Archive for February 26th, 2009

Not Helping…

So, how does US News & World Report follow up on a shallow, stupid, sexist poll about which female political figure would run the best daycare center?  Do they apologize?

No, they run the same poll, but this time with male political figures. So I guess now they can say that they’re just shallow and stupid.

3 comments February 26th, 2009 at 10:06pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Media,Politics,Wankers

Why I Hate Today’s Conservatives, Part CXXVIII

On the program at CPAC:

Just to give you the flavor, this afternoon at 2:30 ET, TPM fave Hans von Spakovsky will be on a panel titled: “Al Franken and ACORN: How Liberals are Destroying the American Election System.”

Awesome.  Vote suppression GOOOOD, voter registration BAAAAD.

February 26th, 2009 at 09:20pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Corruption/Cronyism,Elections,Politics,Republicans,Wankers

This Just In: Karl Rove Is A Shameless, Dishonest Hypocrite

God, how I loathe the walking skidmark that is Karl Rove.  And how I love Glennzilla for not missing the fat hanging curveball of bullshit that Turdblossom pitched in today’s WSJ.  Rove accused Obama of engaging in exactly the same kind of straw man argument that Rove employed throughout Bush’s entire political career… because Obama implied that Republicans chose “fear, conflict and discord” over “hope” and “unity of purpose.”

The chutzpah of denying that historical reality is especially impressive when you consider that peddling “fear, conflict and discord” was Karl Rove’s job.

(h/t Blue Texan)

1 comment February 26th, 2009 at 08:36pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Obama,Politics,Republicans,Rove,Wankers

Eli’s Obsession With The Google

I’m on the first page of search results for the crystal prostitute.

Unspeakably beautiful… and painful.

February 26th, 2009 at 06:50pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Eli's Obsession With The Google

George Will Crusades Against Junk Sex

Apparently, casual sex is just like junk food…

Put down that cheeseburger and listen up: If food has become what sex was a generation ago — the intimidatingly intelligent Mary Eberstadt says it has — then a cheeseburger is akin to adultery, or worse. As eating has become highly charged with moral judgments, sex has become notably less so, and Eberstadt, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, thinks these trends involving two primal appetites are related.

In a Policy Review essay, “Is Food the New Sex?” — it has a section titled “Broccoli, pornography, and Kant” — she notes that for the first time ever, most people in advanced nations “are more or less free to have all the sex and food they want.” One might think, she says, either that food and sex would both be pursued with an ardor heedless of consequences, or that both would be subjected to analogous codes constraining consumption. The opposite has happened — mindful eating and mindless sex.


In 50 years, Eberstadt writes, for many people “the moral poles of sex and food have been reversed.” Today, there is, concerning food, “a level of metaphysical attentiveness” previously invested in sex; there are more “schismatic differences” about food than about (other) religions.

If food is the new sex, Eberstadt asks, “where does that leave sex?” She says it leaves much of sex dumbed-down — junk sex akin to junk food. It also leaves sexual attitudes poised for a reversal. Since Betty’s era, abundant research has demonstrated that diet can have potent effects, beneficial or injurious. Now, says Eberstadt, an empirical record is being assembled about the societal costs of laissez-faire sex.

Eberstadt says two generations of “social science replete with studies, surveys and regression analyses galore” have produced clear findings: “The sexual revolution — meaning the widespread extension of sex outside of marriage and frequently outside commitment of any kind — has had negative effects on many people, chiefly the most vulnerable; and it has also had clear financial costs to society at large.”


Today “the all-you-can-eat buffet” is stigmatized and the “sexual smorgasbord” is not. Eberstadt’s surmise about a society “puritanical about food, and licentious about sex” is this: “The rules being drawn around food receive some force from the fact that people are uncomfortable with how far the sexual revolution has gone — and not knowing what to do about it, they turn for increasing consolation to mining morality out of what they eat.”

Perhaps. Stigmas are compasses, pointing toward society’s sense of its prerequisites for self-protection. Furthermore, as increasing numbers of people are led to a materialist understanding of life — who say not that “I have a body” but that “I am a body” — society becomes more obsessive about the body’s maintenance. Alas, expiration is written into the leases we have on our bodies, so bon appetit.

So I guess this means that sex is fattening, has dire environmental implications, and often results in the death and mistreatment of animals, right?

February 26th, 2009 at 11:36am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Media,Republicans

Colorado’s Hate Senators

Colorado, Land Of James Dobson, has some truly warped and hateful Republican state senators.  In just two days, we had Scott Renfroe comparing homosexuality to murder:

A prominent national gay rights organization on Tuesday blasted Colorado state Sen. Scott Renfroe for comparing homosexuality to murder when he spoke Monday against a bill that would extend health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of state employees.

After quoting Scripture to call homosexual behavior a “detestable act,” the Greeley Republican said it would be “an abomination according to Scripture” for the Legislature to “(take) sins and (make) them to be legally OK.”

He continued: “I’m not saying (homosexuality) is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin — we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don’t make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal.”

…And state senator Dave Schultheis opposing HIV testing for pregnant mothers because it “rewards promiscuity”:

Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” The Colorado Springs lawmaker then proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB 179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House.

He then issued a “clarification”:

The Colorado Springs Republican with a penchant for foot-in-mouth moments tells The Rocky Mountain News in a follow-up story to Wednesday’s Senate floor controversy:

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

Yes, Schultheis really said he is “hoping” people “have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby …”

I know Colorado is like Ground Zero for fundies and all, but this really is twisted and over the top.  The religious right is inching closer and closer to Fred Phelps territory.

February 26th, 2009 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Politics,Republicans,Sexism,Teh Gay,Wankers

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




February 2009
« Jan   Mar »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *