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.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Dirty Pretty Things

Townhall columnist, talk radio host, and frequent cable news guest Kevin McCullough has at last broken the silence, and spoken out about the greatest threat to America’s precious bodily fluids — the Manchurian Woman.
When liberals are given the choice between acting decently or choosing the riches of perversion – liberals prefer perversion. And if protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that someone’s right to practice perversion might be curbed – liberals will come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting females be damned!
Ladies, as you go about your day — squeezing the Charmin, thumping the melons, and carefully picking through the riches of perversion (because Choosy Mothers Choose Perversion), while trying your hardest to live up to your potential as a victim – do you ever even suspect that you’re hiding perverts behind your skirts when you refuse to protect nakedness?  No?  Well then I guess Kevin’s proved his point.
They will say it with a lawsuit. They will say it in print.
They will say it in a box. They will say it loud on Fox…
Liberals at their core have no sense of true north.
Granted.  Although I do have pretty good sense of True West, having seen it twice at the Cherry Lane Theatre with John Malkovich and Gary Sinise.
If you have ever dreamed of taking that fabulous shopping trip to New York City…
Note:  These are officially the gayest words ever written by someone who calls his blog “Musclehead Revolution.”
…you’d be advised to stay away. Because right now, this very minute, today…there is no law protecting the women you cherish in the dressing rooms of New York City boutiques, shops, department stores or even their hotel showers or bathrooms.
It’s a grim time for masculinity in America, when a man’s dream of a fabulous shopping spree is spoiled by the possibility of peepholes in the boutique fitting room.
Peter Vallone Jr. had been receiving complaints in his Queens district office for a number of weeks about a pervert who had been ordering a bagel and coffee every morning and then parking himself directly under the train platform vent for the N-line subway. This particular perve had a thing for looking up women’s skirts and he found it amusing to calmly eat his breakfast while stretching his neck to peep…
Vallone began to research the matter and discovered that the man was breaking no known law in New York. Incredulous at this dismaying fact the councilman drafted a resolution that would punish such behavior. As the New York Times put it:
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person’s “sexual or other intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed.”
Pretty straight forward right?  Not according to liberals.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (directly associated with the ACLU) issued a statement on Thursday calling the proposed legislation, “creepy lawmaking.”
Actually, I’d just call it “crappy lawmaking.”  Really, how far would this get before a judge irritably smacked it down like Sidney Greenstreet swatting flies at the Blue Parrot in Casablanca?  Someone might catch a glimpse of Kevin’s groin, for instance, and find its Ken Doll smoothness vastly entertaining, while others might find it merely repellent.  And what are these “other intimate parts,” of which the bill speaks?  The tender backside of the knee?  An errant lock of a Muslim woman’s hair?  Your bouncing and bobbing, undulating and ululating, quivering, pink, and oh-so-fleshy uvula?  Do we really want to make it as tough to find an eye-ear-nose-and-throat man in New York as it is to find an abortion provider in South Dakota?
Donna Liebermann the NYCLU’s executive director (and reportedly a female)…
Kevin used to take a woman’s word for it that she was female, but that was before he tried to hit on a waitress at Lucky Cheng’s.
…added her own sentiments saying, “The problem with this legislation is that it’s trying to get at this amorphous, vague behavior of looking, which is very imprecise…and the problem is that it’s an invitation to abuse, to selective enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police officer.” Adding, “What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore unlawful, who’s to say?”
Well Donna, any woman who’s ever been the slightest bit attractive could tell you. 
Don’t hate him because he’s beautiful.  There’s plenty of other reasons… 
It’s only “imprecise” if no one desires justice or decency for the privacy of women and children.
Hey, what about us men?  Don’t we rate protection from perverts spying on haberdashery changing rooms, creeps peeping at us in hotel showers, or senators peering into our toilet stalls in midwestern airports?
And it is impossible for it to be an invitation to abuse if men have their heads faced forward…
Unless there happens to be a woman in front of him. 
…and would perhaps bother to look women in the eyes. (Maybe Donna shops in New Jersey.)
…um…where men are required to wear head-immobilizing cervical collars when they go to the mall?
Liberals will profit mightily by giving aid to perverts, pandering to peeping toms, and giving sanctuary to 31 count indictees of child rape/executioners.
I just got my check today from the Peepers Guild!
They will do this as opposed to protecting the privacy of their own girlfriend, fiancé, wife, mother, or daughters.
And when necessary they will even brainwash women to make the case for them.
Well if the little be-ovaried darlings are that susceptible to suggestion, I guess they do need the strong, guiding hand of a man to protect them from forming legal opinions on pending legislation.
So which is more “creepy” – banning the perverts or defending them?
And have you stopped beating your dead horse yet? 
Have we really arrived at the day in which we have to ask such questions?
Turns out…No!  We don’t!  I’m afraid the whole thing was an elaborate practical joke at your expense, Kev.  And to make it even more ironic — you’re on Candid Camera!
Posted by scott on Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pm.

27 Responses to “Dirty Pretty Things”

Personally I would be concerned that I’d be so startled to notice the gentleman under the stairs that I might lose my grip on my own cup of coffee.
Because, you know, that would be bad.
Funny how they all want to eat the cake us liberals baked, after we stole the damn flour mills and the bakery so many years ago.
FYI Kevin, pervs were known as ‘girl watchers’ just a mere twenty years ago and a woman was supposed to feel flattered by the attention.
But the feminists fought the war against that and now you come along and want to reap the spoils.
Stand outside and beat your chest all in the name of chivalry Kevin, fact is, the original obstructionists to women’s safety and their allies will not be invited to the party.
Which means, of course, that that creepy legislation won’t pass; its off base. You and your people can’t join the chorus baby, singing all off key like that.
Sorry, Kevin, can’t do it. You have no right to privacy, dontcha know. Not in the Constitution anywhere, so my conservative chums tell me. Well, okay, at the very least *women* have no right to privacy, so you still can’t have your law.
Also, as kate is too kind to say, fuck off. We don’t need someone like you protecting us against, well, other people like you, in fact.
Can you imagine, though, even if the law did get passed, how quickly Kev and his like-minded troglodytes would explain that any woman filing a complaint was asking to be looked at in a prurient manner because of how she was dressed?
Oh good god. What a dillhole. If you READ the law as it is intended to be enforced, someone could actually be arrested for laughing at someone else’s big butt (or Hillary’s “thunder thighs”)
And HOW do you enforce it?? So now men can be arrested for gazing appreciatively at a woman’s legs, or her ass as she walks by??? After all, those can be considered intimate or sexual!
What about guys who go to the Miss America or Miss USA or Miss Universe pagents? They’re not there to hear those women talk! Better watch out, Hindrocket! Kevin McCullough is gonna have your ass in jail for “look(ing) at a person’s “sexual or other intimate parts…for the purpose of entertainment….”
In the end, it’s a stupid law because it can never be truly and fairly enforced.
BTW–isn’t there already a law that kinda covers this action–you know, the law against peeping toms?
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person’s “sexual or other intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification . . .
Can’t even someone as dumb as Kevin McCullough see that this law might be a tad overbroad? It might be a little hard to have sex if you can’t look at the other person and be sexually aroused.
What constitutes a casual or cursory manner?
Next we’ll have a crusade against “casual glancing at intimate parts,” once the serious looking at intimate parts is banned by our great (“keep government out of people’s lives”) protectors.
Good Lord what a dumbass.
Mark S: What are you, some kind of pervert? The lights aren’t supposed to be on anyway! Arousal has nothing to do with making babies. You’re not supposed to be *enjoying yourself*, dammit!
Well, at least this made my decision whether to buy that New York City Hooters franchise a little easier.
And we say it again: how does one get that GED, let alone reach the age of male-pattern baldness, without understanding that words have meanings, and nowhere more so than in the law? And McCullough is a card-carrying member of the party that argues that the Constitution can be properly understood–and only properly understood–by ignoring two centuries of precedent and grabbing a Webster’s.
This particular perve had a thing for looking up women’s skirts and he found it amusing to calmly eat his breakfast while stretching his neck to peep…
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person’s “sexual or other intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner[...]
Would this law even apply to Kevin’s pet-perv? Seeing as he’s munching on a bagel the whole time, he’s doing his thing about as “casually” as possible.
Oh, my sweet lordy-gordy. This guy has got to be the biggest dumbass on the fucking planet. I managed to avoid reading any of his tripe until this year, and in the last couple months I’ve been exposed to his idiocy, I’ve been truly astonished by it. I mean, this is jaw-dropping stupidity, the kind you don’t expect to find in a guy his age-you expect to find it in junior high kids, and even then, only the ones who had to repeat the 7th grade. He’s so dumb, he’d need a map to find his own ass.
And somebody to read it to him.
The law appears to make it illegal to look at your own partner’s “sexual or intimate parts”.
And what are non-sexual intimate parts?
Armpit, belly button, and back of knee. Mind you, they can be pretty sexual if you’re in the right frame of mind. I myself ogle clavicles and ankles all the time.
Sure, it’ll ban sex and strip joints and also most dating, but on the other hand it’ll spare us from creepily breathless coverage, so to speak, of the junior Senator from New York’s cleavage and what it might all mean.
Of course, if the guy had been eating Cheetohs instead of his breakfast, he would have been helping fight the War on Terror.
The Times had a nice editorial on this today:

August 30, 2007
Jeepers! Peepers in New York

In the list of wrongs that needed righting, the subway peeper is probably not too high on the average New Yorker’s anxiety list. Still, City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. of Queens thinks it is time to make something he calls “nonconsensual voyeurism” illegal.
Mr. Vallone’s target is a creep who loiters under certain subway stairs and peers upward at women. Rather than something simple, like a fence, Mr. Vallone has written a law that would levy a fine up to $500 and up to 90 days in jail for ogling a person’s “sexual or intimate parts” for more than a brief period. The councilman says he has crafted this legislation narrowly, but if voyeurism ever really becomes illegal, it’s time to build more jails in New York City.
For better or sometimes worse, New York is a city of exhibitionists. One of the many reasons people come to New York is to show off. And since New Yorkers feel they have seen it all, each new wave brings a need for latecomers to preen and posture in even more outrageous ways. Like wearing a boa — not the feathers, the snake. Or playing the guitar in Times Square in your underwear. Or teetering on heels so high they should come with a discount at the podiatrist.
New York is also a city full of spectators. There are probably many more New Yorkers who own binoculars than there are New Yorkers who love birds or opera. And why are the sales of telescopes over the moon in a place where, on most nights, it’s impossible to make out the big dipper? And, the newest, fanciest most expensive apartment buildings are made of the newest, fanciest and most expensive glass.
Nobody wants some sicko drilling a peephole in their locker room wall or private hotel room. But this ordinance feels like something akin to outlawing wolf whistles from a construction site and, then, banning the corresponding hand signal from the street.
Sorry, darling, I’ve just cancelled our fabulous shopping trip to New York because I’m afraid someone may look up a subway grate and catch a glimpse of your panty-clad hoo-hoo.
They will do this as opposed to protecting the privacy of their own girlfriend, fiancé, wife, mother, or daughters.
Perhaps Kevin here should be more concerned about how the French language is turning him gay without him noticing.
Just make all the womens wear burqas. Aside from odd moments on the Paris fashion runways, what would be the harm? Either that or impose a real penalty like gouging the eyes out with a flaming stick. After all, as it says in the Bible, “if thy right eye offend somebody else, have a demagogue cast it out for you.” Or something to that effect.
If you have ever dreamed of taking that fabulous shopping trip to New York City you’d be advised to stay away. Because right now, this very minute, today…there is no law protecting the women you cherish…
Did anyone else get thrown out a coffee bar for singing this to the tune of “Teddy Bears’ Picnic”? Is it just me?
In fairness, Vallone is a bit of a dick. He’s the son of former City Council (President, then) Speaker Peter Vallone Sr, and has been panicked that his father might outshine him in NYC history.
That said, this type of law is long overdue, but as usual, Vallone laced it with his ham-handed heavy artillery, and the NYCLU is right to call him on it.
I’m ashamed to admit he’s my councilman. He’ll be getting a letter from me.
By the way, I’m very familiar with that train station. I’m trying to work out how this perv looked up women’s dresses. I haven’t figured out the angle to do that.
Errrrrr, not, you know, that I’ve tried. Hard.
I mean, much.
I myself ogle clavicles and ankles all the time.
Left by D. Sidhe
What are you wearing on your wrist, baby? Ohhhhhhhhmy!
So this councilperson is only concerned with the ogling of women? Howcome? Is he unaware of the legions of females who are inveterate crotchwatchers, butt-evaluators, sternum-fiends and leg-lovers, running their bold yet sneaky, casual yet entertained gazes over the innocent contours of men on the public thoroughfare?
Bet he is unaware.
Burqas for EVERYBODY. We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
Oh my God! That picture! I cracked up at that. Yeah, you’re a “Musclehead” all right! Why do so many of these wingers sound like the angry and frustrated teenagers anyway?
Maybe this would be a much better way at handling the problem:
But all kidding aside, the problem with this law is how far would one take it? You\’d have to take away all strip clubs, Hooters, and Chipendale stores since they\’d have people constantly breaking that law. Are you going to have cops follow around 13-year-old girls to keep them from leering when their favorite manga character bends over? I\’m not excusing that peeper\’s behavior, but it\’s something you have to think about.
I’m glad to see the picture that got Kevie all pissed off at mewhen I posted it is being put to good use here. He claims that it was the one frame in the video where he looked “half-inebriated” but that’s not true. There were plenty of frames where he looked like that. Next thing you know, he’ll be calling you an “angry gay blogger” too!
First of all, Teh Kev needs to just buzz that dome and be done with it.
Second, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear that Kevin was looking to hammer out a precise legal definition of ‘perversion’ so he knows exactly where to tapdance around its edges. He can degrade women to his heart’s content as long as he doesn’t gaze at the area defined on page 17, paragraph B, section 2, subsection (c).
The key phrase in Vallone’s law is “without consent”.
I know this station that Vallone is talking about. As I said last week, I couldn’t figure out how the guy did it.
I happened to find myself on that block this weekend (this is on the same train line where a man was shot Saturday night…wonder where Vallone will go with that one? Gun control?), and while I didn’t want to contravene the law by staring up, I had to ponder the possibility that, indeed, Vallone himself stood under those same stairs for about an hour looking up to see if, indeed, he could see a (clad or unclad) cooter.
The possible viewing angles that I could figure out involved a certain amount of hermaphroditic spinal flexibility not uncommon in various invertebrates, including worms, jellyfish, and Kevin McCullough. In short, beasts who can stick their heads up their asses.
Which might explain his foot–…ok, pseudopodic stomping outrage over the NYCLU’s actions.
Is he unaware of the legions of females who are inveterate crotchwatchers, butt-evaluators, sternum-fiends and leg-lovers, running their bold yet sneaky, casual yet entertained gazes over the innocent contours of men on the public thoroughfare?
Left by Li’l Innocent on August 30th, 2007
Got phone numbers?

No comments:

Post a Comment