Masturbate To Christine O'Donnell Day

If you haven't yet heard, Christine O'Donnell is the newly minted Republican nominee in Delaware's U.S. Senate special election to fill Joe Biden's former seat. She was endorsed by the Tea Party and Sarah Palin and beat out moderate Republican and former governor Mike Castle for the nomination. But this isn't her first foray into public life: Rachel Maddow recently dug up a clip from MTV's decade old series Sex in the '90's (which, coincidentally, is the same decade yours truly started having sex), specifically the episode entitled "The Safest Sex of All":


My favorite part of this is her theory at the end there that if guys masturbate then they will have no use for sexual relations with women. Makes sense: what guy would want to eat filet mignon when he can have Hamburger Helper anytime he wants? OK, it's actually one of the dumbest theories on sex that I've ever heard and is only disproven by both evolution and the vast history of human existence. Have I mentioned before how incredibly stupid I think religion is? Yeah? OK, good. Anyway, this flashback video inspired the following comment from a reader on Dan Savage's sex advice blog at the Stranger:

The time has come for you to use your influence to pick a day between now and the November election, and declare it "Masturbate to Christine O'Donnell Day" in either the state of Delaware or the entire United States of America. If there needs to be a male equivalent, so be it. This needs to happen, and you're the only guy who can do it.

Hiding At The Elusive Fuzz Under Christine's Knockers

The "male equivalent" caveat is because Savage is gay but I intend to pick up the heterosexual slack myself. Absent an officially announced date I hereby pledge that this wanton act will be performed at least once by myself sometime before the general election in November, hopefully with "What If God Was One Of Us" playing softly in the background (but I reserve the right to forego listening to that song if it makes everything seem too weird, which it almost assuredly will). I've already worked out several hot O'Donnell/Palin/Bachmann lesbo cougar scenarios that I won't go into any further here but rest assured, it will be the safest sex of all. I just hope they all still respect me in the morning.

Sucker Punch Trailer

I have no idea what this movie is about but I'm fairly certain that I'm going to end up seeing it:


(via)

Palin's 2012 Presidential Bid In Taiwanese CGI

Finally, a news organization has captured the essence of Sarah Palin's charisma and the dignity of the American political process:

The good people at NMA News, the Taiwanese news service that made a name for itself with its bizarre computer animated coverage of, among other things, the Al Gore scandal and January’s Late Night Wars, is back with a vengeance, and this time they’ve set their eyes on Sarah Palin’s 2012 prospects.

Well, at least that’s what we assume this video is about from its title, “Is Sarah Palin Gunning for 2012?” In terms of the actual content, it’s mostly Palin pole dancing in a bikini, shooting moose with a machine gun from a helicopter and parachuting herself into a “teabagger rally.” There is also a rendition of “Keeping Up with the Palins” (presumably a Wasilla-based reality TV show) depicting the Palin family smoking illicit substances and yelling at each other, and a dramatization of the suffering of William Shakespeare’s ghost as he watches Palin “refudiate” the Ground Zero mosque.

What, too real?

Obscenity vs Freedom Of Expression

A video made by Reason.tv found at my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas' site American Power, posted without commentary because Don supposedly hates the encroachment of government into our personal lives (like any good tea partier) yet also thinks there are things it should protect adults from for our own good (like any good Republican), hence the lack of a stated opinion either way. Regardless though what's happening to John Stagliano in America today is a crime not only against personal liberty but also against free speech rights. Yes, pornography is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. I don't know about you but I'm having a hard time hearing the shouts of outrage from anti-government, personal freedom loving tea party types when it comes to protecting the civil liberties of people like this man:

Happy 4th Of July

I've decided that I'm going to make posting this picture on July 4th my own little blogging tradition (plus I like how it always makes me feel patriotic... in my pants). I hope everyone has a good time barbecuing or blowing shit up or whatever other red-blooded American things you plan on doing during my favorite country's birthday today.

The Bechdel Test For Women In Movies

Apparently Hollywood doesn't really care so much if women watch movies:


This is how I know I'm a guy (aside from the external genitalia): I personally own about thirty of the movies she just flashed on screen and I've seen the vast majority of the others. In fact, Raiders of the Lost Ark is my absolute favoritist movie in the world and yes, it's a total guy flick. So I decided to run this test on my whole movie collection (just DVDs, not the digital copies I have on my laptop or PS3): of the 170-something DVDs I own just four passed the Bechdel Test. One more small piece of irony from her list: I've loved The Princess Bride since I was a kid but the main reason I bought it (and I swear this is true) is so that I have at least one romantic comedy in my collection to watch with chicks. As you wish, you killed my father, prepare to die, etc.

(via)

Brain Rage Porn

It's being used to sell cars but I'm posting it because I think smart is sexy:


I like to think that intelligence and pleasure are two important elements of this blog. I hope you do too.

(via)

What If You Really Liked Garfield?

I've been trying to take a bit of a break from the news and politics lately in an attempt to retain my sanity so I apologize for the lack of regular posting of late. That said, I have the whole day off today and I'm in a weird mood so I thought I'd spend the day posting some strange and interesting stuff for your enjoyment.

You know that weird thing that turns you on that you've never told anyone else about? The most fucked up sexual fantasy you have that you think is so strange and dangerous? The dark, sticky fucked up thing that you think about when you're fucking the person you fuck to help you fuck them better? That thing? Well you can relax because "weird" is a vast sliding scale and there are people in the world like this guy to make you feel relatively normal about your life. Warning: once read the following resolved question from Yahoo! Answers can never be unread:

Really freaked out my girlfriend need help?

As a teenager I suffered from severe depression and formed a strong bond with the character Garfield and his outlook. Its sad but reading garfield anthologies obsessively was the only thing that made me feel normal and it eventually took on something of an erotic fixation.

To avoid feeling like a sicko I drew pictures of garfield with a womans(Think Pamela anderson circa 1991) body and garfields head, so that I was assured that my fixation wasn't with animals or repressed homosexuality. This garfield/pam hybrid still had the same biting wit and acerbic outlook and tended to cut herself in self loathing while wolfing down a lasagna to fill the void after sleeping with drawings of a much more handsome and muscular version of myself. These drawings eventually evolved into erotic fanfiction starring garfield and myself (In my head Garfield still has a womans body but someone reading the stories would think Im having sex with regular Garfield.) I killed off Jon in a jealous rage, I didn't touch Odie, I enjoy his companionship and don't mind if he watches.

The stories are your pretty basic wish fulfillment stuff, balanced with self loathing rants. I've been doing this near daily for years and I have a substantial amount of writing in a folder I keep buried in 8 different folders.

My girlfriend stumbled across them by accident when they came up in a search and is pretty freaked out. How can I show her I'm just a normal guy with a weird outlet for my psychological problems and not some kind of sicko?

Here is a small sample so you get the picture.

I looked at her as she lay on the floor crying, my satisfied cock dripped droplets of life juice on her toes, flaccid yet still distended, looking satisfied like a man who has just run a mile and is rewarding himself with a slice of pie.

She reached for the knife as she always did and sliced into her familiar wound, mumbling 'i hate you, i hate you'. Its your own worthless soul you hate, god hates us all and thats why he laughs, he created the world to laugh at our pain, now eat up! I kicked her in the stomach incapacitating her and as she doubled over forced a pan of lasagna down her stupid throat, she coughed most of it up but I made her lick up every last drop as she cried the tears of an empty soul I found my cock get hard from her pain and went for her ***, rubbing her blood gushing forearm into her stupid face.

Odie looked at me with a look of fear mingled with hatred but he new not to interfere, and I could tell by his doggie hardon that he didn't truly mind, she would suck him off later he knew for my amusement. I made her suck many people off, to gain friends in the community but mostly to humiliate her and destroy any self esteem she had left.

I'm no psychologist but I suspect that his issues might encompass slightly more than just an odd Garfield fixation. When I first read that I didn't know whether to laugh hysterically or be creeped out by it so I just did both. This could very well be a joke but after all of the other freaky shit you've seen on the Interwebs would you be at all surprised if it wasn't? Crazy.

(via)

Super Sexy CPR

For educational purposes, of course:


(via)

On Lawrence Taylor And Age Of Consent Laws

Yesterday regular commenter and family member one L bill wrote the following in the comment section of my breakfast post:

All this LT stuff has got me wondering about your thoughts on sexual consent age limits.

For all those not in the know:

Lawrence Taylor, the former Giants linebacker, was arrested early Thursday morning and has been charged with third-degree rape and soliciting prostitution in a case involving a 16-year-old girl at a hotel in Rockland County, according to the authorities.

Taylor was taken into custody after the police were told that the girl had been brought to Taylor’s hotel room by aman who also faces charges in the case, said Christopher P. St. Lawrence, the town supervisor of Ramapo. He said the Ramapo police went to Taylor’s room at the Holiday Inn Suffern, in Montebello, and arrested him without incident just before 4 a.m. St. Lawrence said at a news conference that Taylor paid $300 for the encounter.

Taylor’s lawyer, Arthur L. Aidala, said Taylor denied having sex with the girl, who was referred to in court only by her initials because she was a minor. She was reported missing from her home in the Bronx in March.

Taylor faces a maximum of one year in prison on the solicitation charge, a misdemeanor. The maximum sentence for third-degree rape, a felony, is four years.

As far as LT is concerned he claims that he had never met the guy before who sent the girl to his room (I tend to believe this), he claims that she told him that she was nineteen (she has admitted that she was told to do so by this same guy) and that he paid the money to the girl herself rather than the guy (I'm assuming that he's making this point as some type of legal maneuvering on advice from his attorney). I was actually watching said attorney talking about the case yesterday and when asked if his client had sex with the girl he also made a point of stating that LT definitely didn't have sexual intercourse with her as it's defined by blah, blah, lawyer-speak, blah.

Now whenever I hear a lawyer rhetorically dancing around a straight-forward question like "Did he have sex with her?" in this manner my shyster-sense starts tingling like crazy (this particular superpower is slightly underdeveloped in my case since I only completed one year of law school before I regained sanity at some point). What that says to me is that there probably was no strict vaginal intercourse but I think it's safe to assume that there was some level of touching and eventual fluid transfer involving LT's penis at some point. It's entirely feasible to assume that he didn't have actual sex with her and that he's making that very clear to the authorities in order to escape a third-degree felony rape charge but he paid her that $300 for something and I doubt it was just to hold hands and exchange whispered sweet nothings.

To address one L's question as to my views on age of consent limits, my personal philosophy concerning sex has always been that some people are physically and emotionally ready to have sex and some people are not, with age being mostly a secondary concern. If I were to answer on an evolutionary basis (in which I received my formal college training) I would state that the beginning of menstruation in a female marks her readiness for sexual intercourse and subsequent child bearing but one obviously has to factor in cultural and societal mores and the much longer lifespan and thus delayed emotional development of modern humans versus other primates. I have no doubt that there are some thirteen-year-old girls out there who are quite ready to have sex while on the obverse side I also have no doubt that there are thirty-year-old women out there who are not (and perhaps never will be).

As far as the law goes though there obviously has to be a baseline legal limit that society adheres to on this matter and as with so many other rights and privileges of adulthood I believe that limit should be a person's eighteenth birthday, for the sake of consistency if nothing else. Now of course that's not to say that I believe that minors should not be having sex with each other and there are extenuating circumstances in some cases that any fair judge or jury should take into account: if a sixteen or seventeen-year-old girl has consensual sex with her eighteen or nineteen-year-old boyfriend that should usually be legal and acceptable in the eyes of the law. And there will be other extenuating circumstances on a case by case basis of course but that's why I believe that there should not be any bullshit mandatory sentencing laws tying the hands of the deliberating body or individual deciding those cases.

In short, I believe that anyone who is considered a legal adult should be able to have consensual sexual intercourse with any other legal adult (the topic of incest on this count takes us to a weird grey area that I personally would rather not think about) but I also believe that minors should be free to have consensual sex with each other and the occasional legal adult on a case by case basis to be determined by a judge or jury on the occasion that said interlocution is warranted. Sex is a sticky and beautiful enterprise and one of the best things we can do with our short time on this planet. My advice is to make up some excuse to look at his/her drivers licence at some point before you both get busy, i.e. "I always take bad licence photos: how about you?" This policy has saved (and also pleasantly surprised) my ass on more than one occasion.

Oh My God I Want This Of The Day

I would gladly impregnate someone in order to attain a firstborn child to trade for this:


Yes, the necklace tracking device is a bit cumbersome at this point but just imagine the possibilities: a set of windows looking out onto any view you can program, complete with sound. I'll take one Playboy bunny pillow fight set within a Star Wars laser battle just outside the Pantheon, please.

(via)

Priest Off

I fully endorse this product:


(via)

American Power And Toothless Photoshopping

Again, my apologies for the extended blogging hiatus. I meant to start up again last night but I was too busy trying to drunkenly pick up sixteen-year-old girls on Facebook and... Heyyyy, wait a minute...

Yes, as you might have guessed the picture above is the latest Photoshop commission by my curvaceous conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power from his post "JBW's Teh AWESOME Saturday Night Pickups!":

JBW's an anything goes Obama-supporting wannabe wifebeater, but the dude does occasionally kick up his heels on a Saturday night!

But hey, I shouldn't judge, being "a tubby, middle-aged neoconservative with an established history of victimology and a pathetic persecution complex."

RELATED: "James B. Webb: Intolerant Sexist Pig."

And in contrast to JBW's demonic blood-soaked Easter sacrilege, see Serr8d, "(A) President at Easter Sunrise Service: A Good Man," and "(B) Women and Children and Men worldwide celebrate Holy Week. Good People."

BONUS: "Living by Faith in God."

Oh if only I had a wife of my own to beat! I guess I'll just have to continue to envy Don on that count. And yes, I did indeed call him a "tubby, middle-aged neoconservative with an established history of victimology and a pathetic persecution complex" (you're wise not to try to argue against that assessment, Don) but in my defense I also said that he was "a fat, greying community college prof on the downward slope of a career" who can't "see his own dick without the assistance of a strategically placed set of mirrors" as well. I just want to give the old timer his full due.

As to the above Photoshop: this is definitely a much better technical effort than the last portrayal of me Don commissioned (sorry, Stogie) and I'd wager that it's most likely what I'd look like if I lived the apparent sedentary lifestyle of a community college professor and treated my own body the way Don does his. He farmed this latest job out to his conservative blogging buddy Serr8d of The Cutting Edge:

Dr. Donald Douglas blasts that lousy lefty loser James B. Webb. Nice photoshop, if I do say so myself. Not this one though; another version. Here's this one...

...capturing the essential nature of JBW; a poorly-conceived attention whore. You saw his Easter present to his kids, didn't you? (If I'd seen that before I created those two pshops, I would've changed some things. James B. Webb would be presenting himself right out of goatse.

As I said, these efforts are somewhat better on a technical level but again the messages seem to be a bit incongruous, much like the sign Serr8d used in the image above (although I doubt that this was something he was aware of at the time):

The red-bordered triangular sign shows a scantily-clad woman, who is also carrying a handbag, in the city of Treviso in northern Italy.

The sign states 'Attenzione Prostitute' - seemingly warning people of prostitutes in the area.

Motorists and pedestrians have complained that the sign is 'confusing', saying they don't know if it means to watch out for crossing hookers or if it means prostitutes operate in the area.

I suppose it's fitting that he'd use a confusing sign to convey an equally confusing message. While I've stated many times on this site that I favor the legalization of prostitution (I'm just funny like that when it comes to the government denying consenting adults their personal freedoms) I've also previously mentioned that I've personally never slept with a prostitute and I really don't have any plans to in the future. Incidentally, in that same post I posed the following questions about personal freedoms and the free market system that I'd wager these supposedly conservative Christians Don and Serr8d (who both seem quite happy to give the government the authority to dictate what you and I and every other American can and can not do with our own bodies) would be hard pressed to answer honestly:

...why is it illegal for me to pay a prostitute for sex but a director can pay two people to have sex on film and then make money selling the DVD? Why is there such a social stigma against prostitutes and johns while Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson are treated like celebrities by the media? Why is it that if I pay two people to have sex in my bedroom while I watch it's prostitution but if I watch these same two people on a DVD in my bedroom it's just pornography? And what I consider one of the clearest and most succinct questions on this subject: why is it illegal to sell, what it is perfectly legal to give away?

My own answer to these queries would be "because of religious hypocrisy and how it influences and pertains to the laws of American society" but I'll let them answer for themselves (and yes, I won't be surprised if they decline to do so). Speaking of, I love Serr8d's admission that he would have liked to portray me stretching my own rectum open for the camera (yes, that's what "goatse" means; I told you that you didn't want to know) as retribution against me for not respecting his god as he and Don believe I should. I wonder, What Would Jesus Do to avenge a supposed slight against himself? And oh, won't somebody please think of the children?!

Also speaking of, apparently hitting on and pretending to hit on attractive adult women over the Internets not only makes me an "intolerant sexist pig" in Don's eyes but it also makes me an online ephebophile predator, which brings me to the main point of this post. I use the various Photoshopped pictures I create to accent and add to the main message of the posts they accompany and I try to imbue them with some semblance of coherence (and a bit of humor when I can) as they pertain to that message. In contrast, Don's commissioned Photoshops seem to lack this coherence and he just uses them in and of themselves mainly as attacks against me (which he still won't allow comments on but once an intellectual coward, yada, yada, yada).

To wit: in his post "Living by Faith in God", in which Don intimates among other things that I'm in league with Satan (I know, I laughed at that one too), he promises to follow up on my supposed evility at some later date. You can imagine that I was on the edge of my keyboard with anticipation of what revelations he would disclose about my lack of faith and how it will tragically damn me to everlasting hellfire and what these supposed moral failings (or EPIC. MORAL. FAIL., as Don would serially say) would reveal about me as a "demonic", "fallen", "human defect". You can also imagine my utter disappointment when this promised comeuppance simply and merely took the form of the farmed out image at the top of this post.

So what is the message supposed to be there? Well, in addition to the aforementioned accusation of predatory ephebophilia (brilliantly yet subtly conveyed by writing it on a sign) the main point of the picture, and thus the main point of the entire post since he writes little else, seems to be that Don (who at 5' 10" and over 200 pounds is 25-30 pounds over his ideal weight) is calling me (at 6' 0" and 175 pounds, i.e. medically ideal) fat. Why? Because I make jokes about his weight and since Don is a sensitive boy who has very thin skin for a fat guy, rather than coming up with an original comeback he retaliates by employing the rhetorically impressive and quite classic "Nuh-uh, you are!" defense. Well played. As I said Don, it's a somewhat technically impressive Photoshop but the message seems to be inaccurate at best and illogical at worst and your lack of any interesting or original commentary to accompany it only seems to make you come off as petty and hateful as a result. Hmm, actually that's pretty spot on for you at this point, isn't it Chubsy? Bon appetit, mon gros ami.

Something Someone Else Said

"One more than Sarah Palin has ever given." -Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish, on Tiger Woods' open press conference at the Masters golf tournament at Augusta National Golf Club today.

Boys Will Be Girls And Girls Will Be Boys

Four guys channel their girlfriends:


And the girls reciprocate in kind:


To me, the guys' interpretation appears more spot on (the girls' seemed a bit too over the top stereotypical) but I'm willing to admit that perhaps this is just my innate maleness coloring my perceptions (or maybe I just don't know that many guys from NYC). Damn funny, either way.

(via and via)

American Power And "What Would Jesus Do?"

It worked! My Easter post this morning caused my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power to shoot his illogicality-wad like the swollen Christian he is (see how dumb that sounds, Don?). See, "JBW's Easter Greeting: 'DEATH TO AMERICA':

Actually, as it's a Holy Day, I wasn't going to run this entry, but since James B. Webb literally took a dump on the beliefs of tens of millions of Americans, not to mention believers the world over, I find little cause for Christian charity:
After showering, compare JBW's post to Pamela's, "Peace And Happiness On Easter": "Wishing all my Atlas readers a sweet and beautiful Easter."

And then ask yourself, once again, on which side of the street will you stand?

Photoshop Credit: Saber Point.

BONUS: Serr8d left a colorful comment at JBW's despicable entry.

So the same guy who accuses me of "sitting lapping his tongue across the keyboard all day waiting for blog updates at American Power so he can create yet another photoshop that's somehow supposed to convince people that he's got skills" writes a third post about yours truly in as many days, replete with Photoshop. As Don points out, he again shopped the picture out to someone else instead of doing his own Photoshop work. And while I applaud this attempt at humor despite his many failures in the past I honestly can't say that I'm all that impressed by it.

Not that it isn't incredibly technically proficient; I'm sure it took quite a bit of work to get my t-shirt and forearm to look just right (I now understand what Don meant by "convincing people that he's got skills"). Of course it's meant to be some kind of insult but the message seems to be a bit scatter shot and incongruous. If you don't know, the woman with the gun is one of the crazed Chechnyan suicide bombers that hit Moscow a few days ago. Now if I wanted to be petty I'd point out that she should be saying "Death to Russia!" since she probably didn't give two shits about America before she blew her terrorist ass up attacking and killing Russians (that tends to happen when people ignorantly lump all terrorists into an amorphous category labeled "evil doers") or that Don is the one constantly shouting "racism" or that I figuratively took a dump on the beliefs of tens of millions of Christians, not to mention believers the world over (see my post about people misusing the word "literally"; I've mentioned that this guy works at a school, right?), but why be petty on the Easter Bunny's birthday?

My real confusion is why anyone would think that this religious fundamentalist would possibly share my values. I support legalizing gambling, drugs and prostitution and I love to make fun of the close-mindedness of religious institutions and many of those who believe in that kind of make-believe, which I consider to be total make-believe. I'd be willing to bet that this woman was adamantly opposed to all of those things before she turned herself into a stain on the ground but more importantly Don himself would agree with her in opposing every point I just enumerated. You see, Don and his conservative ilk constantly bemoan the supposedly encroaching nanny state of the federal government when the topic is providing health care for every American yet he also believes that this self-same government should not only be actively trying to protect free adults from themselves by restricting/outlawing several of these practices but should also be incarcerating those adults for engaging in victimless behaviour that Don finds morally unacceptable. Compare that with the beliefs of fundamentalist terrorists and then ask yourself: on which side of that street will you stand?

In addition to the aforementioned governmental restrictions on Americans' freedoms that Don supports he also has an anathema to freedom of expression when it comes to saying things he doesn't agree with, so naturally nobody is allowed to post comments of any kind on any of his posts about me (I'm sure Jihad Jane up there would approve). To contrast this attempt at censorship of ideas I gladly leave my posts open to comments from anyone, even and especially those who disagree with what I say and believe. Take Don's featured "bonus" comment on my site from his regular reader and blogging buddy Serr8d:

And happy Easter to you as well, you shit-for-brains sucker of cock.

I don't know about you but one of my favorite passages in the Bible is when Jesus is running around calling everyone cock suckers. In the post immediately following the one above Don writes about the terrorist suicide bombings that killed dozens of people in Baghdad this morning. According to the story, the head of the security committee in Baghdad’s provincial government blamed the attacks on the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Who does a real American patriot like Don blame?

I blame the Obama administration, and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Let me repeat that part because I think it bears repeating: foreign religious terrorists attacked and killed dozens of innocent civilians and Don blames his own country for it. Kind of puts all of that supposed Bush Derangement Syndrome into perspective, huh? I wonder who Jesus would blame? Happy Easter everybody.

Sudden Disturbing Realization Of The Day

Continuing with the theme, this is what we were all thinking when Leia told Han about her and Luke:


(via)

Lady Gaga's "Telephone" Video Controversy

At my book club meeting yesterday some of my friends were discussing Lady Gaga's newest controversial video "Telephone" featuring Beyoncé, which has apparently been banned on MTV and has been widely discussed in the media lately. Check it out (fair warning, it's rather longish):


Yeah, it's somewhat racy and overtly sexual but I honestly can't say that it's all that shocking or even anything I haven't seen many times before in other venues. In fact, in addition to the obvious Tarantino and Ritchie directorial influences it borrows quite heavily from already established pop culture (MTV's site has a handy guide), whilst also including some not too subtle capitalistic product placement. Now I don't claim to be a Lady Gaga expert (truth be told, I might not even know who she was if not for Internet memes) so I honestly don't know if this is typical of her videos or a radical and tangentially newsworthy departure but regardless, anything deemed controversial by those who know better than you what you should be watching/reading/ingesting/inserting must of course be rightfully decried and destroyed for your own good.

One of my favorite (and I'm assuming somewhat typical of many on the political and social right in this country) reactions comes from Sandy Rios, a FOX News contributor and the president of Culture Campaign, an Illinois-based organization whose mission is "to engage Christians in actively living out and declaring biblical truth in a secular, humanistic American culture" commenting on Megyn Kelly's "news" program America Live today (transcribed by me):

It's the kind of thing we shouldn't even be discussing, much less thinking about from my perspective.

Quite right. Who am I as a rational adult to decide for myself what I should be discussing or even thinking when there are religious folks like Sandy Rios around to tell me what to think? And I'm sure you all remember the clause in the First Amendment to the American Constitution that mentions how free speech that anyone else finds objectionable should be censored for everyone's protection by our nanny state government, right? Oh wait, that clause doesn't exist because that line of thought is total bullshit and just this side of fascist totalitarianism.

But Sandy Rios and her conservative Christian ilk think that it definitely should exist (apparently governmental overreach into the lives of American citizens only exists when it comes to taxes and health care). Here's her reaction to Megyn's incredibly obvious and frankly very patriotic statement that this is art and if you don't like it you should just change the channel and not watch it rather than trying to get it banned for everyone:

You know I'll tell you, I'll give a real simple answer to that: you know that our world is filled with sexual predators. You talk about this every day in the news, these girls that are molested and killed and I don't know if you know this or not Megyn but they've done surveys to find out the men who do these kinds of things to these young girls, something like 85% of them, are involved in some sort of porn. So you may not watch it, your kids may not watch it, but I'm telling you the man next door who's a sexual predator probably does watch it and it has an effect on all of us. This should be outlawed, it should be banned.

What is the phrase "involved in some sort of porn" supposed to mean? Since it seems pretty unlikely that 85% of sexual predators have actually appeared in pornos (not a smart move if you're trying not to get arrested for molestation or rape) I'll assume that she means that 85% of those guys have merely used or seen pornography at some point. Now I have neither research nor polling numbers to back this up but I'd be pretty surprised if someone told me that less than 85% of all men had used or seen porn of some sort or another, much less those who are sexual predators. What kind of sheltered, wishful thinking version of reality is this woman living in where she's this ignorant of the fundamental underlying aspects of human nature and sexuality?

And I think I've heard this argument for why adults shouldn't be allowed to participate in adult behaviour and commit victimless "crimes" with other consenting adults somewhere before. Oh, yeah:


Be it tobacco, alcohol, drugs, gambling or sex I'm sick and tired of hearing the excuse that these things must be forever expunged from every facet of our society because someone else can't or won't be a responsible parent and teach their kids the difference between what's appropriate for children and what's appropriate for adults. Say it with me, soccer moms: "That's only for grown ups!" The problem of course is that for people like Sandy Rios that distinction just isn't enough; adults must also be protected from all things adult because we're just bigger children with the same intellectual and moral deficiencies as our smaller versions.

On that note, one of my favorite quotes/rants ever is by Denis Leary's character Edgar Friendly from the movie Demolition Man:

You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener.

Word. Keep your goddamn government hands off my Medicare and just do your job: telling me and other free adults what thoughts we can have in our heads and what substances/objects we can put into our bodies. That's the American way.

[Update: You can watch an edited clip of the FOX News interview here. And it appears that the reports of MTV banning the music video were false. Good on them for supporting free speech rights.]

Stuck Up Dutch Nurse Won't Sleep With Patients

Don't you hate people who think they're just too good for certain things?

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – A union representing Dutch nurses will launch a national campaign Friday against demands for sexual services by patients who claim it should be part of their standard care.

The union, NU'91, is calling the campaign "I Draw The Line Here," with an advert that features a young woman covering her face with crossed hands.

The union said in a statement Thursday that the campaign follows a complaint it had received in the last week from a 24-year-old woman who said a 42-year-old disabled man asked her to provide sexual services as part of his care at home.

The young woman witnessed some of the man's other nurses offering him sexual gratification, the union said. When she refused to do the same, he tried to dismiss her on the grounds that she was unfit to provide care.

If pornography has taught me anything it's that sexual favors are standard procedure at all hospitals, especially in Eastern Europe and Asia. And those other less aloof nurses deserve both raises and medals for doing God's work here on Earth. I hear through my super-secret liberal sources that President Obama is trying to work a similar "Handjobs for Health" provision into the current health care reform bill as yet one more attempt to destroy the moral fabric of American society. You're going down, moral fabric!

(hat tip: one L bill)

Advertisement Of The Day

An anti-smoking campaign by BDDP & Fils, France for Association de défence contre le tabac. The French is translated as, "Smoking is being a slave to tobacco." While I somewhat agree with the sentiment I'm having a hard (no pun intended) time understanding how that equates to giving Big Tobacco head. Any thoughts?

(via)