Replies to post #45404 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[StephanieVanbryce]

99 Responses to “If Wanting To See Vaginas Is A Crime, Then I, Your Honor, Am Guilty”

Here is just a 'few' of the comments .. I thought they were interesting also ..

Lara Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:56 am
Something makes me fear that not everyone will get this is heavy satire….
It’s hilarious ONLY in that it’s satire, but it freaked me the fuck out because there are SO many men who actually literally think like this. It’s their excessive sense of entitlement. The author I think captured that incredibly well, but will a lot of people who come across this article online GET IT?

Christina Neofotistou Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 am
I like


“Is there a man among us, here in this hall of so-called “justice,” that does not also desire to see vaginas?”

umm, how about gay men among you?

“Does any one of you not admire their natural, flowerlike perfection, or not enjoy the sexual urges they conjure deep within your being?”

How about vaginoplasties? Perfection maybe, but natural? Why is it important that it’s natural anyway? And seriously, “flowerlike”? Wtf? Should it smell like a rose too?
And I love love love that he’s daring anyone to come out and say they don’t like “the glory of the vagina”.
..

Is he for real??

Christina Neofotistou Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 am
eeek, I fell for it!! But it sounded so earnest! Like “God hates a fag”…

kali Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 am
Utter, utter genius.
I particularly love this bit:

Yet here in this courtroom, we act as if the glory of the vagina is something to be hidden from public view. And in so doing, we veil the most rapturous wonder of creation under ignorance, repression, hosiery, and outerwear.

It rings so true! I’m sure I’ve seen variations on this every time any kind of feminist objection to any kind of porn comes up. A man’s right to get off is not just sacred, but noble, yes, noble and sanctified. Squllions of sperm died struggling for the freedom of speech you desire to casually and frivolously violate, &c

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/05/23/if-wanting-to-see-vaginas-is-a-crime-then-i-your-ho...

[F6]

Stephanie -- thanks, maybe that'll help take some of the edge off my rude one post

especially liked

And in so doing, we veil the most rapturous wonder of creation under ignorance, repression, hosiery, and outerwear. Not unlike the conservative poly-knit skirt worn by the prosecuting attorney, who, I might add, is a very attractive woman.

ROFLMAO

[sluggo33]

yeah baby

[sortagreen]

Now that's more like "really cute.." Not really crude or mean for its own sake.

:)

[StephanieVanbryce]

Maureen Dowd: Bush’s Fleurs du Mal

For me, the saddest spot in Washington is the inverted V of the black granite Vietnam wall, jutting up with the names of young men dying in a war that their leaders already knew could not be won.

So many died because of ego and deceit — because L.B.J. and Robert McNamara wanted to save face or because Henry Kissinger wanted to protect Nixon’s re-election chances.

Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. Iraq is in a civil war, with a gruesome bonus of terrorists mixed in. April was the worst month this year for the American military, with 104 soldiers killed, and there have been about 90 killed thus far in May. The democracy’s not jelling, as Iraqi lawmakers get ready to slouch off for a two-month vacation, leaving our kids to be blown up.

The top-flight counterinsurgency team that President Bush sent in after long years of pretending that we’d “turned the corner” doesn’t believe there’s a military solution. General Petraeus is reduced to writing an open letter to the Iraqi public, pleading with them to reject sectarianism and violence, even as the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr slinks back from four months in Iran, rallying his fans by crying: “No, no, no to Satan! No, no, no to America! No, no, no to occupation! No, no, no to Israel!”

W. thinks he can save face if he keeps taunting Democrats as the party of surrender — just as Nixon did — and dumps the Frankenstate he’s created on his successor.

“The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland,” he told Coast Guard Academy graduates. “The enemy in Iraq does. Nine-eleven taught us that to protect the American people we must fight the terrorists where they live so that we don’t have to fight them where we live.”

The president said an intelligence report (which turned out to be two years old) showed that Osama had been trying to send Qaeda terrorists in Iraq to attack America. So clearly, Osama is capable of multitasking: Order the killers in Iraq to go after American soldiers there and American civilians here. There AND here. Get it, W.?

The president is on a continuous loop of sophistry: We have to push on in Iraq because Al Qaeda is there, even though Al Qaeda is there because we pushed into Iraq. Our troops have to keep dying there because our troops have been dying there. We have to stay so the enemy doesn’t know we’re leaving. Osama hasn’t been found because he’s hiding.

The terrorists moved into George Bush’s Iraq, not Saddam Hussein’s. W.’s ranting about Al Qaeda there is like planting fleurs du mal and then complaining your garden is toxic.

The president looked as if he wanted to smack David Gregory when the NBC reporter asked him at the news conference Thursday if he could still be “a credible messenger on the war” given all the mistakes and all the disillusioned Republicans.

“I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David,” he replied sharply.

But he isn’t and he doesn’t. Otherwise he might have read “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” in August 2001, and might have read the prewar intelligence reports the Senate just released that presciently forecast the horrors in store for naïve presidents who race to war because they want to be seen as hard, not soft.

Intelligence analysts may have muffed the W.M.D. issue, but they accurately predicted that implanting democracy in Iraq would be an “alien” idea that could lead to turbulence and violence; that Al Qaeda would hook up with Saddam loyalists and “angry young recruits” to militant Islam to “wage guerrilla warfare” on American forces, and that Iran and Al Qaeda would be the winners if the Bushies botched the occupation.

W. repeated last week that he would never retreat, but his advisers are working on ways to retreat. After the surge, in lieu of strategy, come the “concepts.”

Condi Rice, Bob Gates and generals at the Pentagon are talking about long-range “concepts” for reducing forces in Iraq, The Times reported yesterday, as a way to tamp down criticism, including from Republicans; it is also an acknowledgment that they can’t sustain the current force level there much longer. The article said that officials were starting to think about how to halve the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq, sometime in the second half of 2008.

As the Hollywood screenwriter said in “Annie Hall”: “Right now it’s only a notion, but I think I can get money to make it into a concept and later turn it into an idea.”

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/05/maureen-dowd-bushs-fleurs-du-mal.html