Thursday, March 30, 2006
Well, that wasn't so great
Hold Your Breath
Not Paid for by the Committee to Elect Bob Krumm
Raw Cookie Dough
"What About Your Readers?!"
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
The Thing at Duke
It is your responsibility, as a man, to protect those who can not protect themselves. If you fail at this, you have failed as a human being. It is your duty, even when refusing to protect, or even causing the harm yourself, has no visible consequences for you.The prosecutor who is working on the case says that, even though there were forty men in that house, not one of them is cooperating with police. Not one of them will step forward and say who was in that bathroom with her. Short and Fat, a guy I like the hell out of, says:
As a guy, unless I knew 100% that a woman had been raped, I'm certain I'd be part wall of silence as well. Particularly, with the DA threatening me with charges and subpeoning me for a DNA sample, despite my innocence.and I'm at a loss for words. Maybe it's because I can't imagine what it would be like to be those guys, but I can imagine all too well what it would be like to be that girl. I cannot help but put myself in her shoes. Sometimes I wonder what it will take for you all to take us seriously when we rage and grieve over this kind of shit. I know that even the Butcher thinks that rape and attempted rape is something rare and that false accusations are all too common. But right now, I'm not talking about what happened in that bathroom. I'm talking about what happened in the rest of the house. There were two women who tried to leave. Someone was concerned enough about them leaving that he was seen by a neighbor talking them into coming back in that house. Someone saw that woman go into the bathroom, either alone or with his teammates. Someone saw her come out of that bathroom. There are witnesses. There are men who were there who could help this investigation. And they're silent. How can that be? How can they think they are any kind of man at all if they won't stand up for the truth? How can they be a man and not come forward? How can they live with themselves? I just don't understand it.
The Little Fantasy that Get Me Through the Day
Inadvertently Sad for Sharon Stone
Young people talk to me about what to do if they're being pressed for sex? I tell them oral sex is a hundred times safer than vaginal or anal sex. If you're in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a blow job. I'm not embarrassed to tell them.Our friend the Boy Scout retorts:
If I had a daughter, I think my teaching would be more along the line of standard self defense accompanied with a healthy dose of "be your own person and don't let some pissant boy make you do something you don't want to do", as opposed to the "offer a blowjob before bending over for the forced anal" school of thought.And I agree, wholeheartedly. Really, I don't know how young my audience skews, but boys and girls, if you "cannot get out of sex," you are being raped. Now, if you are being raped, good fucking god, do whatever you can to get through it as safely as you can. And I will fight anyone who tells you differently. But bargaining down to a "lesser" sex act to keep from having to have sex? As if that's just a nonchalant way to deal with being pressured to do something you don't want to do? Someone needs to set Stone straight and ask her to stop talking to young people. Good lord. But the side thing that disturbs me is that it sounds like this is something Stone has done and feels fine about having done. That's just a glimpse into the way her world works that makes me feel kind of sad and weirded out. *Can I just say there's something about seeing the Boy Scout thinking big feminist thoughts that makes me feel a little ooky about constantly teasing him. I don't know why that is. Maybe it's a fair trade--he's corrupted me with his naughtiness and I've corrupted him with my feminism--but I feel like I should now apologize about openly discussing how big his penis is. Sorry, Wayward Boy Scout. I hope this will make it up to you.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Babies Killing Babies
Making My One Wish Come True
The spotted hawk swoops by and accuses me, he complains of my gab and my loitering. I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable, I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world. The last scud of day holds back for me, It flings my likeness after the rest and true as any on the shadow'd wilds, It coaxes me to the vapor and the dusk. I depart as air, I shake my white locks at the runaway sun, I effuse my flesh in eddies, and drift it in lacy jags. I bequeath myself to the dirt to grow from the grass I love, If you want me again look for me under your boot-soles. You will hardly know who I am or what I mean, But I shall be good health to you nevertheless, And filter and fibre your blood. Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged, Missing me one place search another, I stop somewhere waiting for you.to me from heart. The one where I finally come up with a FAQ for this place. The only drawback is that I don't really get a lot of frequently asked questions. So, I guess I'll make some up. But here's your chance, if you have some, to ask away.
News of the Gross
Monday, March 27, 2006
A Long Post in Which I Once Again Flirt with Libertarianism
[Citizenship] would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.Just keep in mind "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." We'll be coming back to this. Then we've got Jon, with his Ayn Rand quote:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt.Hmmm, as well. As y'all know, I've been following the saga of Say Uncle's friend with interest and Blake has said all I have to say about the issue better than I could. Can a liberal heathen feminist and a conservative Christian gun nut find common ground? On this issue, apparently. Anyway, it was one of Blake's commenters that made me suddenly go "Well, duh." This commenter says
If you don't like the law get em to change it, don't blame the cops for enforcing it. As for me, I don't want felons owning guns or voting. Posted by: TWM at March 26, 2006 07:50 PMAnd I stared at my computer screen dumbfounded. Then I read this:
the other side of the Republican coin on immigration is the Bush plan to create a "guest worker" program that is nothing less than the realization of corporate America's wet dream of having a labor force that cannot vote. It would create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workersThe light went on and I immediately called the Professor and asked, "Why can't people see that rap music and country music are the same?" But what I really meant is that--duh--we've created draconian laws to "punish" behavior that doesn't hurt anyone--like say, outlawing drugs--and the result is not a reduction in the use of drugs but prisons full of poor men. Yes, those poor men are disproportionately black, which means that the war on drugs has allowed the government to find a way to follow the spirit of the Dred Scott decision even now--the war on drugs makes felons out of many black men, which means that they cannot carry weapons or vote. Which means that they cannot legally defend themselves and they cannot change the way they are governed. Both are equally troubling. Black men are left with no way to force the government to hear them. But it's not just black men who are fucked by this--it's really poor people in general. As folks over at Say Uncle and Blake's have pointed out repeatedly, there are all types of felonies, from having too much weed to killing your boyfriend, but the stoner and the murderer are stripped of their rights just the same. And who most needs to have their rights protected? The people who are most often chewed up and spit out by various law enforcement entities. Who do we strip of the ability to hold our government accountable? The people who are most often chewed up and spit out by various law enforcement entities. It's really brilliant, if you think about it. Who's going to best know the ways that the government fucks people over? People who have been fucked over. What can they legally do about it? Nothing, it seems.
Our Darling Kleinheider
Men, Think Back to When You Were Young
Strip Clubs for Straight Women
Good Looking Boys
For some reason, the recalcitrant brother's camera phone makes everyone look like they've been run through some weird Photoshop filter. But at least we get to see some photos of the boys.
So, for those of you who are curious, there's the recalcitrant brother and my nephews*.
And girls, the recalcitrant brother is kind of single!
*I don't know if it's clear, but there are just two nephews. The littlest one is in both photos. And I think that we see evidence that the biggest nephew is a better photographer than his father, but I could be reading too much into things.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Married Tennessee Conservative Men Admit to Viewing Pornography
People... this is funny. There is no hate. There is no sexism. Ha to there being a lick of fear. And this certainly has zero to do with any falsely perceived role of women in politics - a man doing this would have been eminently more entertaining. The overreaction is amusing.Let's just start with some Feminism 101. No, you know what? Let's set aside the feminism for a second. Let's start with some Common Courtesy 101. Calling people names is hateful. Calling someone you don't know a slut is hateful and rude. Continuing to call her a pornographer because she posted a photo that showed her bellybutton on the internet is rude and hateful and makes you seem like an uptight prude. To say that, in the face of people saying that this poor woman is a slut and a pornographer, there is no hate is insane. Now, onto the feminist stuff. Let me put this as simply as possible: if two people are engaged in the same activity--in this case enjoying the production of naughty pictures on the internet--and the woman gets called a slut and a pornographer and no one calls Nathan Moore or Bill Hobbs perverts or questioning their fidelity to their wives that is sexism. When two people are doing the same thing and one is punished for it and the other is not, because one is a woman and the other is not, that is sexism at its most basic. But, y'all, this isn't even basic sexism. If you just consider this bullshit for a second, another layer of sexism reveals itself. It's hidden behind another layer of rudeness, so let's go to Common Courtesy 102. It common courtesy to not judge others if they do the same things you do but for different reasons. We all know that Moore and Hobbs don't think there's anything wrong with them looking at this photo because they're not looking at this photo out of purient sexual interest. They're looking at this photo so that they can make fun of this chick. Well, my pervert readers, that's just rude. Everyone has their reasons for looking at pictures of semi-naked women. Why do Moore and Hobbs get off the hook just because they're not enjoying it in a sexual way? Either it's wrong or it's not. Or they've found themselves a hell of a loophole--"Yes, I was looking at a picture of a hot woman, but I wasn't enjoying it sexually! I swear. I was only enjoying it because I love to shame sluts." But on to Feminism 102. It is sexist when men who look at pictures of women criticize those women for being immoral, because it assumes that the woman has been tainted by the existence of the photo in a way that the men are not. To assume that the enjoyment of the production of these photos is corrupting to women but not to men is sexist. And yet, there's even another layer of sexist assumption here--that it's Harold Ford Jr.'s job to police this woman's sexual behavior. The assumption that any man with authority over a woman in any realm of her life gives him some level of authority over her in all realms of her life is sexist. And to insinuate that it's not going to play well with voters that Ford can't keep his woman in line is really just gross. Which, you know, is fine, at the end of the day. As Coble attempts to point out repeatedly, a lot of this sexism isn't really about promoting misogyny; it's about directing the discussion towards something people feel roused up about and away from the lack of discussion of substantial issues. It's a lot easier to say "Oh, Ford's got a slutty co-ed working for him. This is just more evidence of his immorality. Let's all take a moment to ogle her." than it is to explain why Ford's platform would be bad for Tennessee and the rest of the nation. That's fine. We all take the easy way out occasionally. But to claim that the easy route you've chosen in this case isn't hateful or sexist makes you look like liars or idiots. * I feel like I should warn you that, if you like to look at actual lurid photos of women, you're going to be disappointed by Moore's offering. As I told Bill Hobbs over at Nashville is Talking:
This whole thing is making you seem like the most uptight old man ever. Really. The girl, if it's even the same girl, says she took "naughty" pictures of herself and you're calling that porn. Have you ever viewed pornography? Because if you think some girl posing naked or semi-naked in her boyfriend's bedroom constitutes porn, you evidently have not viewed any pornography since about 1867.
An Important Question for Medical Professionals
Let Me Be Your Emily
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Women, You Too Can Join Our Disorganization
The Murfreesboro Greenway Review
The Top Five Outrageous Things that Happened at My Grandma's Funeral, in no particular order
Some Things Are Worth Fighting For
Friday, March 24, 2006
This One's for the "Bag of Dicks"
Three Ways of Knowing
A Little Help from the Gun Nuts, Please
My Blood Runs Cold
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Progressive Men, Are You on Our Side or Not?
Okay, Tennessee, Listen Up.
- A murdered pastor's children are missing. Authorities presume his wife has them and, I would suspect, presume she is the reason he's murdered.
- A Robertson County teacher's aide has been arrested on charges of molestation.
- Some guy shot a little kid.
Who are the most dangerous people in Tennessee for children to be around? On any given day, if one follows the news, it appears that the answer is straight people.
Straight people are all the time killing their spouses and running off with the kids, beating their kids, molesting other people's kids, and randomly shooting kids.
I don't have any statistics handy, but anecdotal evidence would seem to prove that there's some link between heterosexuality and crappy treatment of children.
And yet, we don't ban heterosexuals from fostering children, even though most crimes against children are committed by heterosexuals.
Why do you suppose that is?
Maybe because monsters are monsters regardless of their sexual orientation? Or because it doesn't take a genius to see that if heterosexuals are most of the population and they have most of the kids, they're going to be most of the people NOT committing crimes against children as well as most of the people committing them? Or maybe because what one does sexually with other consenting adults has little to do with what kind of parent one is?
To go off on a tangent, for a second, there are some people who believe that every child should have a mother and a father who are married to each other and that the state ought to make getting divorced as difficult as possible to ensure that it's hard for people to break up two-parent households. And, when rhetoric about this gets heated, it often devolves into this idea that single women make shitty parents and cannot provide children with everything they need.
So, you'd think that a single mom like Tennessee State Representative Debra Maggart (R-Hendersonville) would be a little bit sympathetic to homosexuals who are willing to foster children. She, after all, is in another group often accused of being unfit parents.
I don't believe taking these children out of one precarious situation and putting them in homes where there is an abundance of evidence that homosexual couples do not make the optimum family unit. We also have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have in some instances adopted them in order to have unfretted [sic] access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse. Some of the evidence we were presented showed that lesbian and gay couples have a higher rate of breaking up than heterosexual coupes as well as higher rates of promiscuity outside of their relationships.
I don't even know where to start because the fucktardedness of this situation should be so obvious to anyone who thinks about it for three seconds.
But here we go.
1. There are not enough foster parents to go around. How can we, as a state, in good conscience run around begging women to choose life if we don't have a competent system in place to make sure that the life they've chosen to inflict on those kids isn't one of perpetual hell?
2. Most child molesters are straight men. By and large, study after study shows this. By Maggart's "logic" we should pass a law making it illegal for straight men to foster children. Look at that poor Russian girl last year who was adopted by that monster who sexually abused her and posted the photos on the internet for his evil internet buddies to enjoy. That was all over the news. We know straight men do this. And yet we don't pass sweeping legislation barring straight men from being foster parents because we know the vast majority of straight men don't have any even remote interest in fucking children.
3. In our society, a father and a mother who are married to each other is the optimal family unit. Does Maggart believe that single women such as herself ought not to be allowed to foster children?
There are already not enough foster families for all the kids who need them. If we ban homosexuals from fostering children because some homosexuals are child molesters and some are promiscuous and some break up with their partners frequently, aren't we also obliged to ban other groups with members who exhibit unfavorable characteristics, such as straight men and single women?
And, if homosexuals, straight men, and single women are not allowed to foster children, who's left? Wives of servicemen who are overseas? Women whose husbands are in prison for life? Nuns who are married to God?
Is it so important to punish gay people that we'll hurt children to do it? Is that what it comes down to? That it's so important for us as a state to make sure gay people know we think they're sinning evil freaks that we'll do it at the expense of suffering children who need someone, anyone, to give two shits about them?
Because that's pretty fucking disgusting. And Representative Maggart, I'm pretty fucking disgusted with you.
The Picture on My Fridge
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
You Can Tell a Lot about a Man...
Cecilia Fire Thunder
Come On, I Know You're Dying to Know What Happened
The Door Saga Continues, But with a Minor Resolution
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Maybe I'm a Poltergeist!
In Which I Confess My True Feelings for the Legal Eagle
Congratulations are in Order
The Orange Cat is Evil and Other Observations
Monday, March 20, 2006
I'm a Mess
Who Will Fix My Door This Time?
Left Hand Vs. Right Hand
Vacation Day 1
Sunday, March 19, 2006
My Late Reply to the Uncle and Kleinheider
However, abortion is violence. It is murder. Once you have established that, as Uncle seems to, the negotiation must stop. At that point you must stand on principle and find a way to accept and/or alleviate the consequences of a prohibition that is morally and ethically necessary.What is the proper punishment for women who have abortions? Life in prison or the death penalty? 2. You still have not addressed my concern that you don't believe that women can have full citizenship. So, I'll bring it up again. If a fetus has a right to life that ALWAYS trumps the right of the woman to do with her own body what she likes--including not carrying a pregnancy to term--you are saying that women have rights only as long as they don't infringe on the rights of the fetus. There is no other group of people singled out by the law and told that their rights can ALWAYS be curtailed by another group. Your position leaves no room for the woman's rights to ever trump the rights of the fetus, therefore making me a different, lesser kind of citizen than you. Maybe you believe this--that the state has such a compelling need to control what happens in a woman's uterus, that women cannot be citizens to the extent that men can, but I'd appreciate you saying this out loud. If you believe that women are equal under the law to men, how can you abide by the state controlling one of her internal organs?