McCain takes South Carolina

John McCain seems to be on a bit of a roll:

"John McCain won the South Carolina Republican primary Saturday, narrowly defeating Mike Huckabee in the state that dealt a huge blow to his presidential hopes in 2000.

"It just took us awhile, that's all," McCain said in an interview with the Associated Press. "Eight years is not a long time." [...]

"The closely contested state was crucial for Huckabee, who needed to prove his victory in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses was no fluke.

A former Baptist minister, Huckabee had hoped grass-roots support from born-again Christians would help him outflank McCain's superior campaign finances and organization of McCain, winner of the Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary.

Fred Thompson, at 16 percent, and Mitt Romney, at 15 percent, were in a tight race for a distant third place. Rudy Giuliani, once the national front-runner, had only 2 percent of the vote, half of that won by Ron Paul."

Well, that must feel good after what happened last time around. Clearly it left a mark:

"There’s no doubt that McCain’s 19 percent victory over Bush in New Hampshire caused a panic rethink strategy in the Bush team. Their response was to drop the “compassionate conservative” that had failed Bush in New Hampshire and wage a nonstop barrage of negative attacks to kill the messenger McCain. Nothing was too low to rule out."

Along with New Hampshire, South Carolina is considered a bellwether: no Republican has ever won the nomination without winning South Carolina. Hopefully, McCain's win will help neutralize the bible-whomping Huckabee, who was getting too close to the nomination for comfort. Hey -- Is it possible that GOPers have finally learned the perils of having "God in the White House"?

Not that I'd vote for McCain, but it would be refreshing for once to see a GOP candidate who wasn't, you know... NUTS.

Don't trust them

He might act purry and friendly to your face, but what's he thinking when you look away? Look at the evil expression on that vile little feline's face -- I wonder what he's got on his mind?

Anybody? Anybody?

Anybody want a vagina couch?

Yep, that's what I said.

Things that should be obvious, but for some reason, aren't

If I were an unemployed blogger who'd love nothing more than to be writing for a major national newspaper, I don't know that I'd be pointing and laughing at someone who's actually, um, you know, doing just that.

Just sayin'!!!

That analogy looks familiar

Cliff at Rusty Idols observes that The New Scientist compares climate change deniers to "pro-slave traders":

"From The New Scientist, a researcher compares the arguments against taking action on climate change with arguments made in the 1800's against abolishing slavery.

Marc Davidson of the philosophy department at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands has decided to compare the rhetoric used by US climate "deniers" to that of early 19th century congressional debates on the abolition of slavery."

This hyperbole may prompt howls of outrage, but not because the analogy itself is so ridiculous -- the climate change deniers are, for the most part, the same nitwits who've been using the ridiculous "slave trade" analogy about abortion.

My sage advice (ha) would be that any thinking person should steer clear of such absurd analogies... as evidenced by the success of the anti-abortion movement, it's not helpful.

Those bastards

The librul lieberal librano media is at it again, or should I say "not" at it again, ignoring The Biggest Story of The Year. Those leftist moonbat dhimmi terrorist-appeasing freedom-hating pricks!

Not satisfied with the disproportionate amount of attention given to his AHRC tantrum by the boogiesphere, Ezra Levant fumes: "Why isn't this story being covered by the mainstream media??" Well, who could have seen that coming? (Hint: anyone with even a passing familiarity with the behaviour of the increasingly-common conservative sub-species Drama Regina.)

Next up: "Why hasn't Hollywood made this story into a blockbuster Golden Globe/Peoples' Choice/Oscar/Nobel Peace Prize-winning movie!??"

Vindication

Clowns: ugh! Most of my life I've hated and feared these odious creatures. Rewind to 1958, the Santa Claus parade in Toronto. A 4-year-old Me stood with my grandmother watching the parade go by, when suddenly a passing clown bent towards me, his vicious leering face just inches away from mine, and yelled out something like "Bleeahh!" as he went by. The psychological damage is with me to this day -- clowns really, really creep me out.

Fast forward to today, and the truth about clowns is coming out -- I'm not the only one with Clownaphobia:

"The news that will no doubt have clowns shedding tears was revealed in a poll of youngsters by researchers from the University of Sheffield who were examining how to improve the decor of hospital children's wards.

The study, reported in the Nursing Standard magazine, found all the 250 patients aged between four and 16 they quizzed disliked the use of clowns, with even the older ones finding them scary.

"As adults we make assumptions about what works for children," said Penny Curtis, a senior lecturer in research at the university.

"We found that clowns are universally disliked by children. Some found them quite frightening and unknowable.""

"Universally disliked". I feel so validated.

This spring's colour is "late-term"

Speaking of free speech, here's some freedom of the press that's got anti-choicers' panties all in a twist. (Like I said, they're all in favour of free speech as long as it's their free speech.)

Vogue Magazine recently ran a photo spread in which the subject talked about her pregnancy that was terminated late-term. Only an anti-choice nutter could construe this as being an attempt by Vogue to make the dreaded late-term abortion "fashionable":

"Vogue is feeling the heat of religious and pro-life organizations over an article these groups say promotes partial-birth abortions with a photo shoot that makes the subject appear fashionable.

"Private Lives," a column which appears in the January issue of Vogue, was written by Lori Campbell, a New York woman who in 1998 was advised by her doctors to have an abortion 22 weeks into her pregnancy after being told the baby would not survive." [...]

"Some pro-life and religious groups argue that the article promotes the controversial abortion procedure.

"Cleverly marketing legal abortion as a boon to women's emancipation has been the most important task of the abortion industry and lobby for 30 years," one pro-life blogger wrote. "In this month's edition, the gruesome procedure of partial birth abortion has been given a style makeover by the world's most influential fashion magazine, Vogue."

I am serious when I say "dreaded" -- nobody has an abortion at 5 months because they just suddenly decide "Meh, I don't want to do this anymore". It's almost always a wanted pregnancy that has to be terminated due to health reasons, either for the mother or because the fetus itself is damaged or non-viable. Hardly something that women would consider the ultimate fashion accessory. A "style makeover"? Yeah, and the next time I read about someone with ovarian cancer, I'll sure be wanting some of that for my spring wardrobe. Nitwits!

Government considering privatizing AECL?

Well? Are they?

"Political and industry sources suggest the Chalk River crisis was very timely for the government, breaking just as it mulled transferring AECL, and its voracious appetite for federal cash, to the private sector. The isotope issue allowed the government to impugn a regulator that has acted as an obstacle to that privatization."

Because if they are, that's not good news.

Some businesses are suitable for the private sector -- selling burgers, or clothing, or appliances, or cars. But in any private enterprise, quality and efficiency comes second to making a profit. If a profit motive was introduced to our nuclear facilities by way of privatization, wouldn't it compromise safety?

Some links you just don't click

Sometimes it just doesn't pay to click on links because they yield a glance at some of the most execrable thought processes imaginable, potentially damaging if it's just not my day to deal with execrable thought processes.

Thanks to Lulu at CC's and my own seemingly uncontrollable click reflex, today I was treated to what was a typically odious thread from the Angry Villagers. This one was chock-full of hate-fueled comments mocking the unfortunates who've fallen ill to the flesh-eating disease that's currently burning its way through gay communities in cities like San Francisco. The comments offered up everything from suggestions for the colour of a ribbon for the disease... ...to a lecture on Pure Godly Normal Sex 101:

(No ear sex? Wow. Sad.)

The comments rolled along with such depressing vileness that I'd almost fallen into despair for the human race, until:

Hahahaha! Thanks for that, whoever you may be!

iWant

Apple introduces the World's Thinnest Laptop:

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - Apple chief executive Steve Jobs on Tuesday unveiled an ultra-slim MacBook Air laptop computer that he billed as the world's leanest laptop.

In trademark theatrical style at the Macworld Expo opening in San Francisco, Jobs slid the laptop from a brown envelope typically used for inter-office mail.

A packed audience of notoriously cultish "Macintosh faithful" whistled, hooted and cheered for the laptop which came with a price tag of 1,799 dollars.

"Notoriously cultish"? Well, why not?

Xtian Government weighs in

I've already given this guy half an hour more than he's worth, but I can't resist commenting on the reaction of my friends at Christian Government dot ca. Of all the heart-stopping, hysterical hyperbole I've seen about Ezra's Excellent HRC Adventure, my weekly email from CG wins the prize. Just look at this liver-quivering headline:

"Terrorist structure"?! Great snappin' assholes! That got my attention. What could they possibly follow that up with? The delusional nitwit continues:

"Ezra is withering", tee-hee. Maybe it's the cold? But never mind that:

Okay, we get ya. What do they strike? They strike terror. No, make that Terror!, they strike Terror! And:

Canada's Gestapo? Unrepentant freedom-haters? These bozos are out of control with paranoid hysteria. It kind of makes a case for the aerial spraying of Prozac over certain parts of the country (I won't say which parts at the risk of getting swarmed -- yeah, so much for free fucking speech, eh?).

I find it comically ironic that these Christian Government creeps, who advocate blending church and state ("Tear down that wall, Mr. Harper!") are chanting "freedom freedom freedom", when their ideal government would deny freedom to so many. Although I'm sure it would allow the freedom to slag minorities at every opportunity.

Of douchebags and drama queens

Who knew that publishing some half-assed cartoons could put someone on the path to martyrdom? The newly- (and largely self-) appointed Patron Saint of Conservative Persecution, Ezra Levant, had his day in what he and his sycophants refer to as "Kangaroo Kourt"(*snicker*) at the Alberta Human Rights Commission on Friday. The AHRC was getting Levant's side of the story as it investigates the viability of a complaint made against Levant's odious "Western Standard" for publishing the Danish "Muhammad cartoons" that enraged European Muslims a couple of years ago. ("Defiantly" rerun by St. Ezra a few days ago. Whew -- I can hear AC/DC now: "Who's got big balls!?" Whoever would have expected testicles of such cantaloupian proportions on that nerdy little Ezra guy. I'm, you know, impressed. Or something.)

No doubt Levant originally published the cartoons for the express purpose of injecting some opportunistic buzz into the failing health of the Standard, and it couldn't have played out better. In lieu of the bombs and burning cars he was probably hoping for, a human rights complaint would do. The fact that Levant went out of his way to make an unnecessary personal appearance at the AHRC (with cameras rolling to capture his carefully-scripted pontifications) should have clued someone into the fact that they were being played, but... well, remember Saddam? The people falling for Levant's histrionics are the same people who allow themselves to be led by the nose into illegal wars. They're malleable, to say the least. Add their existing persecution complexes, and the stage was set. Enter the Drama Queen.

Levant's visit with the AHRC wasn't a "hearing" as much as a first step in determining whether the complaint against him even holds any water (hint: it doesn't). Levant is a lawyer -- he knows good and well how much liability he actually has in this case. That's probably why he chose to make a personal appearance (accompanied by cameras) at such an early stage -- he knows this will be his only opportunity to make hay, so he's Drama-Queening it up. It would hardly be worth comment except that it's brought up the issue of free speech.

I think the complaint against Levant is frivolous -- however, taken in context with the Standard's pattern of behaviour it's easy to see how it came about. From the combox of the Standard's Shotgun Blog, October 2006:

"Nuke 'em"? (Who else but RG?) And that's just an abbreviated sample. There's no doubt some of the comments in that thread constitute hate speech, some of it so noxious that even another wanked-out conservative complained:

Of course this Moderate Voice of Reason was immediately called out as a "leftist" ("leftist" -- who the fuck says "leftist" anymore? Hey buddy, the McCarthy Era called, they want their word back). Well, so much for free speech! Complaints notwithstanding, these comments are fairly typical of the kind of discourse the Standard not only allows but encourages. It's not hard to see how someone might eventually reach critical mass with these mouthy morons and fire off a human rights complaint. Publishing cartoons -- meh. Advocating genocide -- not so meh.

As I've said here before, one of the reasons I'm not crazy about hate speech legislation is that it can open the door to so much abuse (which includes giving pompous assholes like Levant the opportunity to set themselves up as martyrs). But at the same time, I believe our minorities have the right to live peacefully without being subjected to bigotry. Because a scurvy, scummy little cadre of nitwits insists on being such bigoted douchebags, the unfortunate reality is that those who feel threatened need some avenue to address their concerns.

While the right to free speech comes with an implied responsibility not to be a jerk about it, there'll always be someone happy to invoke their right to be an asshole. The question is whether the right to be an asshole supercedes a minority's right to live free from abuse.

Update: Via the comments at Dr. Dawg's: See? It's only free speech when it's their free speech. Tsk tsk.

Alright you thugs

Fess up.

From Lifeshite, yet another persecution report:

Paintball!? Dare I inquire as to the kind of ammo used? Should I send a Letter To The Editor to speculate on it?

Lifeshite needs your help

Lookee here... that odorific pit of social conservative putrescence, the online Book of Batshit known as 'Lifesite' (as opposed to what? Oh yeah -- 'Culture of Deathsite'), needs our help!(!!!) Lifesite is now soliciting for Letters to the Editor (or "Letters" to the "Editor" in Lifesite-ese):

Oh. Oooh. Ahhh... AhahaHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh yeah!... I'll get right on that, toot-sweet (and I'll try my best to be civil. *snort*)

Why I'm Pro-Choice... (til the shit hits the fan)

Never has someone caved so quickly to so few for so little.

I speak somewhat belatedly of the post in The Fifth Column the other day titled "Why I Am Pro-Choice". It delved into some of the grisly and counterproductive tactics of the anti-choice movement; their violence, over-the-top rhetoric and gory graphics shoved in the face of anyone within reach. Predictably, the blog was set upon by anti-choicers who spat out some insults, cried a little, lied a little... and were immediately rebutted by the blogger. What?! Oh wait...

No, not a word of rebuttal. Instead of taking the anti-choicers to task for arrogance and ignorance that any progressive would be at odds with, The Fifth Column decided on a compromise with them in his next post, "The Ugly Side of Pro-Choice". The intention of the follow-up post was to show that as bad as anti-choicers are, pro-choicers are equally depraved with our inflammatory rhetoric, gory graphics, doctor shootings, medical staff stalking, and clinic bombings... err... what? Whoops! Nope, guess not! With all the feces they throw at us, the most unthinkably vile thing we do in return is to use an "uncivil" but humourous term -- "fetus fetishists" -- to describe the rabid authoritarian dingbats.

Well, boo friggin' hoo. Our right to conduct our reproductive business as we see fit is attacked on a daily basis, both verbally and physically, by anti-choicers. Apart from the stalkings, shootings and bombings, you want rhetoric? They got rhetoric coming out of their assholes: "pro-abort" (everyone must abort! Abort! Abort!), "murderer", "baby-killer", "culture of death" fer gawdsake (SHRIEEEEK!), and a medical procedure referred to in all seriousness as a "holocaust", to name just a few. And the difference between us and them is that they are serious.

To infer that our use of humour is the equivalent of incendiary anti-abortion rhetoric that sometimes spins into violence is a grave error and insult to those who man the barricades in the pro-choice movement. All things considered, the fact that we have any sense of humour left at all should be considered a good thing.

I'm all for dialogue when it's possible, but The Fifth Column was reaching for middle ground where there is none, and in doing so managed to insult those he claims to be allied with. We don't ask for absolute, unconditional toeing of the line, but we do expect that our pro-choice allies at least try to understand the difference between our defensive use of humour and the raw sewage anti-choicers fire in our direction daily. Insinuating that we're no different from them, or that we "trivialize" pregnancy with our use of humour, starts to sound an awful lot like someone who talks the talk but gracelessly caves when faced with any opposition. That's not how you fight authoritarianism: to acquiese to such people is not an option.

Let 'em howl. And another thing. What she said.

But the last word goes to Dave.

(h/t fern hill at birth pangs)

Cold & Flu Report

Sidelined! I've picked up some kind of ugly, vicious little bug that's currently rampaging its way through my digestive system and pummeling my brain like a jackhammer. Bastardo! An occupational hazard of working in a situation that demands face-to-face contact with people who feel it's not just their right but their obligation to spray me with snot at every opportunity. Good thing I am so well-paid! *snort*

There will be some brown-bag blogging today between bathroom engagements. Meanwhile, it's a struggle between good and it's a struggle between evil. Any suggestions of how I might win this interior war on terror would be most gratefully received. My Secret Potion* doesn't seem to be working.

*Mint tea, honey, lemon juice, ground garlic and remy-martin

Some Wednesday Weird

With friends like these...

"Detective Travis Rapp knew something was clearly wrong when he looked out the window of the restaurant where he was having lunch. Two men were wheeling their friend down a Manhattan street in a red office chair, and a crowd of suspicious onlookers began to congregate around the lifeless figure." [...]

"As it turns out, his instincts were right. The man was dead, and two of his friends had hauled his corpse to a store to cash his $355 Social Security check, police said. They were arrested before they could get the money." [...]

"The trouble began Tuesday when Dalaia and O'Hare tried to cash Virgilio Cintron's check at a store in Hell's Kitchen on their own, police said. The man at the counter told them that Cintron had to be present to cash the check, so they went back to his apartment, which one of the suspects shared with the dead man.

Cintron was apparently undressed when he died, sometime within the previous 24 hours. Police said Dalaia and O'Hare proceeded to dress him in a faded T-shirt, pants they could only get up part way, and a pair of Velcro sneakers. They threw a coat over his waist to conceal what the pants couldn't cover, police said."

Watch for this story to be adapted into the next "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequel, "Dead Man's Cheque". (Yeah I know, groan.)

New Hampshire

Wow. These primaries in the US right now are like a roller-coaster. Last night's win for Hillary Clinton put the Dems back on what many assume (happily or not) to be a pre-destined path. But McCain's win came from out of the blue.

Hillary's teary moment the other night might have helped her. But really it was the women, specifically the my-age women, showing up in force in NH that put Hillary back on top. Also, the same people who were offended by what seemed to be the "coronation" of Hillary might have been just as offended by the media's subsequent "coronation" of Obama. The same goes for Giuliani on the GOP side -- voters apparently aren't impressed by the 24/7 Giuliani campaign commercial that Fox News has been running.

McCain -- a sigh of relief from me that he's even still in the running, because out of the entire GOP circus of fools, he's probably the least toxic. If only because he's not, you know, insane. His past characterization of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" scored a point with me, as well as his opposition to torture. ("Opposition to torture" -- I can't believe I even have to write that.) That said, McCain's done his fair share of pandering to stay in the race, but somehow he just seems less blatantly offensive than Giuliani, Huckabee and the torpid Thompson (who's just cut his staff's salaries, not a good sign, but McCain did the same last summer).

The most significant development in all of this seems to be the volatile mood of the voters... the old tricks aren't working anymore. After 8 years of being led by the nose by the Bush administration and its media cohorts with disastrous results, the electorate is recalcitrant and snarly, and emphatically showing its independence. Regardless of who you favour in this horse race, that has to be a good thing.

Blog stats raise questions

What possible reason could someone have for searching my blog for the c-word?

Huh?

BANNED! -- that's just too creepy and weird, even for me. (Note: Surprisingly, on this entire blog I've only used the c-word 4 times, and one of those was about Ann Coulter, which doesn't really count.)

Post-abortive men: Silent No More

The fetus fetishizing train has truly jumped the tracks of sanity with its latest "victim of abortion" propaganda strategy. The newest silent-no-more "victims" of abortion: oh, yeah! Men!

Apparently the weepy victimhood of the "Silent No More" crew of fucked up post-abortive anti-choice women has failed to garner sufficient public sympathy -- something due in no small part to the fact that the vast majority of women who have abortions have no regrets at all. Would it be rude to suggest that the small minority who do harbour such guilt and indulge it so publicly likely had pre-existing psychological issues that would have revealed themselves eventually anyway, with or without an abortion? But abortion makes a good fall guy, an event they can isolate, point at and say "That's when I went fucking nuts":

"Arias, who is 53, often wears silver hoop earrings and low black boots, and she has a weakness for edgy zingers. She started doing post-abortion counseling 15 years ago. After what she describes as a revelation from God, she decided that her own pain and unhappiness were rooted in the abortion she had in 1973, when she was 19. “It was the year Roe v. Wade was decided, and I remember saying, ‘No guy in Washington is going to tell me what to do with my body!’ ” Arias said with a sharp laugh as we were driving. But after the procedure, she says, strange feelings washed over her. “I remember having evil thoughts, about hurting children,” she said. “It was like I’d done the worst thing I could possibly do. A piece of evil had entered me.”

Whoa: Meds, stat! Despite the hysterical hyperbole, it seems that so-called "Post-Abortive Syndrome" is largely an invention of the anti-choice movement itself, a "condition" knowingly foisted upon the psychologically vulnerable to serve an ideological agenda. How compassionate of them.

"When Arias talks about the effects of abortion, she’s so fervent that it’s hard to maintain her gaze. But the idea that abortion is at the root of women’s psychological ills is not supported by the bulk of the research. Instead, the scientific evidence strongly shows that abortion does not increase the risk of depression, drug abuse or any other psychological problem any more than having an unwanted pregnancy or giving birth."

Research? Facts?! Hell no, don't let pissy little things like The Facts get in the way of a good (or even not-so-good) fetus-fetishizing strategy. Maybe this is why they've called in the Reinforcements and now have men entering the imaginary guilt-ridden post-abortive fray... call the waahhhmbulance!:

"We had abortions," said Mark B. Morrow, a Christian counselor. "I've had abortions." Morrow spoke to more than 150 antiabortion activists gathered recently in San Francisco for what was billed as the first national conference on men and abortion. Participants -- mostly counselors and clergy -- heard two days of lectures on topics such as "Medicating the Pain of Lost Fatherhood" and "Forgiveness Therapy With Post-Abortion Men."

150 activists, mostly counselors and clergy, not exactly what I'd call a "burgeoning" movement. And if reality-based research shows that "post-abortive syndrome" doesn't even exist in women, good luck proving it exists in men. But anti-choicers got away with making a fairly big deal out of PAS despite all the evidence against its existence, so who knows? They'll certainly be trying to gain some traction for this new and idiotic fantasy condition as well. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see them add the family dog into the goofy "Abortion Hurts" equation.

Update: When replying to a commenter, it occurred to me that the fetishists might well be shooting themselves in the foot with this latest tactic. In Canada, ever since Tremblay v. Daigle (which ruled men couldn't file injunctions to stop abortions), anti-choice men have been whining for legal recognition of their "right" to be part of the abortion decision-making process. (In other words, their "right" to interfere with a woman's decision to abort; pro-choice men don't seem to have a problem with it.) I can't believe the "post-abortive men" routine will be helpful to that end. Just sayin'.

(h/t birth pangs) (And more from The Galloping Beaver) (And a round-up at The Vanity Press)

Playing with right-wing humour

Most of us are familiar with that painfully unfunny right-wing cartoon, Day By Day. So boring, dull and dry, so not even the least bit humourous... so sexist. To wit:

Har. And so it goes. Several bloggers have taken a helpful run at making Day By Day funny, but I'm not that ambitious or that funny. I thought it might be interesting, though, to see what it would look like if it was written in a different style. What if DBD was written in the style of, say, Charles Bukowski?

Or what about HST?

Yeah, pretty lame, but lamer than the original? Hmm.

From the "So What" department

A story that stopped qualifying as "Weird News" 20 years ago: "60 -year-old accused in acid bust":

"Charges are pending against a 60-year-old St. John's resident after a large quantity of LSD was found during a bust Friday afternoon.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary said it seized the hallucinogenic drugs, a small amount of marijuana and about $37,000 in cash during the raid on a house in the east end."

The headline in particular seems to indicate that the accused's age is an unusual or quirky enough aspect of the story to rate special attention. Please.

When I was in my 30's I knew a couple of growers who were my mother's age; at the time, these elder statesmen of the drug culture were a definite anomaly. But fast forward 20 years (and "fast" forward is quite apt in this context), and m-m-my g-g-g-generation is closing in on r-r-r-retirement age. When the first baby boomers are turning 63 this year, a 60-year-old drug dealer isn't that unusual.

It's just what happens when people are thrust by decades of bad drug legislation into an endless loop of crime and punishment.

"US doomed if creationist president elected"

Say the scientists of NAS. Well, no shit Sherlock:

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."

Fortunately, Huckabee doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting anywhere near the White House. After the NH debates last night, I'm starting to wonder if any Republican does.

Tee-hee-hee

Why we still need feminism (reason #4,763):Yes, that's a kiddies' T-shirt. A toddler-size kiddies' T-shirt. With shit like this around, anyone who doubts that there's still an urgent need for feminism needs to crowbar their head out of their ass. Use a jackhammer, if necessary.

(from feministing)

HAHAHAHA! The comments!

Let's pick up where we left off yesterday on that little anti-choice horror story about fetus-eating in China. When I first posted about it, I didn't read the comments made by Stanek's drooling, slackjawed fetus fetishist constituency, and it looks like they weighed in on it hot and heavy.

Astonishingly, most took the bizarre story at face value -- and rather than check Snopes to see if it might just be, you know, bullshit, began scouring the web for more evidence to support it. And of course, theorizing about how pro-choicers would defend the practice of scarfing down fricassee of fetus:Because, of course, we're just not logical, like the fetus fetishists:Yes yes, pro-choicers think fetus is just "the other white meat", the only question being whether to BBQ or stir fry. The debate raged on, and eventually someone made a connection between fetus-eating and... take a guess... gay marriage! (But you already knew that was coming, right?):Yeeeooowwwww! That was all I could stand before I had to take a break from The Stupid. Because, to paraphrase Canadian Cynic, "It burns!"

UPDATE: We may be illogical and driven by a lust for power (and a taste for fetus) but we're creative and generous to a fault! Balbulican at StageLeft has come up with a logo for the fetus brigade, one that proudly announces their True Agenda.

Batshit alert!!!!

Okay, this is it. The fetus fetishists have crossed the line, gone over the edge, snapped and lost it completely. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Update: D'oh! Jill probably should have checked Snopes before hitting the "Post" button. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good fetus-eating scare story?

(via feministe)

Surrounded

Some fetus fetishist stopped by here this morning via a feverish google search for "Stop Planned Parenthood Denver". When I clicked on the link:Holy fetus on a fork, look at that page! I'm surrounded with batshit craziness! (You'll notice SUZANNE's right up there in the thick of things, shrieking and carrying on about "abortuaries".) Oh well, hope they enjoyed their visit. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *Waves*

New blog for AZ

Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias has a new blog, "Broadsides", where she'll be blogging about feminism, fitness, and probably a lot of other F's. Check it out. And welcome back to Blogistan, AZ!

"They're Coming To Your Town!"

Those krazy kristians at the American Family Association are ringing the warning bell about a devastating threat -- SHRIEEEEEK! -- that's on its way to Your Town! The AFA recently sent out an email flogging a new DVD that warns of an Impending Invasion of... illegal immigrants? Nope. Swarthy Terrorists? Guess again! It's...
... homos and lezzies and queers, oh my! Check out the DVD trailer... if you dare! SHRIEEEEEEEEK!

SHRIEEEEEEEEEEK!!!

(from Good As You, via Pandagon ... SHRIEEEEEEK!)

Dog Farts

Holy malodourous malamute, batman! Peeyewwie, what's with my dog! She's driven me out of my computer room to my laptop, and now, faithful dog that she is, she's lying at my feet cranking them out again. I wonder what she ate?? I'm thinking she found some small dead animal in the yard and scarfed it down... auughh, this is so bad. Help... eyes watering... choking... dizzy... blacking ou

Death to the Nuclear Family! - Synopsis

Every time I thought I was out... they pulled me back in. But anyway...

After some of us spent a little time debunking various points in Raphael's hyperbolically-titled post, "The Rise of Feminism and the Fall of the Family", some conclusions:

1. RA's assertion that women in the work force is a cause of lower birthrates is correct (although it's far from the only cause). And so what? Lower birth rate, despite what the scare-mongers would have us believe, doesn't equal the imminent collapse of the nuclear family, and with it, civilization. It only means the family construct is adapting and evolving, as is society in general.

2. As anyone possessing a uterus (past or present) can attest to, RA's assumption that there's some kind of biological imperative for women to "do their duty" and contribute to "population replacement" is a stenchy, steaming load. Just because we can doesn't mean we have to, or even want to. Certainly we have no patriotic obligation to breed. Anyway, feminism didn't convince women to take a pass on breeding -- it only showed us we had other options, which many of us were only too happy to choose.

3. RA is way off in his tangent that supposes the social conservatism of the middle east means less of the societal ailments that plague the feminist-infested west. Dave explains.

4. RA's assertion that the nuclear family is somehow superior to other family constructs is mistaken. Family structure evolves according to the demands made on it by the ambient economy. The nuclear family evolved out of modern-day luxury and will continue to evolve in response to economic demand.

5. RA has a valid point in that parenthood isn't as highly valued as career. Who wants to line up with the kids for an allowance every Friday? Who wants to be financially beholden to anyone? (Hint: not me.) But does he realize that paying stay-at-home parents for their work was an early feminist proposal? The notion was rejected primarily because it ran counter to corporate interest -- which is having a huge pool of available labour to drive down labour costs and break unions. (For the same reason, Xenophobes should assign blame for what they see as an "immigration problem" squarely on major corporations, not on feminists refusing to breed.)

6. Wise up RA, it's a new day (and didn't I say this 30 years ago?) Women long ago discovered that they too can follow their bliss and be the best they can be -- whether it's as a homemaker or a hematologist, mother or mechanic. Or all. If it means less kids in the scenario, tough. If men want more kids than women are willing to deliver, they should lobby medical research to find a way for men to get pregnant, 'cause we ain't goin' back, baby.

Now stop bothering me, I've got a top-end engine rebuild to finish.

Death to the Nuclear Family!

Okay, just kidding. Obviously. But some (I'm looking at you, Raph) seem to believe this is indeed the battle cry of some imaginary Feminist Jihad against all that was Good and Perfect "Back In The Day". You know, the age of Beaver Cleaverism before the darkness of feminism descended upon the earth and women suddenly tore off their aprons and became lesbians, witches and pagans. Or worse yet, entered the work force and became financially independent. Life has apparently taken a major shit since women gained a little self-determination... and the fact that I'm even writing about this today shows that we've got a ways to go.

In a somewhat bizarre and byzantine hypothesis based on the idea that Feminism is destroying the Family(!?), Raphael posits that there's a correlation between the rise of feminism and the "fall of the family" -- if indeed the family has fallen, which in itself seems like kind of an absurd notion since I see families all around me. As anyone familiar with statistics knows, correlation is not causation, but you wouldn't know it by Raphael's post, which seems to blame every ill visited upon society since the latter 20th century on Teh Feminism. But before I start my evisceration, I need to know if I'm (hopefully) misunderstanding the idea of RA's post.

As far as I can see, it runs something like this:

1. Rosie the Riveter gets the Women In The Workforce ball rolling during WWII. Ball gains momentum until...*
1(i). ... BOOM! Feminism arrives in a big way in the 60s
2. Women begin entering the workforce in record numbers
3. Women enjoy financial independence (well, duh!), and start choosing careers over their Rightful Place in The Home
4. Correspondingly, women choose to have smaller families to accommodate their careers (thank you, Ortho-Novum, and thank you, Dr. Morgentaler)
5. The dual-income marriage, while not allowing the time for a lot of kids, allows for the buying of mucho consumer toys, which at some point becomes addictive(?)
6. An increasingly consumption-oriented society forces the cost of living to rise

(At this point, there's a decade or two of the vicious revolving circle of work, buy, work, buy, work, buy etc., which causes the cost of living to spiral astronomically.)

7. The economy eventually demands that both partners in a marriage be earners just to accomplish what could have been done on one salary in the 50's.
8. This seals the fate of the family, which has shrunk from the 3- or 4-child situations of the 50s to 2.5 or less (or 1.8 or 2.2 or whatever the fuck).
9. The state deals with a diminishing population by allowing Immigration to rise to "Holy Shit! We're Being Overrun!" levels. Now, not only the family, but Our Way Of Life As We Know It is threatened...

SHRIEEEEEEEEEK!!!

10. The collapse of civilization, and all because those bitches wouldn't stay in the kitchen. Have I got that about right, Raph? (I sure hope not.)

*Thanks to Scotian in the comments for pointing this out to me.

It's a new day

So 2007 has been relegated to the dustbins of history, and not a moment too soon. It wasn't as bad a year for me personally as some others -- no deaths in the family, no husbands hitting the road -- but outside of my personal realm it was a weird year nonetheless.

Divisive Rove-style politics and rhetoric arrived in Canada with the splash of a turd hitting the toilet bowl water. The gap between "conservative" and "liberal" grew ever wider and the volume got turned up to a low shriek. Authoritarianism sped up from a slow creep to a steady canter as cops used deadly weapons on the citizens they're paid to protect in unprecedented numbers. The busybody faithful, unfortunately not raptured, continued to insist in increasingly strident tones on their right to denigrate minorities and interfere in the private lives of others. Around the world, war continued to claim the lives of soldiers and citizens, and people continued, inexplicably, to support it. Looking back, it reads like a laundry list of all that's wrong, bad and stupid in the world.

Or maybe a "To Do" list. Rest up today, there's a lot of work to be done starting tomorrow.