Grouping

I’m a fan of men. They get beat up fairly regularly. Pretty unfairly. Mostly undeservedly. 

And white men… They don’t seem to have many supporters, even among white women. I’ve always thought that it was because they are the target of so many different groups’ ire. But now I’m convinced that they’ve been the target of a single entity with many different arms.

[Via Instapundit, which means you’ve all probably already watched the PJTV video of Bill Whittle to which I linked above.]

Advertisements

I Question Everything

Is it wrong that I consider the largest down-side to being a porn star the fact that the porn star income is so heavily dependant upon ass hair removal and/or maintenance?

 

Why do I dress in my best “casual” clothes for doctor visits when the doctor only ever sees me in panties and a paper “dress”?

 

Why do the TV show titles on Animal Planet sound like titles of gay porn?

 

Why do lip glosses come in such yummy scents and flavors when the lip gloss boxes warn users that the gloss itself is harmful when swallowed?

 

How difficult can it be for men to find pants that fit when they don’t have hips? And why do mens’ pants have such a complicated sizing system when, compared to women, they have an easier time with fit?

Apologies

Sorry I haven’t been around much lately. I was recently traumatized by this picture (after clicking on a mystery meat link, no less – I should’ve known better). Internet surfing has induced panic attacks ever since. On the bright side, my therapist is taking his family on vacation this month.

Seriously, first it was blogging malaise; then it was a sinus infection; then it was blogging malaise; and then it was family drama, sinus infection, malaise, and stomach flu. At the same time.

Right now, it’s just the stomach flu; so I’m feeling relatively better.  Blogging to recommence soon. (And shyeah, I know… first rule of blogging: never apologize for not blogging. D’oh!)

Oh No!

The Apocalypse is nigh.

Twitterers (Tweeters? Twits?), take heart! Fox News has just reported that Twitter is indeed back up and running; though you may have to wait for your Twitter fix since it is suffering from some serious snail fail.

The Apocalypse? I think this is the first time in human history that the news was interrupted to announce such a thing. This is proof of at least one  (I think it’s proof of all) of the following: 

1) Twitter is addictive;

2) Twitter is so all pervasive that Twitter outage warrants breaking into regular news programming;

3) Twitter is now officially lame (no seriously “cool” thing – or whatever they’re calling the newest, bestest craze these days – is that popular with the masses); and/or

4) I was right to never join.

LATER: How funny is it that “Twitter” is a word in the wordpress spellchecker but “Obama” is not? Mildly.

We Do?

I am most amazed to learn that we have slaves in the South. I, myself, have never seen such a thing, but coming from such a learned person, it must be true.

At least, I think she was saying that we have slaves in the South. She could have meant that we had slaves in the South and was trying to draw a parallel between her concepts of “free food” today and “free food” then. Perhaps.

Frankly, I’m unsure exactly what she meant anywhere within the entire video. Something about lower rent and free food and slaves and China and Bush. I’m a little confused by the whole thing. Perhaps it’s because I don’t speak Californian and I don’t believe in magical rainbow-colored food-giving unicorns. I’m deficient that way, I suppose.

[Via Instapundit.]

Please. No.

Have you ever looked at a picture that took you back to a time of your life you’d rather forget? I did just now. One look and I was back to junior high circa 1988  – Edge of Nowhere, Georgia. Imagine, if you will: tight-rolled denim, plaid Converse high tops, MC Hammer genie pants, Sam & Libby ballet flats, several pairs of mismatched neon socks worn at the same time, black mesh gloves, big hair bows, pimples, acne scars, Clearasil, marching band, Lane Bryant, hormones, school bus rides…

I can’t go on.

Anyway, that was my life in 8th grade. And I had a flashback because of this picture. What the Doctor is wearing in that picture? That’s how the guys in Young Astronauts Club dressed for special occasions. And jeez, how the red-head is dressed? That’s how I  dressed for Young Astronauts Club special occasions (though my Converse high tops were red and black plaid).

Why can’t the fashion Gods think of anything new? When are we going to stop recycling this shit?

Also: When did Doctor Who become an after school special?

MORE: The new Doctor looks like he dances with jazz hands. I hope not.

LATER: No, this will not become a Doctor Who blog, though I realize that it looks that way right now.

Spock!!!

I just watched the fourth installment of the Torchwood miniseries, Children of Earth. If you haven’t watched it and plan to, don’t read this post. It contains spoilers. If you’ve watched the entire five episodes of the miniseries, don’t spoil the ending for me; I haven’t watched the fifth episode yet.

In the show, alien baddies have come to Earth and world leaders must make a decision. The have two options: They can submit to the alien demands and hand over 10% of the world’s children or they can try to fight the aliens who promise to kill everyone on Earth if the 10% aren’t surrendered. The leaders decide to give up the children, predisposing that the loss of 10% of the Earth’s children is better than losing 100% of everyone. It’s an interesting dilemma to be sure, and I wonder if the percentage Russell T. Davies (the writer/producer of the show) uses is another swing at religion in his mind, but what I find most compelling about the fourth episode, is the fictional UK government’s debate on how to choose the 10%.

Very quickly, an all encompassing lottery is dismissed; none of the decision-makers want to give up their own kids. One practical-minded woman suggests that they choose the 10% of children who are least likely to be useful to society in adulthood. In other words, they will get rid of the kids who likely will be a drain on the UK system. One government guy at the table even suggests that they sell the idea to the public as a public service; his argument is that, with an expected population boom on the horizon, getting rid of the ones who won’t contribute in propping up the government could be seen as an opportunity.

What I find most chilling about the discussion is that I see such a debate happening in the US health care (Obamacare) debate. We already have people joking about certain minority groups getting better service. Hell, we already have promises that Obamacare will not cut services to the elderly because it would be wasteful (I suppose that’s because they won’t be “useful” to Obama in propping up the government in the future). And there’s a new WSJ opinion piece out that lists other groups that will suffer.

Obamacare can’t possibly serve everyone equally, so who gets cut? How do they set that standard? What about government preferred groups? Do they go to the front of the line? “At risk” people seem to be liberal politicians’ most favored recipient of government attention; do they get more service?

The decision-making process is important because they are deciding who lives and who dies. I am most uncomfortable with the idea that it is the government making such decisions about my life.

Alas, we don’t have sexy Captain Jack to save our bacon.

LATER: This post is called “Spock!!!” because the Torchwood episode reminded me of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan and the whole “needs of the many > needs of the few” BS.