounds for arrogance there. (I mean, Spuds Mackenzie and Dan Cortese are cool, but Maher somehow finds a way to combine elements of two cool things to make something astoundingly uncool. Think of it like mixing BL Lime and Pinkberry.) I suppose he can be boastful about the fact that he’s got a show on HBO (whatever) and a large collection of sports coats, but Bob Costas can say the same thing and he’s not nearly as arrogant as Maher is.

His demeanor is so repulsive that I can hardly bear to watch his show at all, but when he starts interacting with other people it really comes out, especially if those other people happen to have vaginas. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen Maher look straight through a female guest and dismiss what she’s had to say despite the fact that it was more insightful, informed, and interesting than anything he himself could have come up with. He makes no attempt whatsoever, when discussing women in the news, to disguise his utter disdain for women and their humanity, and he routinely dehumanizes women in his stand-up routines and on his show. He’s constantly harping on and on about the “pussification” of American men, which is what he calls the “trend” toward men treating women like human beings and taking their partners’ feelings into account (if only). And when he’s not complaining that men aren’t all out hanging out at the Playboy mansion while their wives are at home cooking pot roasts and hanging around in Frederick’s of Hollywood gear for their men to come home so they can suck their dicks, he’s making obvious, unclever, derivative, and adolescent “jokes” about sex and the “differences” between men and women. 

So Bill Maher’s an asshole with no talent who gets paid a thousand times more than what he deserves to spread sexism all over our faces. Who cares, right? I care because he’s the world’s number one Liberal Dude and because he’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with the world of comedy.  

Let’s talk about comedy for a minute. I know it doesn’t matter as much as feminism in the grand scheme of things, but my life basically revolves around finding things to laugh about, and the world seems to be conspiring as of late to keep that from happening. It’s now become virtually impossible for me to be entertained in the sense that anyone intended. I suppose that makes me some kind of asshole, but it’s true. I mean, is there on this planet a single comedian that doesn’t spend half his time talking about shitting, his balls, his disgusting attitudes toward sex, and “what’s wrong with women”?  It may be a problem with the audience, but it seems pretty clear that there’s no such thing as a comedian/comedy writer who won’t stoop to that shit in order to get laughs out of the kinds of people who think ranch dressing improves any dish.

I don’t even care as much that those topics are gross or offensive as much as I do that they’re fucking stupid and not funny. Dave Chappelle, who every white dude in the world loves for all the wrong reasons, might be the perfect example of what I’m talking about. He’s a fairly intelligent and liberal dude who has some interesting perspectives on the world, but even he resorts to ball jokes and overt misogyny for half his material. Have you ever seen his special For What It’s Worth? It sucks. He makes about three semi-insightful and quasi-funny comments in a half hour, then spends 30 minutes telling ball jokes that are about as entertaining as getting Rick-rolled. He, David Cross, and Greg Giraldo (both of whom are also gynophobic douchebags) might be the only three semi-funny liberal stand-up comedians alive, and all three of them are guilty of it. There’s no hope.

That could be called a digression, but liberal dudism isn’t a problem that’s limited to the world of comedy.

Liberal Dudes abound. Who are they? Liberal Dudes are guys who will jump up and down to tell you that they’re all about equality and prosperity for everyone, but then tell you about the strip club they were at the night before or about the awesome anal porn site they last jerked off to. Liberal Dudes are ready to welcome us into the boardroom, provided we’re still willing to dance on the conference table at the employee party. Liberal Dudes love “sex-positive” “feminists” because Liberal Dudes support women’s freedom and “rights,” up to and including our “right” to strip and to suck dicks for money. Liberal Dudes love to see women embracing pornorific behavior like pole dancing, pube waxing, porn watching, thong wearing, chick kissing, and boob flashing as a means to “empowerment,” because that’s exactly the kind of power they want us to have: the power to give them boners. Liberal Dudes like to compare themselves favorably to conservatives because conservatives are anti-abortion and want to restrict women’s “freedom” to fuck random Liberal Dudes willy-nilly style. Liberal Dudes, on the other hand, support women’s freedom of sexual expression (as long as our sexual expression looks like a reasonable facsimile of their porn fantasies) and are pro-choice, because being pro-choice means they can pressure women into having abortions when they don’t want to take responsibility for impregnating them.

Liberal Dudes, in short, are willing to give us equal pay, let us have abortions, and let us have half the government jobs, provided that we’re fuckable, we don’t try to make them treat us like we possess the same measure of humanity that they do, and we don’t try to impose any limits on their “right” to use our bodies in person or via video. Sweet deal for us, I know. 

Liberal Dudes like to make a big show of what egalitarians they are by blathering about their support for women’s “rights” and “equality,” but you’ll see just how sincere their concern for women’s issues is when someone brings up date rape (dude, chicks these days are scandalous and get fucked up a lot), when someone points out the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in the workplace (dude, why can’t chicks take a compliment?),  when someone mentions any aspect of the systemic sexism in our culture and social structures (dude, why can’t chicks take a joke?). The gendered insults start flying when anyone suggests to a Liberal Dude that women don’t deserve to get groped, ogled, verbally harassed, date raped, or treated like idiots just because we have vaginas.

Liberal Dudes think they’ve done us a favor by being willing to tolerate our presence in public life. When we ask for any more than that, they think we’re a bunch of ungrateful bitches and start telling us we don’t know how lucky we are, that we’re hysterical, we’re crybabies, we’re weak, blah fucking blah. My personal favorite Liberal Dude line is “You women want equality but then you can’t handle it.” (Maher brought that one up constantly with regard to Hillary Clinton. He claimed she got her chance to run with the big boys and then acted like a pussy when things didn’t go her way. You know, because she faced absolutely no obstacles being the first viable female presidential candidate we’ve ever had.) Is there anything more offensive and obscenely entitled than the attitude these dudes take toward women wanting to be treated like human beings? They basically come right out and say, “We’ve given you a few of the rights and some of the status we have, so shut the fuck up. You’re lucky you even got that. Just think, you could be wearing a burqa.” 

I think I’ll have more to say about that last bit shortly, but for now I’m going to go listen to some Scandal and drink a Zima Gold.

Bookmark and Share

Men’s Health: Women turned on by being date raped!

8 Sep

Wow. You all know I’m not that into Jezebel, but a friend tipped me off to a story they’re running today that I had to comment on. Basically, some company is advertising a product in Men’s Health that, if it actually worked, would be a date rape drug.

I don’t think it’s terribly surprising that a ‘roid-monkey magazine like Men’s Health would be giving date rape how-to tips. I’ve unfortunately seen a few issues of that magazine, and I can’t say the ad is out of keeping with what I’ve deemed its editorial policy to be. The few issues I’ve seen have all contained at least one article dispensing advice on how to coerce women into sex, but I still find the language of the ad pretty disturbing:

Women have reported that they become incredibly sexually excited when they take SEXACTIVATOR. This magical wonder liquid can be taken orally, or put in any drink. Within minutes after use, your woman’s desire to have sex with you will be uncontrollable. Some women say that they love when their man puts a few drops in their favorite drink without them knowing. They say that it turns them on even more.

Holy shit is right.

First off, I doubt that this product can actually deliver on its promises, unless I missed the press conference when the scientists who brought us nine different kinds of boner pills and seventeen balding drugs announced that they’d developed a drug that would somehow alter women’s brain processes so that they wouldn’t notice that the man they’re with is an asshole with steroid-induced acne and tiny balls who coerces women into having sex and lifts weights constantly to prove to other men that he isn’t gay (you know, because heterosexual manliness is all about what other men think). That’d be a pretty impressive discovery, but as of yet, all the women I know are still able to decide autonomously whether they want to have sex with creeps who wear Under Armour.

Second, is it just me, or are the makers of this product saying date rape is cool? As a joke, let’s say this shit works. If so, then the ad is basically advising men to drug “their” (more on that shortly) women and then rape them, because if a drug alters a woman’s thinking to the point that it supersedes her true will, it’s rape, even according to our bassackward rape laws (sort of). If she wants to get busy, it’ll happen. If you have to put something in her drink to make her want to get busy, you’re a rapist.

Third, isn’t there an intimation here that once you’re in a relationship, it’s OK to rape your partner? Jezebel said something about it being a little less creepy that the ad referred to the substance being used by men on their partners rather than strangers, but I don’t see the difference. That’s like saying getting raped by someone you know isn’t that bad compared to getting raped by a stranger. I’m pretty sure getting raped AT ALL is not cool. Anyway, the embarrassing relativism of the pseudo-feminists at Jezebel aside, I think this ad’s text points to the fact that it’s still considered within bounds in our culture to rape a woman you’re in a relationship with, especially among the kinds of dudes who read entire magazines about weightlifting and masturbation techniques.  It’s significant that the ad uses the possessive term “your” in reference to the woman the date rape drug is to be used on. It basically says that, according to these guys, once you’ve entered into a sexual relationship with a Men’s Health-type dude, you become his property, and are thus available for raping.

Fourth, there seems to be a serious lack of analysis on the part of Men’s Health readers. I wonder if it has ever occurred to any of them that the reason women don’t want to have sex with them is that they’re the kinds of guys who do nothing but lift weights all day and try to come up with novel ways to trick women into getting naked. Most of the dudes I know who have sex a lot have sex a lot because they treat their partners well, respect them as human beings, and take full account of their sexual desires, needs, and limits. Maybe Men’s Health ought to try running an article that tells men the secret to a good sex life: treating your partner like a human being that you care about rather than an adversary that you have to con something out of. But then I suppose that might make their readership’s Axe glands explode.

Fifth, the idea that women ought to be taking drugs, knowingly or not, to increase their libidos is pretty fucked. Our libidos are perfectly fine. In fact, they’re likely a lot healthier than those of most men, whose sexuality has been warped by our culture’s ideal of constant male horniness, and by the hyper-availability of women’s bodies commodified as sexual stimuli.  If we don’t want to have sex, we don’t need medicine. We’re not abnormal. We just don’t feel like it, asshole. The idea that women’s sexuality is problematic when it doesn’t match up perfectly to the distorted and misdirected sexuality of men is pretty stupid, and also a pretty good indicator of how generally fucked up our culture’s ideas about sex have gotten. Besides, I’m not entirely sure women’s libidos wouldn’t spike if men would start paying attention to women’s sexuality rather than porn.

Finally, this ad is just another fucking rehash of the disgusting idea that women all want a man to “take charge” and that getting raped is every woman’s secret fantasy. The ad says women like it when they’re slipped the drug, that it arouses them even further. Say what? If I found out I’d been drugged, I’d be fucking murderous, not randy, and I don’t think I know a single woman who’d be pumped at the idea. That such an idea is being publicly promoted is fucking terrifying. It means two things: that it’s widely accepted enough to be plainly stated in a fairly mainstream magazine, and that it’s being further promoted among a segment of the population that I was already afraid of but am now going to avoid like herpes.

Ugh.

Bookmark and Share

Republicans are the new feminists. Either that or they’re pro-rape and anti-family.

5 Sep

I’m bringing the banner back because the Anti-Woman Threat Level has been elevated to fuchsia.

I watched part of the RNC last night. I know, I know, I shouldn’t be doing that lest I risk putting myself into a coma, but I can’t help it. (Have you ever seen anything more boring than this convention? I’ve seen people party harder on the Lawrence Welk Show.) I couldn’t help it. I turned it on and was just caught in the headlights by seeing my city’s old mayor pretend to be a dumb hick in order to pander to the willfully ignorant provincialism of a room full of Tim McGraw fans who believe poor people are poor because they’re evil, dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to test their faith, and liberals’ real goals consist of sacrificing late-term fetuses to the Indigo Girls and turning all of our little boys into Eddie Izzard. He did so by jocularly implying that Obama’s an urban chauvinist/elitist for mentioning the fact that Sara Palin hasn’t run a city big enough to have bus service nor a state with more people in it than any city with more than one Hooters. (Rudy’s just so small town, so main street.) He then tisk-tisked Democrats for asking whether Palin can handle being a mom to so many kids while holding high office, acting fucking outraged that they would ask such a question of a woman when they wouldn’t ask it of a man. You know, because they’re such feminists over in the GOP.

I know the Democrats have been blowing it lately when it comes to women’s issues (hey, Obama, thanks for selling out half the population in a stupid attempt to court the seven or so religious zealots that were already going to vote for you out of spite because McCain refuses to acknowledge that the apocalypse is scheduled for next month), but watching Republicans talk about women’s rights nearly had me in convulsions. The dissimulations and misrepresentations I saw in fifteen minutes of watching the RNC were so obscene, so obvious, and so stupid that I squirted ginger ale out of my nose like five times. Hearing these ass clowns pretend to give a shit about women’s issues, pretend they’re the party of resisting the status quo, pretend they care about anything but giving rich people more money, starting some more wars with brown people with oil, taking rights away from women and people with the temerity to not be rich, and forcing people to adhere to their backward bullshit religious ideology is offensive to the max.

Or perhaps it’s illuminating. 

It’s illuminating because I’ve seen the essence of Republican strategy in action: smart, sophisticated rich guys pretending to be dumb philistines in order to trick people who really are dumb philistines into thinking their best interests lie in voting in support of smart rich guys’ financial interests. It’s really kind of amazing if you think about it. I mean, these guys have to say insane shit in public that they absolutely know is stupid and wrong, and they have to act like they mean it. But they have to make sure not to go too far with their ridiculous rhetoric lest they tip the public off to the fact that they think their entire base has the IQ of Fred Durst. It’s a fine line, and I’m kind of impressed with how they’ve managed to stand astride it for so long. 

So they get to come out and pretend, because they’ve nominated an anti-woman psycho who happens to have a vagina (maybe — I’m still not convinced she isn’t a cyborg created by Sean Hannity and Phyllis Schlafly or a transvestite MRA), that they’re the party of women’s rights and gender progress. They can claim that they’re the feminists and the Democrats are the misogynists (not that a lot of them aren’t), and do so with straight faces. McCain and whatever doctor of tomfoolery runs his campaign also think that they’re going to nab the mythological bloc of disaffected Clinton supporters who are disgruntled at Obama’s nomination, simply because they’ve nominated a woman (a woman who thinks being called a pit bull with lipstick is a compliment and that women ought to be forced to rent their uteri out as life support equipment free of charge). I don’t believe that a huge group of people that love Clinton more than their own human rights exists, but I do, unfortunately, think there are plenty of (Republican) women that are stupid enough to pick up what the GOP is laying down and decide Sara Palin is a step forward for womankind.

What can I say? The GOP might just have the public pegged. In any case, the Republicans have devised some pretty impressive framing if you ask me. 

Maybe the leadership of the party of homophobes with wide stances and women who wish women weren’t allowed to vote gets something I don’t. Maybe I’m presenting arguments that are just too honest, complex, and thoughtful. Maybe what I need to do in order to hasten the gender revolution is repackage it as something other than what it really is in blisteringly stupid terms. I’ll give it a shot, I guess, and try it out on the voting public who are considering whether they ought to vote for John “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran… did I mention that I was a POW?” McCain and his kapo out of their “love” for womankind. The following will be my attempt at “framing,” GOP style, the debate over whether Palin’s election would be a step forward for women: 

Here’s why I’m opposed to Sara Palin: she may be a woman, but she ain’t no feminist, and I doubt whether she’s even got America’s interests at heart. In fact, I doubt whether she’s even an American. Look where she’s from. I know Alaska’s a state, but it’s basically in Canada, and there’s nothing in Canada but socialists, hockey players, and people who don’t know how to pronounce the word “about.” That ain’t American no how. But it may be even worse than that. Alaska is just a hop, skip, and a few little islands away from Russia. I’m not sure this woman isn’t a foreign agent, and if she happens to turn out to be one, let’s hope she’s “just” a Canadian and not a Russki. 

You may be wondering why I suspect Palin of working for a foreign government. I’ll tell you why: she’s already publicly admitted to being anti-American. I hate to quote myself (I, like Bill O’Reilly, am a paragon of modesty), but let us remember: 

As of now, our Supreme Court (however tenuous the status of this decision may be) holds that a woman has the right to decide how she wants to utilize her uterus… The Supreme Court is an American institution and has been one for much longer than apple pie, NASCAR, or fake German beers, ergo, anyone who disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision is anti-American.

Palin has brazenly proclaimed that she’s anti-American, and has even admitted to sympathizing with terrorists who would attack us and take away our freedoms. She is vehemently opposed to American women’s freedom and right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and would, if elected, force us to use our organs to provide life support against our will.

And she’s radical about it (what’s scarier than a radical, folks?). She has stated publicly that she opposes our right to determine our own destiny even in the case of rape. You know what that means? That’s right. Sara Palin is pro-rape. She’d rather force you to give birth to the spawn of a rapist than allow you, after you’ve already had your human rights and personal sovereignty violated, to decide not to suffer further physical and emotional torment as a result of the crime. Palin claims she’s pro-family, but how can we trust someone’s claims to being pro-family when she has also publicly proclaimed that she’d even force her own daughter to carry a fetus that resulted from a rape? Palin is in favor of taking rights away from rape victims and giving more power to rapists to hurt us, and she’s ready to put the might of the state behind the rapists rather than innocent women, including her own daughters. That is downright treasonous — not to mention anti-family — if you ask me. 

I think it’s clear what the right choice is here. Sara Palin is a pro-rape, anti-family, anti-American radical, and she might very well be a foreign agent. She’s clearly not qualified to lead on behalf of the majority of freedom-loving, anti-rape, patriotic Americans, and neither is the man who is so incompetent as to be fooled into choosing an anti-American foreigner as his running mate for our nation’s highest office.

Hey, they started it.

(I guess watching this bullshit wasn’t a total loss. I found out about Cowboy Troy, who the GOP hired to participate in the most embarrassing rendition of the Star Spangled Banner I’ve ever seen, but who nonetheless might be the most awesome person alive. Plus, I learned some things about how to package the iss-yous for the troglodytes we call “average Americans.” George Lakoff would be proud.)

Bookmark and Share

Sorry.

2 Sep

I’m kind of busy. My semester just started and I’m taking 5 classes and teaching, so I’ve got some things to get straight. It may, unfortunately, be a few days, but I promise I’ve got some posts developing.

For now I have a public service announcement: if you’re having any trouble getting to sleep for the first days of school, why not watch some RNC coverage? Seriously, it’s the most boring thing I’ve seen on TV since they took test patterns off the air. Actually, test patterns were more exciting to look at.

Bookmark and Share

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 471 other followers