The World O' Crap Archive

Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, (2006 to 2010).

Current posts can be found here.

Friday, January 7, 2011

March 5, 2004 by s.z.

With a WorldNutDaily headline like that, how could I NOT read the article.  And I'm glad I did, because now I now why men are under attack (hint: because colleges crush heterosexuality, and women are EEEEVILLLL!)
Since the release of my newest book, "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands," I have sensed a veritable revolution – and relief – by women who have been oppressed, devalued, intimidated and totally stressed out by ... their husbands? No. Their boyfriends, shack-ups, pick-ups? No!
Stick-ups? Maybe.  Seven-up spokesmen?  Hell, yes!
Women now realize that everything heterosexual, feminine, masculine, motherly, womanly and longed for in a committed relationship has been under viscous attack by the National Organization of (I don't know what kind of) Women-types.  
I was going to say that I haven't noticed those nasty NOW women attacking much of anything these days (in fact, if you had told me that the organization was disbanded in 1985, I would have believed you).  But then I realized that Dr. Laura was covering her bet here by saying NOW-types.  Meaning, "People who post mean reviews of Dr. Laura's book on Amazon."  And I know THEY exist --I'd join them, but it's easier to just write mean things about Dr. Laura's book here.

Anyway, Dr. Laura has proof of her claim that these vicious thugs are kidnapping women, taking them to secret NOW-type training camps in Canada, and forcing these dupes, at knifepoint, into being biased against men.  Yes, she got a letter from Stacie, and it blows the lid off the whole thing.
The following, from a listener, Stacie Reynolds, is all too typical of the letters I get from young women in colleges and universities today. Frighteningly, these experiences don't only occur in so-called "women's studies programs," they occur in almost every class available. It is not surprising that fewer men are attending college these days. It's a hostile environment for men and for the women who appreciate them ... and the truth.
Yes, along with the crushing of conservatives on campus, the left is also crushing heterosexuality.  It's a wonder that kids ever make it through college alive, what with all the crushing, torture, and forced marches. 

And Dr. Laura is right: it isn't surprising that fewer men are attending college these days, what with the way that women won't let them be in charge of everything anymore.  I hear that some college even have a few female engineering professors!  And remember that professor who we heard about on the Rush Limbaugh show (the one who wrote on the blackboard that there isn't just one type of marriage)?  Well, SHE was a woman.  So, two examples: that's proves it! 
But let's see what deeper insights we can glean from Stacie's letter:
Today, Dr. Laura, as you read letters from listeners whose lives have been transformed by your book, you brought up the point that women have become disdainful of men and masculinity. This comment instantly took me back more than 10 years to my college days.
In my junior year, I took a seminar course as required by the Honors program I participated in. The class was a mix of traditional age and older students, men and women. During one class, the discussion turned to some kind of women vs. men issue, and clearly many of the students had extremely feminist (read: anti-male) viewpoints. When called upon for my opinion, I said something or other expressing my opinion that men are important, do have value and realistically are better at some things than women.
You know, spatial orientation, physical endurance, math, thinking logically, running the country, going down with the Titanic, voting -- stuff like that.
This caused an absolute uproar in the room. My fellow female students proceeded to verbally attack me – literally yell at me – and humiliate me for such an opinion. The female professor stood by silently, obviously enjoying that I was being "put in my place" by the other women there.
Interestingly, not one guy said anything.
Well, the poor things were probably too shy and timid to speak up.  You know how men hate arguments, strong opinions, and loud noises.  
I left the class that day feeling very, very bad.  I had been so humiliated that I didn't say another word in the class for the remainder of the semester (note: so much for diversity).
Stacie, they really blew it by picking on you that day, because their thuggery caused them to miss out on the many other brilliant insights that you could have shared with them. 
After college (with highest honors) I got married and did pursue my own career. I am now a very happy stay-home mom of two children. The points you've talked about from your book validate that I was absolutely in the right that day in college so many years ago. Clearly the women who verbally attacked me truly did disdain men and masculinity. I'm sure they thought their man-hating viewpoints would bring them much success and power in life, but I have to wonder if they are now the wives of the men who've been writing you such sad letters recently.
Yes, Stacie, they probably are.  
Yes, Stacie graduated from college (with highest honors, mind you), and now has a husband and two children.  And those harpies who picked on her that day?  They are all bitter spinsters, envying Stacie her fufilled feminity.  Sure, they all head Fortune 500 companies now, thanks to their man-hating viewpoints, but their wealth, power, and fame hasn't brought them love.  Well, not the kind of love that Stacie has -- if they are married at all, it's to feminized idiots who listen to A.M radio all day, and write sad letters to Dr. Laura, asking why their wives are such bitches.  And Stacie makes it a point to go to the bars where these demoralized husbands congretate, and then seduces them.  She'll make those bitches pay for having humilated HER!

So, Stacie's isolated experience has proved Dr. Laura's point about how evil feminists are forcing women to hate men, feminity, masculinity, heterosexuality, maternity, sweet little babies, and apple pie.  We hope the NOW-types rot in hell for what they've done to men.  And to Stacie. 

Oh, and Stacie's letter also  proves that Dr. Laura was right about how women are evil and stuff, and men are simple, misunderstood souls who need a woman to feel superior to, not one who thinks she should make the same salary as a male.  So, in conclusion, buy her book. 

10:43:49 PM    

Yes, as Thlayli and Laura have reminded me, it's Friday (hey, I swear I didn't get the memo), the day when we as a nation gather in our homes or offices to read the heartwarming yet sordid tales of America's Worst Mom© (copyright leased from the Tboggnamics Corp.) 

TBOGG has already recounted the most shocking details: how the family couldn't cut it in the hood and had to abandon the gangsta life style; the plan to run a preschool Hooters; the fact that Daddy hasn't been seen ever since that surreal incident (which may or may not have been a drug-induced hallucination) where the children took bites out of him.  But now you'll hear the REST of the story.

Page one: as our story begins, Meghan has abandoned the decrepit, filthy house and has set up housekeeping on the terrace (as Meghan refers to the driveway), dragging outside the furniture, the laundry, and the children (Macedonia, Rapture, Spud, and Prince Mel Gibson II).  She puts up some junked cars on cinder blocks, deputizes Twitchy the Rabid Rabbit to serve as honorary coon dog, and having found a working electrical plug, is set for some high class living. 

The neighboring Honduran Embassy is appalled at what Meghan and her brood are doing to property values, and they file a protest with the city about this violation of the housing code, but when a young inspector comes by to check on the situation, Meghan drives him off with a shotgun.

The two younger girls have a food fight, and somehow this results in them recreating the infamous Superbowl Half-time show.  The people in the passing cars are shocked and horrified, and hurry home to right hundreds of angry letters and columns denouncing this assault on decency and good taste.

Page two
"Hello up there!" calls an alien voice, and the fun dissipates as fast as you can say "imminent terrorist attack."
Yes, it IS an imminent terrorist attack.  The Islamfacists have made their way to D.C., and started the invasion at Meghan's house.

No, wait, it's just the old biddies from the Margaret Dumont Private School for Pretentious Young Ladies and Gentlemen PTA.  See, a long time ago, when she was blotto, Meghan volunteered to help with "worthy school causes," figuring that meant no projects more arduous than lobbying for school vouchers for the rich, and heaping scorn on competent mothers.  But it seems that the PTA shrews actually expect Meghan to perform menial clerical work!  As if she used her kids as an excuse to drop out of the work force to do stuff like that!  And the Nazis expect her to perform slave labor for them "24/7"!  It's a bug hunt, man, a bug hunt!   Game over, man!

The unsmiling gorgons don't buy her insanity act, so Meghan lets loose a few "fruity expletives" (like "oh, I say, this is all a heap of kerfuffle!" and "bugger off, cow!"} under her breath.  She is forced to let the competent women, with their "sensible shoes" and their haughty "we make our children wear clothes" attitudes into the now furnitureless dining room.  Poor Twitchy is locked up in the basement again, his thirst for blood unsated.

The Germanic PTA bitches are full of outrageous demands, requesting such exotic items as scissors and electric lighting.  Although one mother apologizes, Meghan is still offended and tells the Fraus to lump it or leave it; and so the harridans make do with what they brought themselves.  They are a humorless, leaden-spirited herd of harpies who have never known the joy of living on one's driveway.  Meghan pities them, because for all of their "scissors" and "electricity," they will never experience the simple bliss that comes from being stinkin' drunk at three in the afternoon.

Today the PTA work collective is assigned to make place cards for the school's annual George W. Will Gala Dinner 'n Demolition Derby.  But these aren't just ANY place cards: no, they must list not only the diner's name, but also account for his menu selections, to include osso bucco, free-range chicken, beignets, and mousse.  Meghan, in her lighthearted, free-spirited way, screws up, resulting a few days later in Mrs. Anderson being served the Peanut Buster Parfait instead of the pot au chocolot, and quickly dying of anaphylactic shock.  But she was a liberal, so it was all for the best.

Anyway, Meghan calls for an end to PTA Überbitch tyranny:
It happens in private schools, it happens in public
schools. It is probably happening to you. If it did not happen, there
would be no Gala Dinners, and then where would we be?
You know, if Meghan sent her kids to Roosevelt Elementary, the public school a mile or so to the south, I can guarantee that she wouldn't have to worry about Gala Dinners serving osso bucco and beignets.  And if she joined their PTA, she could actually do meaningful tasks, like taping up cracked windowns and removing asbestos.

Anyway, Rapture and Spud get caught rifling through the PTA bitches purses (the girls have to give back the cellphone, but nobody can find what the crafty youngsters did with the cash).  Meghan throws out the women for objecting to her little darlings habit of unpacking purses for guests, and she is free at last, free at last from the shackles of PTA slavery!

Page three:  Macedonia and Prince Mel Gibson II arrive home from school.  Macedonia now has freckles -- or maybe this isn't actually Macedonia, but some other kid whom Meghan snatched from the grocery store so that she'd have the right number of kids when the social worker came for her monthly visit.  Whatever.
Prince Mel Gibson's face is streaked with dirt and his shirt is torn.  It seems he's been playing crucifixion with his little friends again.  Whatever.

Macedonia complains to Mummy about the demands of the Public Library story-writing competition; she's worried about staying within the contest's officially mandated word count.  Meghan tells her that she talked to the librarian that morning, who said that there is no word count anymore, and so Macedonia can write and then submit that novel she's been talking about since she was five.  Of course, Meghan never talked to the librarian: she made up the whole thing in order to sabotage Macedonia's budding literary career -- there can be only one!

Page four: Prince Mel Gibson II makes a Moby Dick out of CD boxes.  The whale has flukes.  Ha ha, what an adorably witty child he is.  No wonder Meghan loves him more than all her other children put together.  The End.

8:38:12 PM    

"A Gentleman Is One Who Never Hurts Anyone's Feelings ... Unintentionally"

Andrew Sullivan learns from the College Republicans that if you hurt or offend somebody, they're the jerk for expecting you to be all p.c. and stuff  (and it's just another example of how conservatives are crushed on campuses, this time through Catholic guilt for non-intentional sins).
"MICRO-AGGRESSION": It's a new term to me, but my conversations with college students this past couple of days have convinced me it's real. What's a micro-aggression? It's when you offend somebody for the usual p.c. reasons. You need not mean to offend someone; you may even be trying to flatter them; but if they feel they're offended or hurt in any way, it's a "micro-aggression."
You know, like if you said that gays and lesbians were sinners, and Andrew got all huffy, that would be a "micro-aggression" -- and Andrew would be the one in the wrong, for getting offended for a stupid reason.  And besides, you're the President, so who is he to imply that you've said something HURTFUL, for gosh sakes?
An accumulation of "micro-aggressions" can lead to actual aggression. I accidentally committed a "micro-aggression" two days ago when I used the term "Islamo-fascist" to refer to terrorists or unelected despots who use Islam as a cloak for their violence or tyranny. One poor young student was reduced to tears because I used this term. She said she felt attacked because she is a Muslim. I pointed out that the entire point of the term is to distinguish these theocratic thugs from genuine, mainstream Muslims. And she acknowledged that. Nevertheless, I had committed a micro-aggression. If I were on a campus today, I might be subject to discipline.
And if he was a decent person, he'd use a different term, since he now had evidence that at least one person found it hurtful (and because nobody but morons considers it a valid descriptor).  But no, since Andrew didn't mean to make her cry (and may even have been trying to flatter her, by pointing out that she seems much less smelly than the other Muslims), then she's the jerk for being hurt.
What you have here, perhaps, is a post-modern, post-Christian attempt to resurrect different levels of sin.
No, what you have there is an attempt by college boors and twits to avoid all responsibility for offending others. 
I committed what Catholics call a "venial sin," a small-bore, not-too-important, micro-sin. But unlike Catholic teaching, which insists that for something to be a sin, it must be consciously intended, with "micro-aggressions," your motives are irrelevant. In pomo heaven, the individual, after all, has no real autonomy, no independent soul, no personal conscience. He's just reflecting the interplay of power-structures. So in the pursuit of progress, we have resurrected the imperatives of Catholic moral teaching and removed moral responsibility at the same time. They call this a step forward. It's the opposite. One recalls Foucault's classic book, "Discipline and Punish." It's all that's left of his philosophy on American campuses.
One recalls Emily Post's 1922 classic, Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics, and at Home which teaches:
To do nothing that can either annoy or offend the sensibilities of others, sums up the principal rules for conduct under all circumstances—whether staying at home or traveling.  But in order to do nothing that can annoy or give offense, it is necessary for us to consider the point of view of those with whom we come in contact. . . Since it is not likely that any one would go around the world being deliberately offensive to others, it may be taken for granted that obnoxious behavior is either the fault of thoughtlessness or ignorance—and for the former there is no excuse.
So, consider your "micro-aggressions" to be unvenial sins against political correctness if you want to, Andrew: traditionalists will consider them to simply be examples of bad manners.

6:14:38 AM    

More FiddleFaddle

A few other things I found amusing from the MemoGate stories.

From the Washington Post:
In a statement e-mailed to reporters, Miranda said the report "fails to find any criminal hacking or credible suggestion of criminal acts," and called on Hatch to investigate the substance of the Democratic memos. He accused Pickle of having "acted improperly toward me from the first day I met with the investigators."
"Acted improperly towards me"?  Doesn't THAT sound sinister (and vaguely sexual)!

I guess Miranda probably means that Pickle didn't buy it when Miranda said he hadn't done anything wrong -- and Miranda doesn't think that's fair!  Hey, if the Wall Street Journal believed him, why can't everybody else?
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said at least 100 of his computer files were also accessed by the GOP aides.  
What do you think they were looking for?  Performance evaluations?  Incriminating love letters?  The lyrics to Orrin's latest song?  And if the story is that Mirand and Lundell were just looking for instances of Democratic ethical violations when they downloaded and printed memos, why did they have to read Orrin's mail?

And from the NY Times:
The report was supposed to be released with the names of the individuals involved redacted. But a copy was mistakenly released with the names included. The report identified the two former Republican staff aides as Manuel C. Miranda, who had already been named as a central figure in the investigation, and Jason Lundell, whose name had not previously been known.
Hey, live by the sloppy security procedures, die by the sloppy security procedures.
Mr. Leahy wrote to Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, asking if his office received any of the stolen information.  In response, Mr. Gonzales offered a denial that was less than categorical, saying: "I am not aware of any credible allegation of White House involvement in this matter. Consequently, there has been no White House investigation or effort to determine whether anyone at the White House was aware of or involved in these activities."
Translation: "Since you have no proof of any White House involvement in this matter, nobody here at the White House has investigated whether the White House was involved in this matter.  There are some things that are better left unknown." 
He [Miranda] said that it was fundamentally wrong to consider the Democratic strategy documents as confidential, because they were easily accessible.
And it would be fundamentally wrong to consider Mr. Miranda's credit card number as confidential, if you were his waiter and he handed you the card to pay for dinner.  Then you could use it for what ever purpose you wanted, because the number was easily accessible.   See, unless something is really hard to access, it's not stealing if you take it.  And that's what the law says, which Miranda would know, since he's a lawyer.

4:55:10 AM    

Good, and Other, Stuff

Dave Pollard has written a very interesting and well-reasoned piece about blogging and other forms of communication (complete with a flow chart).  Here's a bit from it:
From the reader's perspective, or that of the respondent to the communication, they're trying to do some of these things:
Learn something.
Understand something better.
Be entertained, excited, incited.
Find something interesting to talk about with others.
Find useful information and tools.
Find people with similar ideas, interests or ambitions.
Get different perspectives.
Help answer deep, personal questions.
Be seduced.
Overcome boredom, loneliness, shyness, low self-esteem.  
So, why are you here?  I would imagine most of you read World O'Crap to get  answers to deep, personal questions.  I hope you are finding the answers you seek.  Or if not, at least some help for your low self-esteem. 

Hey, just kidding!  And Dave's piece really is interesting and thought-provoking.

Mark over at Fried Green al-Qaedas has a very good entry about our 9/11 President, and a reminder about just what he did after hearing about the first tower being hit.  (Hey, 9/11 belongs solely to Bush now, so let's make him own all of it.)

And check out Mark's funny/disturbing All New Leave it to Beaver episode entitled  The Passion of the Beaver.  You'll never think of Ward or Sean Hannity the same way.

And speaking of popular TV personalities, sadly Seb, the proprieter of  Sadly, No! is being hospitalized for a month or so.  I know we all wish him a quick recovery and attractive nurses, and will miss him while he's gone.  To make you miss him even more, he has asked me (and the whip-smart and wicked funny Peanut, whom you might recall from her comments to blogs such as this one; and his friend Blair, who sounds like an informative and interesting guy) to guest blog.  So, in honor of Mr. No!, go to his site and enter the "Ten Reasons to Hate Sean Hannity" contest.  Let's win one for the SadlyGipper!

4:10:02 AM    

The MemoGate Kugelmuffin

Let us look at some portions of a Wall Street Journal piece by Melanie Kirkpatrick, the WSJ's asociate editorial page editor.  She will explain why God says theft is morally justified if you do it to help the Republican Party (and the WSJ).
This page's scoop last November--revealing Senate Democratic strategy memos on how to defeat President Bush's judicial nominees--created quite a kerfuffle.
In case you are a regular WSJ reader, perhaps I should explain that a "kerfuffle" is a fuss about something trivial and unimportant; a minor matter blown out of proportion by the liberals.  Examples: the Valerie Plame Kerfuffle, the Watergate Kerfuffle, and the Slavery Kerfuffle (i.e., the Civil War).
The excerpts appeared in an editorial on a Friday. On Monday, the Capitol Police swooped down on the offices of the Senate Judiciary Committee in search of evidence of who leaked the documents.  Now, nearly four months later, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms has delivered a report confirming that 4,700 files were downloaded and that security was extremely lax on the Judiciary computers.
Yes, thousands of files were downloaded, and security on the computers was lax -- but the lax security is NOT what made the files get downloaded or leaked.  Here's what the report said, per The Washington Post:
Pickle's report noted the "systemic flaws" in the Senate Judiciary Committee's computer security practices and recommended steps to improve them. But the report said the flaws did not contribute to the downloading and dissemination of the Democratic files by the two GOP aides.
Back to Melanie:
The facts point to the existence of an environment in which routine political advantage could be pursued by anyone with an ounce of chutzpah; but you wouldn't know that from the Democrats who cry "partisan spying," "Watergate," and even "Nazi Germany."
Mr. Dillinger's attorney said that there were bank security flaws which point to the existance of an environment in which routine economic advantage could be pursued by anyone with an ounce of moxy -- but you wouldn't know that from the FBI, who cry, "bank robber," "public enemy number one," and even "murderer."
As for Republicans, most would just like to get the story behind them--and get on with confirming judges. Yet it's hard to see how Democrats will let them when GOP Chairman Orrin Hatch professes himself to be "mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files occurred."
The Republicans want to forget about this perpiffle and get on with the important job of packing the courts with extremely conservative judges, but Orrin keeps embarassing them with his claims that stealing is wrong.  Oh, who will rid the Republican Party of this meddlesome Mormon?
The man at the center of the story takes a different view.  Manuel Miranda avers that he committed no wrongdoing--no hacking, no ethical lapses.
And, under a new concept of jurisprudence, we just take the accused's word for everything.  It saves a lot of time, and helps ease the strain on our back-logged courts and over-crowded prisons.
The memos fell into his hands as a result of Democratic negligence, he says--the computer-age equivalent of "leaving sensitive materials on the table of the lunchroom used by both sides."
Well, it's a good analogy, but only if you change "the table" to "a safe," and "fell into his hands" to "had a confederate who spied on somebody using the combination, used that combo to open the safe, took out the memos Miranda wanted, and handed them to him."  
From the NY Times:
Investigators said an inexperienced computer coordinator did not make files properly inaccessible; Mr. Lundell observed the coordinator opening files with a few key strokes, the report said, and then copied what he had done.  For the next 18 months, according to the report, Mr. Lundell supplied documents to Mr. Miranda.
Okay, and even if the documents really weren't just sitting on the lunchroom table, other kids stole them too!  What about Mr. Lundell!
The key point here is that Mr. Miranda wasn't the only one who knew about the computer glitch.  He found out about it in June 2002, when a co-worker handed him a stack of Democratic memos.
And the key point here is that the co-worker, Jason Lundell, is also guilty of breachs of ethics, and probably criminal statutes.  But the keyer point is that, per the Post, "Miranda guided Lundell in his accessing endeavors," and per the NYT, Lundell was described as "a young and curious clerk who was eager to impress his superiors."  So, Miranda used the kid, and now is saying that this proves that he, Miranda, couldn't have done anything wrong. 
...At some point, the Leahy IT staff learned about the glitch, too, but didn't bother to fix it.
At some point, the victim's gardener reportedly learned that walking alone at night in Central Park was dangerous, but he didn't bother to warn the victim or give him a gun.  Therefore, my client is not guilty of any crime, least of all mugging the victim. 
...Mr. Miranda maintains there was nothing wrong with reading the memos. The documents were neither classified nor confidential. 
And if there was nothing wrong with his reading them, then there was nothing wrong in everybody else's reading them -- so he leaked them to the WSJ.  Odd that he doesn't mention that in this piece.  So, let's go to the previously cited Wash Post story:
Miranda, the report said, advised Lundell and was said by other aides to have been implicated in leaking the documents to friendly journalists or other parties outside the Senate.  Miranda had previously denied leaking the materials
You know, I think the WSJ has been getting moral guidance from Fat Tony, who here uses the Socratic method to teach Bart (and us) why hijacking cigarette trucks is perfectly okay:
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Tony: Bart, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family.  Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread?  They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away.  Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
Tony: Enjoy your gift.
Melanie then informs us that the REAL crime (to quote a Sadly, No! contest from a few weeks back) is that the Republicans might have committed ethical violatons (and that clearly justifies accessing their computer server and stealing their memos). 
He [Miranda] began to think that the Democrats on Judiciary might be offering "a promise of campaign funding and campaign get-out-the-vote support in exchange for withholding a confirmation vote on a nominee."
And if he thought that, then he had a right, nay, an obligation to leak their memos to the WSJ, even if the memos don't say that the Dems withheld confirmation in exchange for funding.
Mr. Miranda's sin here seems to be at most a misdemeanor. The Democrats, by contrast, are trampling on the Constitution with their filibuster of appeals-court nominees.  Isn't that worse--by far?
Us:  Hell, yes! 

Fat Ed Gillespie: Enjoy your gift.

2:26:28 AM    

The Following Item Has Been Rated "R" Due To Violent and Explicit Metaphors

From the latest column by Jen "Pinky" Shroder:
The people voted against gay marriage.  It's the law.  Yet Lady Justice has been violated, bruised and bloodied in the muck and mire of San Francisco.
Mayor Newsom was the first to openly rape her, breaking the law and forcing gay marriage upon her.  Floods of gay activists followed, deliberately falsifying marriage documents, ignoring the will of the people as they scratched out "bride" and "groom" on the form.
The people cry out for Justice, but nobody in California hears.

So far, Governor Schwarzenegger has remained on the sidelines along with the judges, watching as Lady Justice is violated over and over again, over 3,000 times.
No, Lady Justice has been violated many times already.  And as she lays bruised and bleeding in the muck of the streets of San Francisco, watched by California legislators and government officials unwilling to help her, many Californians weep.  The Californians that voted.  The Californians that hoped for goodness and dignity for their children, free to live and breathe without pervasive perversion at every turn.
Hey, if Lady Justice has been raped, then the bitch was asking for it by dressing like a slut and hanging out with men of ill-repute.
Lady Justice and "Friend"
But for the Californians who just want to be "free to live and breathe without pervasive perversion at every turn," I guess they'll have to move to Iran or some other theocracy, poor dears.  The ones who are "weeping" probably always cry at weddings.

1:07:46 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment