Monthly Archives: June 2012

No Shit Sherlock

Yah think?

“Two males found a pair of human legs Tuesday night off of Moulton Reservoir Road just north of Walkerville and above Butte.

According to police the legs belong to a white man and they do suspect foul play.”

Whole story here: http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/Human-remains-found-north-of-Butte/-/14594602/15182410/-/57x2l4z/-/index.html?hpt=ju_bn6

Advertisements

Science? We don’t need no stinking science!

Colorado burns. But there’s no global warming.

Duluth Minnesota receives ten inches of rain in one day. But there’s no global warming.

Wisconsin loses 68% of its maple syrup production due to unseasonably warm spring temperatures. But there’s no global warming.

Hurricane Debby dumps up to 30 inches of rain on Florida. But there’s no global warming.

Rising sea levels threaten the U.S. Atlantic coast. But there’s no global warming.

So far in 2012, the United States had its warmest spring, its warmest year to date, and warmest 12-month stretch on record.

But there’s no global warming.

Deniers claim we shouldn’t be alarmed– the climate has been changing for billions of years. And “if you believe in global warming, you’re like the unabomber.”

Besides, why should you care if that changing climate gets too hot by the end of the century for humans to survive on much of the planet, also killing the oceans and thousands of species?

That’s 90 years away – and you’ll be dead by then.

So let’s drill, baby, drill.

Pretentious. Pompous. Poop.

I had never heard of this person before. Something which – in light of her self-absorbed, self-importance – she would probably consider an impossibility. Not her fault, really – rather the fault of the people who encouraged her by actually publishing her smug, superficial, self-involved ramblings.

Little did I know that anyone other than George Will could be paid merely for being sufficiently insufferable.

Then I read an article, 1% Wives Are Helping Kill Feminism and Make the War on Women Possible, which I at first mistook for an ill-advised, deeply flawed attempt at satire before realizing the author was, in fact, taking herself seriously as she made pronouncements on a subject about which she knows little and understands even less.

Here’s what she said (in fewer than fifty words): women only have value if they get paid. Being a mom is not a job. If women don’t have a job because they choose to be a stay at home mom, their husbands think all women are dumb. And THAT is the reason for the war on women.

Amazing, isn’t it?

Here are some of the gobsmackingly astounding things she wrote.

“Who can possibly take feminism seriously when it allows everything, as long as women choose it? The whole point to begin with was that women were losing their minds pushing mops and strollers all day without a room or a salary of their own.”

Wow. Just wow.

I mean – the whole point of the feminist movement was allowing women the freedom of being able to choose because women were sick of having no choices, being treated as inferior beings, denied equal opportunities and treated disparately because of their gender.

And no, it wasn’t that women “were losing their minds” – merely that being treated as property (or children) by a patriarchal society, limited to narrow roles in home, schools, and the workforce was intolerable in a society that pretended to offer liberty and justice for all.

Got pregnant? You’re fired. Got married? You’re fired. Won’t have sex with me? You’re fired. Want sports? Forget it. Want to be a lawyer, a pilot, a doctor, a dentist, a firefighter? Forget it. Want equal pay? Gee, you’re cute when you’re angry.

“Let’s please be serious grown-ups: real feminists don’t depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.”

Whoa! She doesn’t even realize that real feminists often are men. And real feminists believe that opportunities and rights should not be denied or abridged on account of sex (which works for both genders – including Mr. Moms.)

This woman claims to be a lawyer – so she should be well acquainted with the established principle recognized by the courts that marriages are economic partnerships and each partner contributes value even if not a paycheck. And that, by law, it’s not “his” paycheck – it’s hers too.

All of which those same courts take into account when dividing assets in divorce proceedings. That male executive who worked his way up the corporate ladder to the multimillion dollar salary? He was able to do so because his worthless stay at home wife was his unpaid assistant, entertaining clients at dinner parties, organizing charitable fund-raising events, buying the gifts and sending the cards that resulted in profitable business deals, and taking care of their home so he could focus on business instead of the mundane details of life that drag people down – things like picking up the dry cleaning.

And it is those ladies – those stay-at-home wives in wealthy families (who, after all, don’t get a pay check) – who she uses to condemn all the fairer sex as failures unless they have a real job – you know, one with a real pay check. Without one you just aren’t equal. Because “there really is only one kind of equality … and it’s economic. If you can’t pay your own rent, you are not an adult. You are a dependent.”

[T]hese women are the reason their husbands think all women are dumb … As it happens, fewer than 5 percent of the CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies, 16 percent of corporate executives, and 17 percent of law partners are female. The men, the husbands of the 1 percent, are on trading floors or in office complexes with other men all day, and to the extent that they see anyone who isn’t male it’s pretty much just secretaries and assistants.”

There you have it: the reason women earn less than men, the reason women hit a glass ceiling, the reason women are not 51% of CEO’s, corporate executives, law partners – or elected officials – is their own fault. It has nothing to do with discrimination, with centuries of being chattel, of having few to no rights, with living in a society where the power continues to remain vested primarily with white males.

It’s all “because feminism has misread its mission of equality” and “being a mother isn’t really work.”

In other words: being equal means you don’t have the right to choose.

Get a job.

The What?

The Peeled Peddlers. The Bare Bicyclists. The Casual Coasters.

Welcome to Madison, Wisconsin, the state capital and home to lots of friendly, plain-speaking, down-to-earth people, hosting hearty mid-western events like the annual “Naked Bike Ride” where once a year people ride their bikes around town with the key distinction from bike rides the other 364 days of the year being that this time they do it without wearing any clothes.

Which leads to the first question: does that violate the health code?

Which leads to the second question: do these people disinfect their seats at the end of the ride? Because if they don’t that would be really disgusting.

Which leads to the third question (assuming they do disinfect their seats because if they don’t I’d have to digress to a distinctly different topic): isn’t it terribly uncomfortable, especially over the bumpy parts?

Which leads to the fourth question: does the sunscreen sting? (This is Madison so yes, they are probably wearing bike helmets. And sunscreen. Which is why I wondered about the stinging because I have sensitive skin so sunscreen stings me and that’s just on my face – I can’t imagine how bad it might be on places that normally never see daylight.)

Which leads to the fifth question: why in the world would anyone ride a bike naked?

Yes, I know the purported reasons: “a protest against the pervasive use of petroleum products and an affirmation of the beauty of the human body.” But they might want to rethink their approach: people riding bikes without clothing doesn’t exactly scream “we must stop the pervasive use of petroleum products.” Or affirm “the beauty of the human body.”

And yes, I know some bodies can be very beautiful. (Like this one. )

But then there’s most of us. Who are vivid reminders of the reasons why clothing was invented. I am solidly in this category. And so understand the benefits fabric offers, particularly in the art of camouflage.

But I do understand why some clothing-free people might feel compelled to circle the square (if you’re from here you’ll understand how that can be possible) on a Saturday morning in June as shoppers at the Dane County Farmers’ Market try not to gawk. (We’re Wisconsinites, so although we’re not used to seeing naked people riding bikes as we peruse produce, we do know it’s not polite to stare.)

Although one must wonder at the observer who insisted “I didn’t like it,” as he took photos of the naked bikers.

But next year – as a public service to those of us with inquiring minds – before they ride out perhaps they can answer questions1 through 4 first. And maybe they could get this guy to come.

Creepy Craigslist Ad of the Day*

*Yes – I know I’ve written about creepy craigslist ads before. Just read it. You won’t be “dissappointed.”

Costume models

I’m looking for girls that have sexy halloween costumes. Bring it over and model it for me. If you’re not going to wear it again next year I’ll buy that old costume so you can buy another sexy one next year. Even if you decide you want to keep the costume, come model it I can give you some gas money for your time.

if you’re interested let me know how old you are, and what the costume is. pictures of you in the costume are a plus. you won’t be dissappointed.

Spotlight On …

And now for a new monthly feature called “Spotlight,” where each month (more or less or as I jolly well feel like it) I’ll shine a light on one of the dark places where lunatics lounge about, hiding behind names like …

Concerned Women for America.

Isn’t that a lovely name?

What’s not to like? Women – concerned for America.

A comforting name that exudes wholesomeness. Mom. Apple Pie. Flags. Patriotism. Religious zealotry determined to convert our nation and the people in it to their rigid, intolerant, self-righteous belief system.

Whoa! What was that last bit?

That’s right: “concerned women” is exuding something but it ain’t milk and cookies. Nor is it all that wholesome. This is, after all, a bunch of people who want a church in every school: their church. The one they call Christian but which Christ wouldn’t recognize. Yes, far right wingnuts out to control America and reproductive freedom as they restore our great nation to its biblical roots.

As its revered founder, wealthy bible-toting Beverly LaHaye, has pronounced, our government is a government of, by and for the right kind of people – her kind: “Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.”

(She’s already rewritten her history book to delete any mention of the separation of church and state or the colonists’ concerns about keeping religion out of government because whenever that happens, beheadings and inquisitions tend to follow.)

That’s why she founded Concerned Women for America (CWA) – to make sure the right people are running this country. And, with any luck, deporting (although she’d prefer publicly executing – what she calls “sending to God”) everyone else, including anyone who is GLBT, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Native-Americans, non-practicing Catholics, Mormons, atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, anyone not actually born here on sacred American soil to two legal, red-blooded, married to each other and never divorced white American parents (mainland soil not foreign places like Hawaii), and Capricorns. Because she seeks “to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.” This means opposing anti-drug and alcohol abuse programs and supporting the teaching of Creationism and “Intelligent Design theory.” Because being an ignorant, drunken redneck is one of our traditional Biblical values.

After all, these are the people who remain convinced that the Girl Scouts (the nefarious group of young future feminists) is nothing more than a training organization for the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood. They also believe that Harry Potter is demon spawn (or perhaps Satan’s son), that feminism causes blindness and that abstinence-only sex education actually works.

Ms. LaHaye knows because the only possible explanation for the 2011 Centers for Disease Control report showing a 37% decrease in teen birth rates and a decrease in abortion rates (meaning – duh! – a decrease in teen pregnancies) is that “today’s teens are choosing abstinence.” It has nothing to do with comprehensive sex education that teaches teens how babies are made and how to keep that from happening. Those are forbidden subjects which got us tossed out of Eden.

No woman should have access to contraception or abortion because that would give women control over their bodies and allow them to choose whether or when to have children, interfering with God’s plan that women are to be submissive child bearers, while men get to be aggressive war mongerers, which is yet one more reason why Equal Rights Amendments (ERAs) are responsible for the breakdown of families: “The ERA proposes the elimination of our God-given roles as men and women, resulting in the redefinition — and eventual destruction — of family.”

And if feminism and equal rights weren’t enough of a threat to man’s continued survival as a fundamentalist species, we must remain ever vigilant to the dangers posed by the subversive forces behind the teletubbies.

As Ms. LaHaye reminds us, homosexuals “want their depraved ‘values’ to become our children’s values. Homosexuals expect society to embrace their immoral way of life. Worse yet, they are looking for new recruits!”

Because, as everyone knows, homosexuals have a voodoo army of trained hypnotists who, with a mere snap of their fingers, are transforming God-fearing heterosexuals everywhere into perverted, unnatural gay people who will spend all their time at cultural events which is just one more reason her group also seeks to defund the National Endowment for the Arts.

And which is why, even as you are reading this, the CWA launched a six-million dollar advertising campaign attacking President Obama’s health care plan in six swing states. Why? Because he was born in Hawaii – not here on sacred American soil to two legal, white, red-blooded American parents. (And of course she’s not a racist because after all some of her best maids are black.)

Why spend the money on misleading advertising instead of programs to help those in need? Because we need cleansing to be right with the Lord. That means being far-right. As in the new Paul Pressler School of Law at Louisiana College (where Ms. LaHaye is a member of the National Board of Reference), joining Liberty and Regent Law Schools in producing lawyers who will transform America into a new world order.

“This law school’s not going to be pumping out ambulance chasers, this is going to be pumping out liberal chasers, I mean we’re gonna track them down, wherever they are and we’re gonna defeat them, and if we can’t defeat them in the policy realm we’re gonna defeat them in the courts. This law school is gonna be pumping out God-fearing, American-loving, family-defending attorneys.”

You read it here first: “liberals” will be hunted. Possibly to extinction. Because clearly, they aren’t “god-fearing”, “American-loving”, or “family-defending.”

Does that sound like “concerned women” to you? Or more like a Jihad*?

Think about it.

*Jihad: a holy war against infidels*.

*Infidel: an unbeliever, a person who does not accept a particular faith, especially Christianity.

Is It Just Football Or Will Any College Sport Turn You Into An Idiot?

Warning: Strong Language Ahead!

Some people do bad things. Some people do really, really bad things. And some other people let them.

I am really pissed at all three groups, but after reading recent news reports it’s the last one that’s got me right royally pissed off at the moment.

Even people who have no interest in professional sports (yes – I include “college ball” in that category) are familiar with the Penn State sex abuse “scandal.” You know – the one involving former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting young boys – sometimes on university property – which university officials (including the revered football coach Joe Paterno) knew about but did not bother to report to authorities?

Oh yes – that “scandal.”

That, sir, was no scandal. A scandal is Saint Joe big caught dancing around his garage in a tutu and a pair of Manolos. A scandal is Saint Joe supplying steroids to his players. A scandal is Saint Joe being photographed romping on a beach with a woman not his wife, both of them wearing nothing but a smile. (Please note: none of the foregoing would have bothered his followers).

This, sir, was a crime.

And what really pisses me off: the actions of the people who could have stopped it but didn’t. Like the charming fellow who testified this week.

A decade ago, the then graduate football coaching assistant was in a campus locker room putting some shoes in his locker when he heard a “skin-on-skin smacking sound.” That’s when he noticed Sandusky raping a young boy.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but if I saw a child (or anyone for that matter) being raped, I’m grabbing a weapon (any weapon – a chair, a trashcan, whatever is handy – be creative) and I am going to stop the rape, probably while also screaming “stop that.”

So, did this fellow, who “had no doubt he was witnessing anal sex” between a naked 50-something Sandusky and a still unidentified 10 to 12 year old child, did he do that? Did he grab Sandusky and pull him off the young boy, rescue the victim by ending the assault?

No.

Did he call the police?

No.

Did he ever report it to law enforcement?

No.

What did he do after witnessing a child being raped by the assistant football coach?

He slammed his locker shut loudly “as if to say, ‘Someone’s here! Break it up!’ ”

Then, he went to his office “to try to make sense of what he had seen.”

Then, he “picked up the phone” and called his dad “to get advice from the person I trusted most in my life, because I just saw something ridiculous.”

Then, he reported the incident to Saint Joe, the head coach, the next day.

Then, nothing came of it. A child had been raped. A witness had seen it. And nothing came of it.

Can you imagine being that child?

Pinned against the wall. Frightened beyond all words. Hearing a noise and thinking help was coming?

But no one came.

And no one told.

And children kept being victimized.

All to protect a football program.

So yes – I am pissed.

A man growing old becomes a child again. Sophocles

Or dates one. Wisconsin Wit

I won’t say how old I am, but I am old enough to know better.  And one of the things I know better is than to date someone more than a decade younger – less depending on the dater’s age. If, for example, the “dater” is twenty, than the “datee” shouldn’t be younger than age 18. (Unless the “dater” wishes to risk “death by Dad” or a jail term.)  The window expands as the age increases until the gap reaches a maximum ten year age difference.

This is reasonable and greatly reduces the chance of embarrassing mishaps like a waiter asking if your great-granddaughter would like a lollipop. This happens. Really. Ask Hugh Hefner.*

It also means you might actually have something in common with the other person on the date, some familiar points of reference in the cultural universe instead of trying to bridge a generation gap answering awkward questions like “Al Gore? Who’s he” or “Jane Fonda? Isn’t she that lady in the adult diaper commercials?” And that’s before you even start to talk about music and learn the “datee” thinks any music from before 2010 is an “Oldies” tune. And then there’s the problem of finding an age appropriate activity that both parties can enjoy without going to an emergency room. Or of both being able to stay awake through dinner.

Look at almost any rich and famous male and then check out his companion. (And please note that when it’s an older woman-younger man people never say, “She’s a stud!” – it’s always something like, “She’s pathetic” or, more commonly, “Eeeewwww!!!!!”)

Which brings me to George Clooney.

I entered a contest in which the prize was two tickets to an exclusive private party at George’s home along with a gazillion other lucky winners. I could enter on-line, once a day, every day, during the time period the contest was open. I entered every day. (It turns out the President Obama would be there too but who cared? Sorry, Barry.)

I knew I would win. I didn’t. But if I had won, I knew exactly what I would have said to him when we were introduced. “George, it’s lovely to meet you. I’m a big fan. Why do you date children?”

George is 51 years old.  Granted he looks good for his age. He looks much better than he did at 20, or 30, or 40. That’s another one of those double standard things that kicks women in the butt. Men can get better with age. Women just age. But that’s another post.

The point is that he’s gray and grizzled. And under the ten year rule he should be dating women between the age of 41 and 61.

Instead, he dates a series of children. Presently it’s a 32 year old. Before that it was a 30 year old. Before that it was another 30 year old.

Yes, they’re all slender and photogenic. Yes, none of them have cellulite or stretch marks. But seriously, doesn’t he ever wonder why none of his relationships last?  Like maybe dating people who weren’t born until after he got out of high school might have something to do with it?

And then there’s that whole oedipal thing, which is another good reason for the ten year cutoff. I would never want to date anyone young enough to be my child. Not only does it completely creep me out, I would be spending my time correcting their manners and telling them to sit up straight. And would seriously wonder about the mental health of anyone willing to date someone that much older. Like thinking maybe they had some issues.

George – really – what did you think when your ex said, “he has been special for me, and very important, just as a father would be … between us there was more of a father-daughter relationship.”

George, all I am saying is give age a chance.

The fact that I’m in your optimum range has nothing to do with it.

*Yes, I know there are rare exceptions to the rule – there are ALWAYS exceptions unless we’re talking about gravity – but they still get weird comments from waiters.

Why Your Parents Will ALWAYS Worry About You

You’ve been visiting your mother. As you leave, she tries to give you food. She starts to pack a cooler. “I want to make sure you’re eating right. I worry about you. It’s cold outside. Here, take my coat.” You’re fifty-three years old and no, this will never stop.

Your parents worry about you. They will always worry about their children. Here’s one reason why: Lindsay Lohan. Here’s another: Charlie Sheen.

Here’s another – a recent news report: “US Students Survive 9 Days in New Zealand Bush.”

Two not uneducated young (and, it pains me to say, American) adults decided to take a stroll into the New Zealand wilderness in the middle of winter to visit some “hot springs, to chill out and study for finals.” Because, of course, everyone studies for finals in the New Zealand wilderness. In the middle of winter. You can’t go a mile without tripping over a desk and power outlet. And the country went Wi-Fi years ago after the sheep farmers complained about not being able to stream video of “Dancing with the Stars” during lambing season.

They carefully packed almost no supplies for their jaunt and ended up trapped by weather for more than a week, surviving by carefully rationing their limited supply of trail mix and – this is the really important part as anyone who owns a Jacuzzi knows – chilling out in a hot spring. They were, of course, a young couple. And the outing had nothing to do with curiosity about sex in a hot spring.

The mother of the male half of the couple panicked when she heard they were lost. “It’s too much for a mom.” Especially since no one knew they were lost for the first eight days. Because they hadn’t told their parents where they were going or when they would be back.

Here’s what his mom said to him after she finished panicking: “You went off into the wilderness in the middle of winter? Without tell us where you’d be? Or for how long? Didn’t we teach you better than that???? You haven’t got the sense God gave a goose!”

Even the parents of rich, successful people worry. They toss and turn and wonder where they went wrong. Newt Gingrich’s folks: “Moon colony? You told people you’d build a moon colony?” Rick Santorum’s: “Too late! We already googled it.” Rush Limbaugh’s: “Son, just so you know, we tell people it’s because of a childhood head injury.”

So we worry. Forever.

Right to Work … for Less!

To all those regular people who think unions are bad and we need right-to-work, here’s real life:

In the United States, we already have employment-at-will. If you aren’t in a union that means (with rare exceptions) you can be fired at any time for any reason. Or for no reason. Or not hired in the first place. And can be paid as little as the employer wants. With no benefits. And be forced to work as many or as few hours as the employer says. On any schedule. And under any conditions. Including verbal abuse. The only limitations are the ones the government imposes. Like anti-discrimination laws. And minimum wage laws. And worker protection laws. So if the employer does discriminate against you or lock you in or steal your overtime, if you can prove it, after going through a lengthy, expensive legal battle, they may have to pay you damages or pay a fine. Good luck with that.

Right to work is different. It exists solely to eliminate unions so you can be an employee-at-will once the union goes belly up. At which point you not only get your employment-at-will, your pay and benefits will go down.

Corporations exist to make profits. They increase profits the fastest by cutting their payroll costs. That means paying people to do more work while paying them less to do it. They do this with “downsizing” or outsourcing. And reward the corporate leaders who do this (cut costs and therefore improve profitability – at least on paper and for the short term) by giving them millions of dollars in compensation and bonuses.

Think they want to keep good people? Not if they can find ones who will work for less. Are you lucky to be in a field in demand where few people with your skills exist? Good for you – but 99% of us aren’t. And your situation will change when people flock to your field.

Think we don’t need unions? You won’t know how much we do until they’re gone.