These aren't the "feminist" you're looking for

.

The President was in Colorado Wednesday for a campaign visit featuring Sandra Fluke, the reverse anthropomorphic image of the satist love-child Juila, the Democrats' 21st century Susan B. Anthony.

You see, at one time, there was a set of people known as "feminist" who used to wear t-shirts that said stuff like, "Keep your laws off my body" and "What goes on in the bedroom stays in the bedroom" and stuff like that.

These days, historians will find evidence of "feminist" only in thrift shops, where, along with their principles, they have hocked those t-shirts.

But back to Colorado where Caleb Bonham interviews women acting like "feminist" but as can be seen and heard are clearly imposters or were paid-off by Bonham to look utterly clueless. "Feminist", as far as we can tell, is an extinct species.

(via Hot Air):




.


From: "Keep your laws off my body" to "Pay me to have sex"... Yeah, you've come a long way baby.

.

Uh, just a couple of more questions if you wouldn't mind?

.

The absurdity of the statist-left knows no bounds. Plus, yet more evidence of the big lie.

From CBS Los Angeles:

The next influx of UC students may be asked to state their sexual orientation.

In January, the Academic Senate recommended that upon accepting admission offers from a University of California school students should have the option of identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender.

The UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools had mixed reactions but agreed that the question would allow them to collect important statistical information. They recommended putting the question on the SIR forms instead of college applications to protect students’ privacy.

(ed. note: for what purpose is this information collected?)

The news made the front page of UCLA’s campus paper Daily Bruin and is stirring controversy across UC campuses.

Supporters say the declaration will help campuses better plan for the needs of LGBT students.

Queer Alliance Board member Luis Roman said he has spoken with university officials about the proposal, which he enthusiastically supports, because he believes it will bring badly needed services for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students.

(ed. note: precisely what needs and services are required for LGBT students above that of the rest of the student population?)

Some members of that community believe it would show that there are many more LGBT students than university officials realize.

“I think the numbers are way bigger than we really imagine or know,” Roman said.

(ed. note: And? )

The sexual orientation question would likely be optional. That may mean that a sizable number of students would not respond or would do so dishonestly — skewing the results, said Raja Bhattar, the director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Center at UCLA.

(ed. note: Questions: is this implying then that Bhattar thinks the inquiry should be mandatory and if so, how does making it mandatory compel the questionee from being any less or more forthright in his answer?)

The data would be collected from incoming freshmen and transfer students.

High school senior Brian Vo, who was visiting his friend Quincy Vien on campus, said he wouldn’t mind being asked.

“I think it’s fine. They’re just collecting information to kind of cater to the population. It’s not obligatory — it’s voluntary — so it’s up to you whether you want to or not.”

(ed. note: Cater? How about pander?)

That's about as much ridiculousness as can be fit into one news story. Congrats.

It really boils down to a social engineering statistical make-work program.


And with respect to the big lie: Similar to the contraception mandate and the valuable Congressional testimony given by their cute little mascot, Sandra Fluke, who decided to go public with her sex life and thinks that others should pay for the same, the statist-left's desire for the bedroom to be off-limits to inquiry and public policy proves itself to be just that... as it always has been.

With these two examples, the mask is beginning to slip in regards to the amount of privacy and autonomy the political class will allow you to have.



Addendum #1:

Via Leslie at Temple of Mut: the GOP's "war on reproductive rights" in graphical image form.

Who adds:

I think the “War on Women” is more along the lines of the film, “Wag the Dog“: Since, the president does not seem to have much of a chance of being re-elected, one of his advisers contacts a top Hollywood producer in order to manufacture a war that the president can heroically end, all through mass media.

I can imagine the discussion now: I am sure it went along these lines:

Stanley Motss: The President will be a hero. He brought peace.
Conrad ‘Connie’ Brean: But there was never a war.
Stanley Motss: All the greater accomplishment.

.

Video clip of the day

.

Scratchy throat? Nagging cough? Hey, everyone can agree that birth control is important but it sure seems to us that cough drops are a pretty important preventive medicine, also.


Thankfully, we've had a congressional hearing on the subject.

.




.


Duly noted: a firm nod towards what has been a part of the Republican push-back effort and which is completely counterproductive to the issue at hand which is why is the government forcing others to pay for that which is an entirely voluntary choice?


Via their cute little mascot, Ms. Fluke, the statist-left is now insisting, against decades of protesting to the counter, that one's private sex life is now of public interest and concern. If you are asking the public to, in effect, pay for you to have sex, how can it be viewed as anything but?


We do consider it a relief to know, however, that the "Keep your laws off my body!" set has finally given up the ghost and through support of the contraception mandate has admitted their battle cry was nothing more than a high falutin' argument in favor of killing the unborn.

Honesty is indeed the best policy, wouldn't you agree?

.

As seen on Facebook

.

To which we responded:

We think everyone can agree on this: your voting record, your sex life and your purchasing of birth control are all highly personal, autonomous and self-responsible matters and should remain that way.

It's come to this...

Modern feminism: having become enslaved to your own sex life, you are left to beg on Capitol Hill for someone else to pay for your own birth control.

.


We suppose you have, sweetheart.

.

Sarah sez

.

One in a series that takes a look at some of the zany, wacky and madcap things said by the former governor of Alaska.





Here's Palin chiming in on the contraception mandate:

At a press conference on Capitol Hill, (Palin) explained her support for the Obama administration’s decision to require religious institutions to offer health insurance plans that cover contraception.

“I know that the records show that 90 percent of Catholic women of childbearing age use birth control,” (Palin) said to reporters on Thursday. ”So this is a women’s health issue.”

“It’s a matter of conscience for each woman, her doctor, her husband, her family, and her God to make their own decisions. And as a Catholic, I support the right of a woman to make that decision.”

Good lord, that is just preposterous and yep, you know the drill, that wasn't Palin at all rather Sarah sez regular and overall series leader, House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi.


.



.


If 90% of Catholic women use birth control then you can pretty much throw the "access" argument issue out the window. Same goes for "controlling cost" argument as well. How expensive can birth control be if 90% of Catholic women (and, we might assume, a similar percentage of women overall) are using it?

And Pelosi is correct in that the decision on whether to use birth control is that particular woman's choice. How is it then that there is no choice for the rest of us who are now forced to buy that birth control for that woman? If the decision to use birth control is a choice then it certainly makes sense for that person and not someone else to foot the bill for it.

This is what now passes for logic with the statist-left.







And how did we get to this point? Peter Schweizer thinks he knows (H/T: Hot Air):

Forget for a minute the religious question and look at who wins big here: Big Pharma. This mandate is not really about condoms or generic versions of “the pill,” which are available free or cheap in lots of places. This is about brand-name birth control drugs and other devices that some consumers swear off because they are too expensive. The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requires health-insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage for all “FDA approved contraceptive methods.” It does not insist on generics. And it does not offer any cost containment.

What’s more, the mandate prevents health-insurance companies from having copays or deductibles for the benefit. This is the perfect set up for Big Pharma. Since the drugs will be paid for by a third party (insurance companies, who will pass the cost on to employers and the rest of us), the consumer won’t worry about the price. Expensive brand names will no doubt see demand rise. Ask more health-care analysts why the cost of medical services continues to rise so rapidly and near the top of the list is the fact that a third-party payment system won’t contain costs.

And this represents perfectly why there will be no cost containment provided by ObamaCare: lack of cost transparency. If the consumer isn't directly paying for the product, does he or she care how much it costs and thus impose any sort of self-rationing (i.e. paying for only what you need)? Of course, not.



During the crafting of ObamaCare we learned the phrase "If you are not at the table then you are on the menu." It certainly would appear that Big Pharma's support of ObamaCare after a brief initial pushback was assisted greatly with this sweetheart carve-out at the proverbial table.

.

Your contraceptive abortion mandate update

.

It would appear that this mandate thing is quite catching.

Not content to merely force you to pay for someone else to get laid, now the statist agenda wants you to pay for disposing of the potential consequence of someone else getting laid.

OLYMPIA — At a time when many states are making it harder for women to get abortions, Washington state appears headed in the opposite direction.

Fifteen states have passed laws restricting insurers from covering abortions and 12 others are considering similar measures. By contrast, a bill that has passed Washington's House and is working its way through the Senate would make the state the first to require all health-insurance plans under its jurisdiction — except those claiming a conscience-based exemption — to include abortion coverage.

The measure, House Bill 2330, would do so by requiring insurers who cover maternity care, which Washington insurers are mandated to provide, to also pay for abortions. New York is the only other state considering similar rules, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks women's health-related legislation.

Opponents say expanded coverage would lead to more abortions and higher health-care costs for all — claims muddied by the already wide availability of abortion in the state and the fact that abortions cost insurers less than do live births. They also say the measure would violate federal rules barring discrimination against insurers who don't offer abortion coverage for moral reasons, putting at risk $6 billion in federal money.

We've got an idea: How about we let the insurance companies decide whether or not they want to cover abortions? And for you fans of "choice" out there, how about letting us choose whether or not to contract with an insurer or a specific insurance plan that covers abortion.

The elegance of it all is in it's simplicity and at its core is the concept that if you want to get laid, you pay for the contraceptive and if you want to get an abortion because you did not have the foresight to take preventive measures either before or after getting laid, you also pay for that.




Oh, and wait for it... the other shoe... the "rights" shoe. Never fails:

"Washington state has historically been in the forefront for women's reproductive rights," said Rep. Eileen Cody, D-West Seattle, who sponsored the measure. "We're just trying to maintain the status quo."

See? See how easy it is? When you arbitrarily declare a good or service a right, it therefore becomes "free" and the result is that you get someone else to pay for it. Perfect.


And by now, hopefully you are beginning to see how this "one size fits all" approach actually works out: Have a religious, conscientious, fiscal or otherwise wtf? common sense objection to footing the bill for someone else's sex life? Stow it, chump. Pay up. Have similar-based objections to paying for someone else's abortion? Too bad. Fork it over, pal.



Brothers and sisters, who could be blamed now for wanting to jump into this burgeoning cottage industry of "rights" in our post-Constitutional America?


We anxiously await for KT's head to explode in 7...6... 5...4...


.

Tuition, books, housing and sex, of course.

.


In previously describing the contraceptive mandate, we have said it is akin to paying someone else to have sex. It appears now we can remove that "akin" qualifier as that is precisely how people on the other side of this debate see it also.

Testifying before Nancy Pelosi's House panel, Georgetown University student and birth-control activist Sandra Fluke told the panel that paying for their own contraception is absolutely killing them in the pocketbook and that free contraception would sure help out in getting them through college.

"Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," Fluke told the hearing.

There you have it, folks... the logical conclusion to radical secular redistributive statism: taking the position that free contraception is somehow a right, or liberty interest, that others must pay for.

This is a perfect example of how making a good or service a "right" will necessarily entail the involuntary confiscation of property or wealth of others who will not enjoy the benefit of that "right", unless, of course, they are Biblically aquainted with, say, Ms. Fluke.

So gone is Ms. Fluke down the statist black hole that she seems unwilling to even hit up her partner for some help. Would it be too much to ask that if they go "dutch" for dinner that they do the same later on in the sack?

And what of this young lady's heartless and cruel parents that they would force their child to possibly cut out a pizza a week in order to properly finance her dalliances?


We appreciate, however, Ms. Fluke and her plight as no theoretical argument we could ever devise would illustrate perfectly the absurdity contained within ObamaCare. We thank you, Ms. Fluke for providing this invaluable service.


We await treatment of this matter from Iowahawk.

.

Wait, what?

One in a series where we take a look at the unusual, the absurd and certainly the unexpected.



Perhaps you've heard by now that actress Mila Kunis has accepted an invitation to the Marine Corps ball in November. The video invite sent by Sgt. Scott Moore can be seen here. Pretty cool, huh? And her reaction to the reaction of her accepting the invite (first link) was pretty darn cool as well.


OK, let's call it a wrap shall we and let this golden and heart-warming Hollywood moment live on in our memories unsullied for eternity.



What's that? You say you're intrigued by this lovely young lass and would like to know more about her? C'mon, do you really want to take that chance? Can we just leave well enough alone?


Alright, then...


GQ: Your new movie is called Friends with Benefits. Ever been in one of those relationships?

Mila Kunis: Oy. I haven’t, but I can give you my stance on it: It’s like communism—good in theory, in execution it fails. Friends of mine have done it, and it never ends well. Why do people put themselves through that torture?



Wait, what?



Now regardless of whether you actually agree with her judgement of either FWBs or communism, ponder the fact that this 28 yr. old actress took multiple unrelated concepts and strung them together in a single coherent thought, completely unrehearsed.

Kunis as a young girl and her parents emigrated here from the Soviet Union back in 1991 escaping what they saw as persecution against Jews. Knowing that, it's easier to see how she just might have a different perspective on things than the average American-born twenty-something.

Having said that, please count BwD as official fan-boys of Ms. Kunis.

Confirmed: Beer Goggles

At long last...

Scientists have finally proven what many of us have believed for years – beer goggles really do exist.

The phenomenon, where less attractive people suddenly become more appealing when the onlooker has consumed copious amounts of alcohol, is well known in pubs and clubs across Britain.
(ed.: it ain't just Britain there, champ)

Until now, though, no one really knew why. But a new study has found that drunk students were up to ten per cent more likely to fall for less attractive people than those who were sober.

The report showed the more they drank, the less likely they were to recognise the finer details on people’s face

And of course, from the comment section:

"vodka goggles exist too, beleive it"



I was drunk when I met the wife, and this would explain why I've needed to drink every day since we met.

Harry Monk, Dartford, 06/6/2010 08:23

Pretty disrespectful comment in my opinion, if you really think like that about your wife, chances are she's getting the good attention elsewhere.
- stacey, wales, 6/6/2010 10:16



"It works both ways, ugly men become attractive, I don't see the bald head, and protruding stomach and the look of desperation! But now I've given up the drink I can be more choosy!"

"Human race would have died out years ago without beer."

And on it goes.

Image of the Day

"Nice shoes"




Whether you are a former Pro-Bowl quarterback, the most powerful man in the world or just humble ship-builders, there does not seem to be any more incontrovertible truth than man’s weakness in the presence of the fairer sex.

However, whether or not that weakness ultimately results in you getting shot dead in your sleep by your 20 yr. old mistress or just merely a pretty funny gotcha moment, resides entirely within one’s own power.

P.S. Sarkozy's somewhat more surreptitious "viewing" reminded us of a quote from a movie... can't remember which one but it went something like this: "It's an entirely French custom to have an affair and an entirely American one to get caught having one."

Criminal Negligence comes in many forms

How it is we blew-off the Interior Department’s booth at the Job Fair a few years back will never be fully explained.

WASHINGTON – Government officials in charge of collecting billions of dollars' worth of royalties from oil and gas companies accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients, and engaged in drug use and illicit sex with employees of the energy firms, federal investigators reported yesterday.

Investigators from the inspector general's office of the Interior Department said more than a dozen current and former employees, including the former director of the oil royalty program, took meals, ski trips, sports tickets and golf outings from industry representatives.

Story here.