I'm hungry, bitch. Waddle your filthy, filthy vagina into the kitchen and make me a sandwich dammit. NOW!

What...you think that because you have hair that is long, and soft, and smells like lavender, and is my favorite shade of black/brown/chestnut brown/blonde/strawberry blonde/red/auburn/gray that you don't have to cook anymore? Just because it hangs down to your incredibly fit ass/super tight abs/feminine and graceful shoulders? Get over yourself, slut.

Didn't you hear me? I'm still hungry. And all this talking is making me thirsty too. So how about grabbing me a beer while you are up? That really isn't a question, dumbass.

I just don't get you. Sure you have beautiful eyes that are my favorite shade of blue/green/brown and I get weak in the knees when you smile/laugh at me. And the sound of your voice and the touch of your silky soft skin against my cheek makes me tremble with the nervous anticipation of two lovers embraced for the first time. But you are still little more than a dirty, dirty whore. Bitch.

And your breasts are my favorite size a/b/c/d/dd and are perky and/or firm as melons. But does that mean I should buy you a fucking house? Geez...and to think you pitch a fit when all I ask for is a freakin' sandwich. Psycho.

So you have long legs that could wrap themselves around me three or four times. For this I should forget that you also possess a gaping wound that bleeds but never freaking heals? You disgust me.

Can you put a little more mustard on that? I swear, are you competent to do anything right?

And while it's true that you are my soulmate/private dancer/best friend/love of my life, and that I couldn't make it thru this cruel world without your quiet strength and your love, as long as I have one dollar bills and live near the Crystal City Strip Club I can get all the emotional support I need. So don't go thinking you bring anything unique to the table, sister.

Unless it's my fucking sandwich. It would be awfully fucking unique if you brought THAT to the table. Hussy.

So tomorrow, when I'm remembering how lucky I am to have you and softly weeping as I gaze at the first light of dawn falling upon your perfect face as you sleep, just remember that as much as you think I am shedding tears for you, all I really want is my fucking sandwich! Capiche?

Now get in the kitchen before I have to remind you who wears the nicely ironed/perfectly pressed/color coordinated pants that you picked out for me in this relationship. Can I get an ETA on the damn sandwich yet?

Because tomorrow is your day. I will love you/celebrate you/cherish you/place rose petals at your feet/plan romantic surprises all in your honor.

But right now? It's just February fucking 13th. And all I want to hear out of you is "Your sandwich is ready, dear."

For crying out loud, you sicken me. I despise you. I love you.

Thanks for the sandwich, by the way. But you forgot the fuckin' beer! Now get back in there and do it again until you get it right.

Fuckin' women. And to think we let them drive/vote/bear our children.

If I didn't need ya, I'd say "who needs them"?

Posted by: Jack M. at 08:58 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 578 words, total size 3 kb.

Up for the job, but Barnard isn't sure yet if she's quite stupid, insane, or anti-Jew enough. They've got a reputation to uphold, after all.

One only has too examine her doctoral thesis (and now a book), “Facts on the Ground: Archeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society.” to see that her analysis of “archaeological practice” has nothing to do with anthropological or archaeological analysis, and is just your run-of-the-mill anti-Israel rhetoric, masquerading as junk research.

Her analysis of Israeli society determines that it is a "settler-colonial community", and has “invented” an ancient history in the region by the use of archeology.

She attempts to demonstrate how "(social) science generates facts or phenomena, which refigure what counts as true or real,” and concludes that the "existence of the ancient Israelite and Hebrew kingdoms should be considered “a pure political fabrication.”

Historians are appalled by her junk research.

“El-Haj is not a practicing archaeologist. She hardly knows the Hebrew in which many Israeli archaeological debates are conducted. She has taken part in very few actual digs. Yet she confidently condemns Israeli archaeology as a tool of the Zionists. With only gossip to go on, she accuses one archaeologist of bulldozing non-Jewish strata to get to the levels that might offer details about ancient Israel. Bizarrely, she then concludes her book by reversing herself on such desecration, asking us to "understand" sympathetically the Palestinian mob that destroyed Joseph’s Tomb on October 8, 2000. I guess it all depends on whose narrative is being bulldozed.”

-- Jonathan Burack, The Family Security Foundation, December 28, 2006

How did her doctoral committee award her a doctorate for this lunacy?

I'm confused -- Ivy-level academics propose that irrefutable historical facts, such as Jews living in Judea (hint-- it's named Judea), are not facts at all but merely "socially constructed narratives of the dominant power group."

And yet we're also supposed to believe that the evidence for global warming is now "virtually irrefutable."

How do I know global warming isn't a socially-constructed narrative of a bunch of Hebe investment bankers who just want to sell me some carbon-neutral herring they got wholesale from their cousin Moishe?

See my problem?

Academics seem to have decided that everything is acceptable for skepticism and "vigorous and daring academic inquiry," except for, like, eight or twelve leftist shibboleths for which doubt is very nearly a capital offense.

Thanks to Litvshe.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

Jeff Smith, who shared the byline for that catastrophically wrong WaPo "Carl Levin's IG report proves Bush Lied" report, writes a response to a reader:

I agree with you that this was an egregious error. I also had nothing to do with it. All I did was obtain a copy of the unclassified summary of the IG report and write a precisely correct account, which I turned over to the other reporters. IÂ’m not happy my name was put on that story by the editors, and I was astonished by the mistake. I blew the whistle on it internally. So donÂ’t attribute the mistake to me.

Cheers,

Jeff Smith<

So who was the bad guy?

Well, as Powerline reports, there were only two names on that byline -- Jeff Smith and Walter Pincus.

Oh, and check out Jack Cafferty wonder why it was "okay" for the US to arm Afghan rebels against the Soviets and not "okay," according to the US, for Iran to arm Shiite rebels killing our troops.

Bryan from Hot Air attacks Jack Cafferty on grounds of making a moral equivalence.

The hell with moral equivalence. How about they're different because Jack Cafferty, as an American, should give a shit what happens to his fellow Americans?

One of the biggest demonstrations of hubris by liberals is that of assuming a God's eye view of the world. They purport to view everyting as an angel might. An angel knows no country -- ergo a liberal shouldn't, either, in choosing between combatants in war. What should it matter that American boys are being killed by these weapons? An angel doesn't have a nationality, and neither does Cafferty.

Except, of course, liberals do have a nationality, because they're not angles dancing among the stars. But they like to pretend they don't, or that their loyalties shouldn't be encumbered by such accidents of happenstance.

Posted by: Ace at 12:15 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

This is apparently a big meme in modern feminism. See if you can spot the weirdness.

Marcotte:

The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.

A Marcotte worshipper, reviewing the lame-ass Pan's Labyrinth:

Fascist ideals of masculinity had no real use for women other than as the vessels through which passed the next generation of fascist males. Its aesthetic was built upon a world where women were the conduits for sexual release and the pride that came from having reproduced a junior version of yourself who would carry on the ideals with which you yourself had been inculcated. Women, when they were not serving their purpose as mothers, or as virgins—potential mothers—were garbage, part of the larger population of undesirables and vermin who needed to be brought to heel, to be destroyed.

The weirdness here is that the new generation of feminists apparently grew tired of being thought of as anti-sex shrews and decided they'd embrace the pooter. Fine. But this presented a problem for them, because most men also seemed to subscribe to an embrace the pooter philosophy, and men were the enemies.

What political statement could be made by putting it out if men were eager acolytes of the new feminism? How can one rebel against the oppressive partriarchy by giving them pretty much everything the wanted?

How then to fit this round peg into this sort-of-oval shaped hole?

Easy -- it just required a thoroughly fantastical re-write of basic human impulses:

Men do not in fact embrace the pooter. All they see women as are baby-making machines, reproductive robots, and in fact the act of sex itself is physically repulsive to men. (Hence Marcotte's strange fantasy about a male dream of impregnating a female without going through the sweaty hassle of "befouling" oneself by touching her -- whereas, of course, everyone in their right mind knows that it's the befouling that's the fun part.)

We men wanted (per Feminism 2.0) women for nothing but sexual release. But now feminism 3.0 also (claims to) be big into sexual release, and yet men must still be portrayed as the Oppressors. So Feminism 3.0 postulates that men really aren't all that into sex after all -- in fact, we're vaguely repulsed by the vagina -- and, ergo, forcing men to have non-procreative, purely-pleasure-oriented vaginal sex is the new form of Feminist defiance.

I will have sex with you until you're shaking from exhastion, but damnit, I will not bear your child! Eat it, Men! Nailed ya! Hah-hah, suck on that one! (And, when you're done, the other one too!)

Oh sure, there are the occasional statements here and there about how motherhood must be respected as the noble sacrifice it is and blah blah blah, but basically, it seems to me that Feminism 3.0 wants to imagine a childless, slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am Sex & the City lifestyle as, somehow, a rebellion against, and repudiation of, The Oppressive Patriarchy, TOP down wi' OPP, Lysistrata in reverse.

This is the problem with empty, airy theorizing with no attempt to check one's strange philosophies against the empirical evidence.

Not to start any conspiracy theories have, but if this is what The Oppressive Patriarchy has deluded Feminism 3.0 idiots into believing, then I've got to say -- my Oppressive Patriarchy dues checks have been well spent, and worth every last dime.

I'm not going to do much intellectual heavy lifting to disabuse Feminist 3.0 morons of this odd notion of male impulses, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone not named "Amanda Marcotte."

I will just say, as dryly as possible so as not to alert these women to their fundamental misapprehensions, that threatening males with a lifetime of non-monagmous, non-procreational, purely-hedonistic sex is a threat most likely to produce the response "I double-dog dare ya," and that "monkey-fucking the oppression out of the patriarchy" is not, I think, a strategem likely to advance the cause of equal work for equal pay.

I hope I'm not giving the game away when I say that, as a member of the TOP, such threats do not exactly cause our hands to tremble in such vagina-induced panic that we can't manage to steel our nerves enough to unhook a bra or two.

We've been dreaming of that since we first saw Logan's Run.

The new left makes me pine for the old one. The old left was thoroughly Marxist and dopey, but at least their objects were tangible and non-frivolous: More money. More influence over corporate management. Shorter hours. Greater regulations of factories to increase workplace safety. Etc.

Same with the earlier versions of feminism.

But both seem pretty unconcerned now with economic issues, and have recast themselves largely as the Students Action Committee For Busting A Nut. I'm not sure if the devolution is a sign of degeneracy of intellect, an impulse towards the most intellectually-easy of programmes (and, conveniently enough, the most liberated from math and rigorous analysis, noted tools of The Oppressive Patriarchy, in favor of the most emotion-driven and bullshitty form of "politics" imagineable), or if it's a sign that they've basically won on every point that genuinely matters and can now idle away the hours writing about their twats all fucking day long.

And yeah, a lot of men do want babies -- just like a lot of women do. And without such a state of affairs, populations would die out, as native European populations are doing.

But as many wags have said, post-pill, post-Roe -- the Sexual Revolution was won, all right, and won conclusively, but by men. Women's sexual autonomy increased, of course, but so did men's; and if women were more freed from the consequences of sex, men were freed even more. How could it be otherwise? How could women's sexual freedoms not move in tandem with men's?

But Marcotte and the rest of the gynocranks seem to want to spin this as some great victory for women. Well, fine. So long as you keep giving up the nookie, you can call it whatever you like.

On the good side: I now get those Walking Vaginas on campuses. This is what these dopes really think -- they're teaching us oppressive patriarchs by wagging their pooters in our faces.

I never understood them until now. True, the explanation makes no damn sense. But at least it's an explanation.

Ah. I see. You're showing me you have a vagina. Eek. Yes yes, I'm very afraid. It's I'm so afraid I need some help finding my way back to my frat-room; will you help me?

Eulogy For Amanda: JayC captures the moment with this sweet poesy--

Of all the words
Of tongue or pen,
The saddest are:
It fucking might have fucking been

Feminism Is Like Climate Change... in that the conclusion never varies, but the premises offered in support of that conclusion mutate radically. No one seems to notice or care, so long as the New, Improved Premises -- which utterly contradict the ones offered just ten or twenty years ago -- point to the same conclusion.

In the seventies, the world was freezing due to Global Cooling and we had to severely reduce polluting emissions (which dangerously cooled the earth by reflecting away the sun's warming light) and severely limit economic activity to forestall this grim fate.

Then, in the mid-eighties, the world was boiling due to Global Warming and we had to severely reduce polluting emissions (which dangerously warmed the earth by trapping in the sun's heat) and severely limit economic activity to forestall this grim fate.

The premise was completely reversed. The concusion remained as fixed and constant as the North Star.

And so too with feminism. Previously men were rape-obsessed brutes only interested in sexual gratification. Conclusion? Men are sexual fascistst enslaving women.

But now feminists want to be all hip and pro-sex and all. No problem: Men are now procreation-obsessed brutes only interested in passing their genes on to a near-clone of themselves for the sole purpose of aggrandizing their egos. Conclusion? Men are sexual fascists enslaving women.

What a difference fifteen years makes! It seems we've gone from only caring about gratifying our dirty sexual needs to not caring enough about gratifying our dirty sexual needs in less than a generation!

But no problem, so long as the conclusion remains eternally true.

Hint: If you're utterly reversing your fundamental premises in between the time it takes for culottes to go out and then come back into fashion, while your shrill conclusions remain all but immutable, you just might have a case of backwards-reasoning on your hands.

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 PM | Comments (98)
Post contains 1463 words, total size 9 kb.

So goes the charge from the left. We on the right are all degenerates and hypocrites who condemn in Marcotte what we practice ourselves.

Except the charge doesn't quite work. It would be hypocritcal if I called for Marcotte's firing while also claiming that, say, Rudy Giuliani ought to hire me. But 1, I didn't say I think she should be fired, and 2, I said I Giuliani would be crazy to hire me. I described myself as "radioactive."

Here's the deal: Some bloggers have made a conscious, and conscientious, effort to remain "respectable." Some of us haven't. Some of us are in the middle.

I'm one of the ones who made no efforts whatsoever to preserve my respectability for any job, pretty much anywhere, but definitely not for the position of official campaign blogger for a major presidential candidate.

I have no illusions about that. So I don't get the whole "hypocrisy" thing. Would I like to contribute directly to the campaign of a candidate I like -- and get paid for it to boot? Of course I would. I'd feel like I was at the grown-up table. Or, well, not the grown-up table exactly, but at least not at the toddlers' table where they're all shoving mashed potatos up their nostrils and blowing spit-bubbles with gravy. Kind of in the vicinity of the grown-ups' table, close enough to hear what they were talking about. (Sex and investments, of course.)

But I don't think I've earned that right. Other bloggers have. Not me. And not, I have to say, Amanda Marcotte, either. Sure, it's fun to write all sorts of over the top stuff and indulge in personal attacks and use the f-bomb a lot and talk about vaginas and menses and pensises and even poopies. But I assumed doing so disqualified me from ever holding a position more respectable than, say, assistant political blogger at Gent Magazine (Home of the D-Cups).

I assumed the same of Marcotte.

So it's not really hypocrisy per se -- it's the surprise that a left-leaning candidate would imagine the rules as most of us have long imagined them to be don't seem to apply to those on the unhinged left. Yes yes, we're all used to double-standards by now, but this one seemed particularly egregious -- why would Edwards assume he could get away with hiring the hateful Vaginal Avenger Marcotte when no candidate would even consider hiring me or even Jeff Goldstein?

(And at least Goldstein intersperses his cock posts with stuff about deconstructivism.)

It's not hypocrisy so much as amazement at the brazenness of the move. All around the blogosphere, people heard that Marcotte had been hired as an official campaign blogger, and asked, as Michael Bluth so often did, "Her?"

Yes, her. She was the one who was so scary-talented with the word-ninja skillz she could overcome her past history of making repeated flagrant politically-disqualifying remarks on her blog. She was The One, the Net Neo, who was so insightful and wise as to be able to overcome a long digital-paper trail of otherwise scandalous remarks.

Her?

Whereas, for the rest of us, the GOB Bluth rule seemed to still apply:

GOB should have known he was on thin ice with "Fuck Mountain." But he charged ahead anyway, and got fired for it. He had the heart of a blogger -- and soon the paycheck of one as well.

That's sort of how we all expect the world to work. And, as it turns out, it still does. Mostly.

So I just don't think this "hypocrisy" charge flies. I've said here that, for personal, self-interested reasons, I'd've sort of have liked Marcotte to be the foul-mouthed anti-Christian Jackie Robinson, breaking the off-color barrier for the rest of us degenrates. But I was just amazed to think the rules had been relaxed that much, and, again, for a writer of such modest talents.

It's not anti-woman. It's anti-mediocrity. There may be a blogger out there who's so damn astute and entertaining as to get away with offending millions of voting Americans and yet still being counted as an asset to a campaign, but we're just all still in a bit of shock that John Edwards thought that blogger was Amanda Marcotte.

Her?

Come on!

Some things may be "satirical," but you just can't sing them and expect to work on a political campaign.

Language Warning: I'm annoyed at the left's attempt to use the word "satirical" to mean "ironical."

They keep saying that Marcotte's posts were "satirical." So they were, I suppose. But satire can be vicious, and intentionally so -- as Marcotte's anti-Christian rants were.

The left seems to be hoping that the public will confuse "satirical" with "ironical," the latter of course meaning "conveying an meaning differing from the superficial meaning."

But Marcotte's posts about the Catholic Church and Christianity were not "ironical." She meant every damn word; she meant precisely the meaning it seemed she meant. Irony is, in fact, in very short supply on the hyperpoliticized left.

Memo to the left: My constant posts about being afraid of "brown people" and vaginas are "ironical" -- I'm making fun of the left for constantly making this charge by spoofing it.

Marcotte's posts are decidedly not ironic, and the left should really stop trying to spin them as such.

Posted by: Ace at 08:09 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 897 words, total size 6 kb.

And she's (of course) fightin' mad about her own decision. She's pretty sure that William Donahue went after her so hard because she has a vagina.

If it's really her own decision, why is she so angry about it? Couldn't such anger have been avoided by, you know, not resigning?

I know I'm going to be called crazy on this, but I have this weird conspiracy-theorist notion that sometimes people aren't completely straight with us about the reasons for their separations from their employers.

Thanks to Jim Treacher for that tip; in case you didn't know about it, check out his new blog, Protein Wisdom.

Maybe the decision had to do with this unhinged review of Children of Men, in which not only does she make it clear her entire sense of aesthetics is thoroughly subservient to/rotted through with her unhinged leftist feminist politics, but also can't seem to be able to fight impugning Chirstianity yet again -- even after having promised she wouldn't.

The title loudly proclaims the movie to be about the Children of Men (very patriarchal sounding), but the one child in the movie is born to a woman...

Really? Born to a woman? Who coulda figured it?

... who is dismissive of the idea that the identity of the father is even relevant. And it makes sense, actually, that if there hadnÂ’t been a baby born on earth for an entire generation, the paramount importance of paternity would fade away and the obvious fact that maternity is more time-consuming and immediate would become undeniable. The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.

"Super-patriarchal." That's not the worst she's written about Christianity, but then, the Toga Party wasn't the worst thing that Delta House had done. It was just the thing they'd done on Double Secret Probation.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty damn shocked to learn she did mean all those bigoted anti-Christian things she wrote, despite her recent declarations to the contrary.

The guy who tipped me to this writes:

This is beyond parody. She uses "patriarchal" as an epithet the way CPUSA stooges used "bourgeois" back in the bad old days. Everything is evaluated in terms of whether it advances the correct political doctrine.

One imagines that at Thanksgiving dinner, her mom asked, "So, how did you like the gravy?" and Amanda answered, "It was too partiarchal. Also, the pecan pie was misogynistic and I felt oppressed by Aunt Zelda's green bean casserole."

What a fearful thing is must be, to organize one's entire life around an ideological abstraction -- "explicitly feminist" film criticism, "explicitly feminist" politics, "explicitly feminist" cat blogging, etc. Once could never accuse Marcotte of taking a no-enemies-to-the-left stance, since no one could possibly be to her left. She's left of Lenin.

Edwards' Angle? Thinking about Edwards' tough decision on Marcotte, it occurs to me there was an overlooked reason to keep her on the staff-- had she quit, she would have been free to be her own vagina-proud self, and Edwards would have had zero control over her -- and yet every bigoted thing she wrote would be connected with him, as he made the decision to hire her.

Well, now she's in full-out Vaginal Avenger mode. And Edwards is even more on the hook for this crap now -- not only did he hire her, he re-affirmed the decision to hire her.

Can't wait.

O'Reilly, Malkin, Powers: Video. Good stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 05:30 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

V-Day candy creator here.

Meanwhile, of course, colleges are infested with "walking vaginas." I'll let the joke write itself.

More V-Day Outrage Brings More Help From Luce Policy Institute
Walking Vagina Appears at Appalachian State University

HERNDON, VA—You know V-Day has gotten worse when people in God’s country are wearing vagina costumes. Yes, Boone, North Carolina’s Appalachian State University features as part of this year’s V-Day festivities a walking vagina on campus. And with February 14 just two days away, college students across the nation are bracing themselves for the onslaught on decency that is The Vagina Monologues.

The Monologues, a radical feminist play written by Eve Ensler and performed by college students around the world, purports to “end violence against women.” But neither the play nor its parent movement, V-Day, have any real impact on violence. They do, however, have an impact on the young people who are taken in by the vulgar pornography of the play, and buy into the negative messages that reduce women down to their intimate anatomy.

No link; that's from a press release forwarded to me, from the Claire Boothe Luce Policy Institute.

I'm not really bothered that there are vaginas walking around on campus. Nor am I bothered that feminists are not bothered by this.

I guess I just don't get what they imagine their accomplishing by broadcasting the fact that they have vaginas. Yes, we know. That's why we talk to you.

Well, that and boobies. But I guess boobies are too "patriarchal" an icon, what with Benny Hill and all.

Posted by: Ace at 04:25 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

This is old for most. It's new for me.

Paramount is adding CGI effects to classic orginal-series Trek episodes.

The new one to get this treatment is the Doomsday Machine episode.

Eh. It's just dumb. First of all, when will Hollywood get it through their skuls that models almost always look better than CGI?

The old shots of the Enterprise looked fine -- pretty decent, in fact. Now they're being replaced by CGI shots that look like obvious, TV-level-budget CGI.

If they want to make Star Trek look less cheesy, they shouldn't bother with the Enterprise-orbiting and transporter effects, which still look decent. They should first try adding some realistic backgrounds to their red-sky-and-plastic-rocks planetary-surface sets.

Actually, they really shouldn't bother with that, either, but if they're going to do anything, start with that.

(And don't add a bunch of Dewbacks in the background, either.)

Judge Yourself:

If there are improvements at all, it's a case of mixed results at best. CGI is better at creating busy shots with multiple moving objects, but the shots of the Enterprise lack detail and depth.

Pretty much they just throw a lot of space debris around because it's cheap to do so on a computer. It's the everything but the kitchen sink approach again, and yeah, I'm pretty darn sure I saw a Dewback floating around there somewhere.

And this is just a strange direction to take:

Posted by: Ace at 03:20 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Otherwise it would be pounding Bud Lights.

Thanks to Jack Straw.

Also not A Sloth:

Thanks to yls.

Posted by: Ace at 02:54 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been trying to see what the heck Hot Air was talking about, but Michael Yon's site is now overwhelmed due to a Drudge link.

Confederate Yankee has a pic swiped from Michael Yon (attribution provided, by the way) while Yon's site is down, and he thinks it's just basically a homemade gun that's so low-tech it looks high-tech.

Posted by: Ace at 02:52 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.