Knickers in a twist

The sheer absurdity of today's American feminazis (yes, I know that's a Rush-ism...see the bottom of this page) is on display in an Atlantic article by a writer based in—where else?—Chicago.

The same females who ignore honor killings and dress like this

get themselves all riled up over the word...."panty."

At PoliNation:

The anti-panty crowd had supporters:
 

  • The word panties makes me want to throw up
  • I HATE the word panties
  • I also abhor the word “panties”.
  • The word “panties” makes me cringe.

But the anti-antis were loads funnier:

  • Apparently liberal women dislike the word “panties” which means I probably need to find ways to use it more often.
  • But dressing up AS A VAGINA IN PUBLIC is OK?
  • if you hate them that much then just go commando and STFU!
  • Asinine. Is this what American feminists are really worried about? How about women’s rights in Iran? Or gettin’ me a sammich?
  • Does this mean the word ‘panties’ will have the same effect on feminists as garlic has on vampires? No downside there.
  • I should’ve hung my panties around my neck where they would be available to wave at silly females who ignore the fact that the battle for women’s rights has already been fought and won.
  • I’m ahead of the game. I always call them ‘bloomers,’ anyway.
Needless to say, this has, one might say, engendered another very funny hash tag on Twitter, #RenamePanties...if you have tender sensibilitites (I don't), then by all means STOP READING NOW:
Kitty Kondos ~_^
 
Spanks would be too close to Spanx, but Skanx is available.
 
Crotch pocket
 
Bush protectors (editor's note: everything is still Bush's fault)
Thanks for the good laugh, Chrissy—I needed one.
 

I'll see your ignorance and raise you some idiocy

To graduate from high school in NYS, students are supposed to have had a semester's worth of economics.  You know, this sort of thing:

Granted, the high school graduation rate in NYS isn't anything to write home about—74%—and it's even worse in specific cities like Rochester, where the rate is an abysmal 46%, so presumably lots and lots of New Yorkers have never seen anything remotely like the above graph.

But what's Shelly Silver's excuse?

In the SOTU address the other night, Barack Obama took the predictably pandering populist path of calling for an increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour (and called for indexing it to inflation, too).

Meanwhile, back at the Empire Ranch, Andrew Cuomo had already proposed raising the state minimum wage to $8.75, without indexing. But not to be outdone in the economic illiteracy department, Speaker Silver and

...[t]he Democrat-dominated state Assembly has amended its proposal for a boost in the state's minimum wage to match President Barack Obama's desire to establish a federal $9 per hour wage...
But this never helps the people it claims to.
 
...The key idea underlying the textbook model of minimum wages is that when something becomes more expensive, people use less of it...
Translation: the real minimum wage is zero.
...It seems that one could still seriously question whether now, when so many are struggling to find jobs, it makes sense to enact a policy that makes it more difficult for them to do so...
Well, yes, we could question it, but we already know why this is being proposed (emphasis mine):
...Because a higher minimum wage is easy to implement, and because a higher minimum wage is a mandate for higher costs on businesses, rather than an item in the budget on which states would have to spend more money, minimum wages are a popular policy for trying to help poor and low- income families...
A three-fer for politicians: appearing to help the relatively poor (and "poverty" is now relative, defined based on income rather than on purchasing power) at no cost to themselves but at significant cost to evil, greedy businesses.  Such a deal.
 
As for the fact that a higher minimum wage never helps the people it's supposed to?  No matter.  It isn't really about them, anyway. It's a disingenuous exercise in ignorance and idiocy by our moral and intellectual superiors—an ultimately ruinous, self-serving game.
 
 

  

 

 

Your tax dollars at work

I'm sure EVERYBODY who pays taxes to support the Ithaca City School District—which is EVERYBODY, really...after all, if you're a net payer of taxes, you're paying for this, it's all our money, and it does take a village to raise a child, doesn't it?—is as "ecstatic" and "blown away" as the Lehman Alternative Community School (LACS) students who participated in this project:

ITHACA — An anti-fracking student group from Lehman Alternative Community School has won a video contest sponsored by Artists Against Fracking. The prize? Lunch with organization founders Yoko Ono and Sean Lennon.
 
All it took the students was a song, a video and a little help from their friends.
 
Mariah Prentiss, staff adviser of New York Youth Against Fracking and LACS teacher librarian, was sitting in a staff meeting this week when she received the news in a phone call from Ono herself.

“That was the cool thing,” Prentiss said. “We don’t know the details of the prize, but it was advertised as lunch with Yoko Ono and Sean Lennon, widow and son of John Lennon, in New York City. Our big question for her is ‘Did you really mean 40 or 50 people?’ ”...

Read the rest.

I thought the concern about the number of people Yoko would have to cough up lunch money for was touching, especially since she's the heir to $500M.

As a tribute to their patroness, instead of wearing LACS t-shirts to NYC, the students, faculty, and staff voted to deck themselves out in Yoko's recent clothing line:

Isn't that special?

So our tax dollars pay for political indoctrination in public schools so that students can then travel to Sodom—or is it Gomorrah? I've forgotten which—to meet with a wealthy enviromoonbat whose apartment is heated with the natural gas she professes to hate and whose "clothing" line would make most peasant parents puke.

h/t: South of 5 and 20, who muses that this kind of thing will provide "lifetime employment for brewers and distillers."

No kidding.  Here I am, down at the Shoe Inn:

 

No Irish need apply, I guess

The anti-fracking universe has its own little set of local luminaries. Phelim McAleer, one of the producers of FrackNation and adversary of "Inconvenient Al" Gore and Gasland's Foxy Josh, had the misfortune to run into one of these bright lights, Vera Scroggins, in Pennsylvania.  I thought Phelim showed great self-restraint—if it had been me, my bare knuckles and Vera's nose would have become intimately acquainted.

Here you go (viewer discretion advised):

And we're expected to reason with these people. Right.
 

A confederacy of fools

Stuff that circulates on the internet can be pretty cheesy—or not.  Here's something that's almost certainly not what it claims to be (part of an article in a Czech newspaper), but I wish I'd written it:

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.
A variation:
And speaking of Hank Williams, Jr...enjoy:
 

h/t Tom

Bitter clingers

Regular readers may recall this post from several months ago wherein the denizens of Redneck Mansion told of a new and improved Redneck Mansion being constructed not far from the domiciles of our kissin' cousins, the Robertsons of Duck Dynasty (a photo of the recently-finished palatial estate, even newer and more improved than anticipated, is up there in the masthead).

Said cousins visited recently—got a real nice family portrait:

You won't see any of these signs near the Robertsons' or near Redneck Mansion, for that matter:

But you might see this (click on the image if it's Greek to you):

Just sayin'.

Child abuse

Well, this isn't very nice, says you:

It may not be nice, but then maybe those trash-bag tykes are better off than the little girl who said this last fall:

Children as young as myself can be seen on the streets joining the uprisings, risking their lives to bring food, water and medicine to their wounded family members, some of them never returning to their mothers ... Nobody is too young.

And lest we think that Muslim women are being discriminated against in the jihad department, not so:
There are many ways a Muslim woman can participate in Jihâd, both by accompanying the Mujahideen to the battlefield, and by staying behind:

Do click on #1 under "Sisters' Role Off the Battlefield" for some must-have parenting advice.

We're not supposed to notice, much less remark on, how these children are being raised and what they're being taught, because according to progressive multi-culti thinking, everything is morally equivalent—nothing is better or worse than anything else.

Those trash bags are the lucky ones.

Pet peeve

Years ago, I watched all of the old BBC series All Creatures Great and Small, based on British veterinarian James Herriot's books about three Yorkshire vets in the 1930s and 40s—and not only watched them all but watched them several times over.  Each episode was wonderful. The interplay between the vets and their (largely) four-legged clientele was marvelous.  But that wasn't the best part.  It was the stories of the human relationships that really shone—amongst the vets themselves, as well as with wives, girlfriends, and all the other two-legged inhabitants of the Dales.

A couple of years ago, a California columnist, William Lobdell, wrote a piece entitled, "When did pets become more important than humans?"  Well, in some sense, it's not exactly a news flash.  I can remember as a little kid seeing those maudlin greeting cards in stores—you know, the ones that looked like these:
 
 
 
 
There's nothing new under the sun.  But as Lobdell implies, there seems to have been a seismic shift in people's priorities over the last several decades. And that's not a good thing.
 
People who follow the National Felon League or even just the news are familiar with this double standard.  QB Michael Vick tortured and killed pit bulls, served close to two years in prison for that crime—and yes, I do believe that it's a crime—as well as a couple of months confined to his home, was suspended from the NFL for two years, and ended up declaring bankruptcy.
 
At around the same time (and scenarios like this one have played out several times since), WR Donte Stallworth was DWI and killed a pedestrian.  He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, was released after serving 24 days, and was suspended from the NFL for all of a year.
 
In 2012, candidate Mitt Romney's dog being stowed in a crate on the roof of the family car generated much more outrage than candidate Bill Clinton's extramarital dalliances did when he ran for president in 1992.
 
Don't get me wrong—I think that animal abusers (and I don't include Romney amongst them) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But when mistreatment of animals trumps mistreatment of humans in many people's minds, there's something seriously amiss in the culture.
 
When a poll shows that a sizable percentage of married women think that their pets are better listeners than their husbands, when people are quite upfront about the parity—to them, anyway—between pets and human offspring, when pets are treated like children and dressed like them and given human-sounding names like Jake, Chloe, and Bella (Sparky and Spot? fuhgeddaboudit), when vet offices are routinely nicer than physician offices, society needs to take a good, hard look at itself.
 
Why is it like this now?  Academics have posited explanations such as the high divorce rate (and attendant loneliness, I suppose).  Maybe it's just a classic example of an avoidance mechanism—if you're busy with your own dogs and cats as well as nobly worrying about the entire canine and feline universes, then there's no time to deal with those more complicated, difficult, and pesky humans.
 
In addition, I suspect that many people may have lost the ability to prioritize effectively. The late Stephen Covey made an interesting distinction in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People between "urgent" and "important." Probably lots of folks treat those words as synonyms or nearly so.  Not Covey. Here's an example:
 
 
Covey was largely addressing time management in a business setting, but it translates to other settings as well. Spending all of one's time in the "both urgent and important" quadrant would surely be a path straight to the rubber room.  But it seems as though some people at least never make it to that quadrant or the one next to it—the one that says "relationship building"—and maybe the obsession with pets at the expense of humans causes inordinate amounts of time to be spent in the "urgent but not important" quadrant.
 
Why should it matter if people spend ALL of their time doing "urgent but not important" things? The problem is there's only so much time—we have to prioritize. I complain and listen to the complaints of others about how hard it is to get people to come forward and help out with the problems of humans. I have the uneasy feeling that the people busily becoming legends in their own minds by nobly empathizing with dogs and cats will be the first ones to wonder what happened when it all goes to hell in a handbasket. Why didn't somebody do something, they'll say—when in fact they were the "somebodies" the rest of us needed all along.
 
I could make a Biblical argument for why animals are subordinate to humans (Genesis 1:26), but that would probably have no impact on atheists or agnostics or anti-speciesists.  After all, there are many people who think this way:
 
 
So don't work on the problem of less-than-wonderful humans...put animals on pedestals instead.  That fixes everything, doesn't it?
 
I'm sure I'll catch lots of flak for supposedly denigrating dogs and castigating cats at the expense of those who are only human. I just wish that the pathos reserved for pets extended to people.
 
 

Taqiyya sunrise

From a new contributor, Augustus...the sculptor, however, made an unfortunate error—that's the wrong finger:

 
***
 
Ten months ago, Barry Banyon had been reelected President of the United States.   With confidence in his interpretation of the political forces at work in the nation and his own unerring judgment, he released his Executive Order entitled, “Educational Initiatives for National Security, Economic Prosperity, and a Just Society”.  In it, he set rules that the Department of Education would follow in the teaching of Islam in our nation’s schools.
 
In a prime-time address to the nation, which was broadcast on all channels - while interrupting Sunday Night Football to increase its audience - he laid out the thrust of his program.
 
“The Middle East has been a tinderbox of war for centuries.  But it also contains the energy that has fueled the economic prosperity of the United States and the world.  Previous administrations have tried unsuccessfully to defuse the area militarily while still keeping its energy resources flowing.  This approach has been unsuccessful and is, quite frankly, a self-centered approach where America benefits at the expense of the Muslim world.  I have crafted an approach based on my unique study and understanding of Islam which will reverse that situation.”
 
“Today, I signed an Executive Order that Islam will be taught in all schools, from kindergarten through college.  This cannot be construed as an unconstitutional blending of church and state since its objective is strictly national security and developing a more just attitude toward Islam in the United States.  Our Constitution and our national heritage is one of equality of opportunity for all.  Yet, since 9/11, Muslims have been unfairly characterized as being responsible for an event that was the culmination of years of a colonialist mentality by western nations.”
 
“We Americans have financially benefited from our previous, self-serving policies and it is time we recycled those benefits into a sustainable policy.  Toward that end, I, in a spirit of reconciliation and appeasement, have ordered that all federal dollars for educational support of any kind will be contingent upon compliance with this order.”
 
“It is important that we Americans do not focus on our national prejudices when reacting to this, since blind adherence to these prejudices has been responsible for the Middle East’s current unsettled condition.  You must see it, as I do, as the first plan that will bring a lasting peace to the Middle East.”
 
“To further promote international understanding by reaching out to those some wrongly believe are our enemies, I have further directed that the Department of Education develop the curriculum that will be used, as only the centralized knowledge of this department can insure the proper implementation of this plan.”
 
“In order to convince the Muslim world of the genuineness of this proposal, I have asked the Ayatollahs of Iran to select an individual who I will appoint to oversee the implementation of this plan.  They have generously agreed and I am announcing the appointment of Grand Mullah Mohammed S. Prophet as the Undersecretary of Education.”
 
The main stream media were agog at the proposal.  MSNBC’s Chris Matthews declared it, “The first truly original approach and a guaranteed success”.  CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was equally impressed and Tom Brokaw declared, “President Banyon will lead this generation forward to make it the new ‘Greatest Generation’”.   Commenting on Sunday Night Football, Bob Costas declared that, “Before getting back to the game, it should be noted that Americans will finally put the world’s well-being ahead of our own”.
 
Conservatives immediately labeled this effort as unconstitutional and called for President Banyon’s impeachment.  Even liberal Democrats were appalled by the speech but remained silent.
 
Immediately after the speech, the Senate Majority leader, Henry Rod (D) met with the House Minority Leader Paula Lossi .  Lossi declared, “I’ve had calls from Republicans to draft Articles of Impeachment and there are some of those religion-and-guns Democrats from the South who will go along”.
 
“Just tell your caucus”, Rod said, “that there is no chance the Senate will find him guilty.  Impeaching a President for furthering Islam will definitely cost us Muslim votes and other minorities will be empathetic with the oppressed Muslims. Democrats who vote for impeachment could cost Democrats their seats and also our majority position in the House and Senate. That S.O.B. in the White House knows we can’t impeach him on any constitutional issue because it will cost us votes.  Besides, if we spin it right, it would be another suicide attempt by the Republicans if they try to impeach.”
 
Lossi thought for a moment and added, “I’m no constitutional scholar, but this surely seems like a violation of the First Amendment”.
 
Rod tried to suppress a laugh as he thought, “You’re no scholar, period”.  

“This is political survival”, Rod asserted, “And that always trumps the Constitution.”
 
Back in the family quarters, President Banyon spoke with wife, Millie, while they sipped a seventy-five-year-old bottle of champagne, courtesy of Congresswoman Lossi’s winery.  The President’s wine cellar was renowned for its quality while few realized that Banyon had never had to spend a cent on it; political supporters and cronies realized that the man who felt the pain of the masses had very egalitarian tastes.
 
Millie laughed as she spoke, “I suppose Rod and Lossi have it figured out by now; they can’t impeach you without imperiling their jobs.”
 
“Yeah”, Barry added, “Rod has figured it out but I wonder if he can explain it in words of a single syllable for Lossi?”
 
“Oh, she’ll get it.  She may not be the sharpest tack in the box for most things, but she has a nose for power.  Politics activates brain cells that were long ago given up for dead”.
 
The President and First Lady giggle as they clink glasses in a toast to themselves.
 
Millie Banyon wasn’t a bit worried when she said, “Aside from those crazy Tea Partiers, there aren’t ten other politicians in Washington with the balls to stand on a Constitutional principle.”
    
Banyon replied, “Yeah--so now, how soon after my term ends should I announce my ‘conversion' to Islam?
 
“Why wait that long,” Millie replied.  It would add zest to your last year if you did it then.  And it would focus attention back on us instead of those silly people in the primaries.”
 
***
 
Just a preposterous parody?  Not so much. At CNS:
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) says that he believes President Obama in his second term will drive the progressive agenda forward with a more aggressive use of executive power.
 
“We’re going to see a president of the United States use his executive powers as much as he’s allowed to under federal law and under the Constitution, in a more aggressive way than last time,” Brown said in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow....
And click on the image to read about the Egyptian magazine article that inspired this graphic:
 
 
 
Think of it this way:
 
 
And then there are the other three Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, and John Brennan:
 
 
Regarding Hagel, at PowerLine:
It is quite remarkable that President Obama has nominated a Secretary of Defense who is applauded by eccentric opponents of American strength like Mike Gravel, and bitter enemies of the U.S. like the government of Iran. In a parallel universe inhabited by reporters, this would be a news story.
You might find this blurb from early in Barry's reign presidency about now-Secretary of State Kerry's hearings on "Engaging with Muslim Communties Around the World" intriguing.
 
And let us not forget CIA Director-nominee Brennan gushing over his favorite city, al-Quds.  Where the hell is al-Quds, you ask?  It's better known as...Jerusalem.
 
So it looks as though ol' Augustus has hit the nail on the head.  Not bad for a dead Roman.
 

Pretzeldom

Once again, the people who choose death rather than choose life have to twist themselves into pretzels in order to justify that choice.  At Salon, via RedState:

...Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always....
 

...We let the archconservatives browbeat us with the concept of “life,” using their scare tactics on women and pushing for indefensible violations like forced ultrasounds. Why? Because when they wave the not-even-accurate notion that “abortion stops a beating heart” they think they’re going to trick us into some damning admission. They believe that if we call a fetus a life they can go down the road of making abortion murder. And I think that’s what concerns the hell out of those of us who support unrestricted reproductive freedom...

...In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

Wow. Just wow.

Read the whole thing, chillingly entitled, "So what if abortion ends life?"

As a RedState commenter drily remarked, "We all enjoy "unrestricted reproductive freedom". There is nothing to stop any of us from conceiving at any time."

This Salon piece a stunning example of both an inability to drive past the hood of one's car—can the author imagine herself being shunted against her will on to an Orwellian "care pathway" as in Britain?—and an ability to ignore cognitive dissonance that is positively breathtaking:

 

Pages

Subscribe to One Piece At A Time RSS