We are on vacation this week, so I thought I'd try something new. Somethimg I can do on a hand-held that doesn't require a bunch of cutting and pasting or reading the news. So here goes.
Since today is Sunday, the first play list will be pop songs that reference verses or stories from the Good Book.
Here gies nothimg:
(ref: Song of Solomon 1:2)
(ref: Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8)
(ref: Joshua 6:20)
Sunday, September 8, 2019
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Who is Cathy Young?
I was blissfully unaware of the existence of Cathy Young until yesterday, when her name popped up twice on my Twitter timeline.
Which made me think that she must be a really awful awful person. So, being a glutton for punishment, I Googled her.
Apparently, the woman named Cathy Young was born in Moscow. Russia, not Idaho. I mean, "Cathy Young" sounds like this :
Not this:
But that's neither here nor there.
Cathy Young is a writer. She has written for the Boston Globe, the Daily Beast and Reason Magazine among other outlets. According to her bio: Catherine Alicia Young is a Russian-born American journalist. Young is primarily known for her writing about rape and feminism.
And considering that she was or is employed by Reason Magazine and Quillette, it is not at all promising that that is the beat she covers.
Here is a little something she penned back in 2016:
Oh for God's sake. . .
I expect this kind of grotesque garbage from the Jordan Peterson disciple incel community, but from a grown woman?
Aaaand we're off to a great start already, putting rape culture in quotes, implying that this is a made-up term or that rape culture doesn't exist.
Rape culture is absolutely a real thing and it has been around for a long time. Probably for as long as there have been humans. When I was a teen, back in the late mesozoic, we used to go to lots of movies. Because they had second-run theaters back then that were super cheap. I can not tell you how many teen comedies I saw back in the 80's in which the "cool" guy gives the not-so-cool guy dating advice that included some version of "when girls say no, they mean yes." And sometimes the not-so-cool guy found out that this was not true, but his attempts to treat a "no" as a "yes" were generally treated as hilarious fun.
Or take the example of "Revenge of the Nerds." This was a hugely popular comedy in which the "nerds" get revenge on the "jocks" by planting cameras in the women's dorms so that they can watch the jocks' girlfriends in various states of undresss. Then they print up nude photos of the girlfriends and sell them at a school fair. This is depicted as a fine and amusing way to get back at the jocks, by violating the women whom the jocks are dating.
It gets worse. One of the main nerds puts on a costume that is identical to the one that the star quarterback is wearing then has sex with the quarterback's unsuspecting girlfriend. This is rape. But when he removes the mask to reveal that she ahas not been having sex with the man she loves, but with a virtual stranger, she isn't even upset. She asks him something like "are all nerds as good at sex as you are?" And at the end of the movie, she chooses to be the girlfriend of the rapist nerd. That's rape culture. A major Hollywood comedy showing rape as a sort of harmless prank that could actually make a girl fall for you. And I do not remember anyone objecting back then. This was all seen as just a silly comedy wherein the violation of these women was played for laughs and cheap titillation. But sure, let's act as if "rape culture" is some siully overreaction to boys being boys or whatever.
Sorry, I got a little sidetracked there.
You know what, though? How long has the "panty raid" been depicted as harmless college hijinks?
That's such bullshit. First of all, that's theft. Undies cost money. Stealing undies is no different from stealing purses or jewelry. I mean, it is different because it's also a gross violation of privacy. I mean, I should think some girls were probably humiliated by having their underthings seen and taken by strange men. God knows the judgments made on the basis of the prudishness or risque'ness of the various knickers. It's really awful. I remember seeing an episode of "Happy Days" where the young men had gone off to college and participated in a "panty raid" and it was played for laughs because who could possibly be upset about some harmless shenanigans?
It's so gross.
Anyway, let's see what Ms Young has to say about this and that.
You do know why they have these "tribunals," right? It's to discourage rape victims from going to the police. It's to protect the "alleged" rapist (and the school's reputation.) It's not to railroad innocent young men who are falsely accused by evil harpies.
Oh nooooo! That would be so awful if feminist activism influenced the justice system. Oh nooooo!!!
Oh, well, I'm sure you know better than the guy who made the decison. What was his job again? Oh right, he's a judge! But you probably understand the Canadian legal system a bit better than he does because you grew up in Russia and now live in the US and didn't attend law school.
You know what, I can't even go on with this article. Suffice it to say that she tends to believe the rapist when he says it was consensual even though
Because a: it's totally plausible that he would ask her to stop touching his leg when he was looking to have three-way sex with her and another woman. Nothing kills a sexy mood faster than the woman you're interested in touching your leg! Also, it seems perfectly believable that he would break up with her, make her cry, and then she would be totally wanting to visit bonetown! With such a believable story, I just don't see how anyone could think him guilty!
Anyway, most of her stuff seems to fit this template. "Men are being victimized, women are liars, no one ever believes the poor men and everyone always believes all the women even though we know what liars women are blah, blah, blah." It's grotesque and it's completely untethered to reality and it's just horrible. And I wish I still didn't know who she is. But if I have to know about her, so do you. You knew what you were getting into when you clicked on the Daily Irritant.
Cathy blaming a rape victim for her rapists's suicide after being exposed is extremely on-brand https://t.co/laI8TyFjSY— דער ייִדישר אַרבּעטער (@JewishWorker) September 2, 2019
Cathy Young, who refused to accept that a very racist depiction of Serena Williams was actually racist, is trying to convince people that a Jewish professor calling Bret Stephens a bedbug is antisemitic. pic.twitter.com/9bV2klpVq0— saeen (@saeen90_) September 1, 2019
Which made me think that she must be a really awful awful person. So, being a glutton for punishment, I Googled her.
Apparently, the woman named Cathy Young was born in Moscow. Russia, not Idaho. I mean, "Cathy Young" sounds like this :
Not this:
But that's neither here nor there.
Cathy Young is a writer. She has written for the Boston Globe, the Daily Beast and Reason Magazine among other outlets. According to her bio: Catherine Alicia Young is a Russian-born American journalist. Young is primarily known for her writing about rape and feminism.
And considering that she was or is employed by Reason Magazine and Quillette, it is not at all promising that that is the beat she covers.
Here is a little something she penned back in 2016:
Canadian University Student Convicted of Rape, But Was the Judge Biased Against Men?
Mustafa Ururyar's trial highlights a dilemma.
Oh for God's sake. . .
I expect this kind of grotesque garbage from the Jordan Peterson disciple incel community, but from a grown woman?
Concerns that the crusade against "rape culture" is creating an accusation-equals-guilt mindset in sexual assault cases have been mostly aimed at colleges.
Aaaand we're off to a great start already, putting rape culture in quotes, implying that this is a made-up term or that rape culture doesn't exist.
Rape culture is absolutely a real thing and it has been around for a long time. Probably for as long as there have been humans. When I was a teen, back in the late mesozoic, we used to go to lots of movies. Because they had second-run theaters back then that were super cheap. I can not tell you how many teen comedies I saw back in the 80's in which the "cool" guy gives the not-so-cool guy dating advice that included some version of "when girls say no, they mean yes." And sometimes the not-so-cool guy found out that this was not true, but his attempts to treat a "no" as a "yes" were generally treated as hilarious fun.
Or take the example of "Revenge of the Nerds." This was a hugely popular comedy in which the "nerds" get revenge on the "jocks" by planting cameras in the women's dorms so that they can watch the jocks' girlfriends in various states of undresss. Then they print up nude photos of the girlfriends and sell them at a school fair. This is depicted as a fine and amusing way to get back at the jocks, by violating the women whom the jocks are dating.
Oh, and this was considered a harmless collegiate prank.
It gets worse. One of the main nerds puts on a costume that is identical to the one that the star quarterback is wearing then has sex with the quarterback's unsuspecting girlfriend. This is rape. But when he removes the mask to reveal that she ahas not been having sex with the man she loves, but with a virtual stranger, she isn't even upset. She asks him something like "are all nerds as good at sex as you are?" And at the end of the movie, she chooses to be the girlfriend of the rapist nerd. That's rape culture. A major Hollywood comedy showing rape as a sort of harmless prank that could actually make a girl fall for you. And I do not remember anyone objecting back then. This was all seen as just a silly comedy wherein the violation of these women was played for laughs and cheap titillation. But sure, let's act as if "rape culture" is some siully overreaction to boys being boys or whatever.
Sorry, I got a little sidetracked there.
You know what, though? How long has the "panty raid" been depicted as harmless college hijinks?
Above: Headline of The Daily Texan on November 3, 1961.
That's such bullshit. First of all, that's theft. Undies cost money. Stealing undies is no different from stealing purses or jewelry. I mean, it is different because it's also a gross violation of privacy. I mean, I should think some girls were probably humiliated by having their underthings seen and taken by strange men. God knows the judgments made on the basis of the prudishness or risque'ness of the various knickers. It's really awful. I remember seeing an episode of "Happy Days" where the young men had gone off to college and participated in a "panty raid" and it was played for laughs because who could possibly be upset about some harmless shenanigans?
It's so gross.
Anyway, let's see what Ms Young has to say about this and that.
Concerns that the crusade against "rape culture" is creating an accusation-equals-guilt mindset in sexual assault cases have been mostly aimed at colleges. It's campuses that employ extralegal tribunals to settle rape disputes—tribunals where the accused often do not have the right to an attorney, to cross-examine their accusers, or to examine the evidence against them.
You do know why they have these "tribunals," right? It's to discourage rape victims from going to the police. It's to protect the "alleged" rapist (and the school's reputation.) It's not to railroad innocent young men who are falsely accused by evil harpies.
But the latest contentious rape case comes from a real court—albeit in Canada, where feminist activism has been much more successful in influencing the justice system than in the United States.
Oh nooooo! That would be so awful if feminist activism influenced the justice system. Oh nooooo!!!
On July 21, Mustafa Ururyar, a 29-year-old York University graduate student, was found guilty of sexually assaulting fellow grad student Mandi Gray, 28. The verdict was handed down by Ontario Court Judge Marvin Zuker in a non-jury trial. The alleged rape—and I say "alleged," because after reading the 180-page judgment I see no grounds for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—happened in the early morning hours of January 31, 2015.
Oh, well, I'm sure you know better than the guy who made the decison. What was his job again? Oh right, he's a judge! But you probably understand the Canadian legal system a bit better than he does because you grew up in Russia and now live in the US and didn't attend law school.
You know what, I can't even go on with this article. Suffice it to say that she tends to believe the rapist when he says it was consensual even though
[h]e said that Gray flirted with him all evening and that he even told her to stop touching him when she groped his thigh, twice. He admitted wanting a threesome, supposedly because he had heard from a friend that Gray was interested, but denied insulting or berating Gray. He also said that back at his apartment after they got into bed, he told Gray he wanted to end their relationship and mentioned being annoyed by her behavior at the bar. He said that Gray began to cry and he comforted her, and that she then initiated sex.
Because a: it's totally plausible that he would ask her to stop touching his leg when he was looking to have three-way sex with her and another woman. Nothing kills a sexy mood faster than the woman you're interested in touching your leg! Also, it seems perfectly believable that he would break up with her, make her cry, and then she would be totally wanting to visit bonetown! With such a believable story, I just don't see how anyone could think him guilty!
Anyway, most of her stuff seems to fit this template. "Men are being victimized, women are liars, no one ever believes the poor men and everyone always believes all the women even though we know what liars women are blah, blah, blah." It's grotesque and it's completely untethered to reality and it's just horrible. And I wish I still didn't know who she is. But if I have to know about her, so do you. You knew what you were getting into when you clicked on the Daily Irritant.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Actual 100% real headline not from the Onion.
Catholic school reportedly removes Harry Potter books from library because they 'risk conjuring evil spirits'
Megan Johnson,Yahoo Lifestyle Sun, Sep 1 3:35 PM EDT 
The Rev. Dan Reehil, a pastor at the St. Edward School, a pre-K through 8th grade Roman Catholic school in Nashville, explained to parents in an email why the extremely popular seven-book series by J.K. Rowling about a young wizard and his friends was taken out of the school’s collection.
"These books present magic as both good and evil, which is not true, but in fact a clever deception. . ."
Wow, you're really jumping on this one right on time! The first Harry Potter book was published in 1997. And just now, 21 years later, you're noticing that that they're about spooky witches and magick and whatnot?
And in those 21 years, have you seen any sort of an uptick in wizardry-related casualties?
Seems like 21 years is a good enough sample size to determine that these books are pretty benign.
"These books present magic as both good and evil, which is not true, but in fact a clever deception. . .
Well, I'm not sure how clever that deception is, seeing as how the "deception" here is that being a wizard and casting spells is made up? And maybe some kids might be naive enough to think that they could actually somehow find a wizard school to teach them how to do magic? And then they would be disappointed when they eventually figure out that nonr of this is real?
"These books present magic as both good and evil, which is not true, but in fact a clever deception. The curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text,"
What????
The spells are real?
You, a grown man, think that magic spells are real. Seriously, this is a thing that you think. You think that there are actual, literal, magical spells that can actually be used to conjure up actual, literal evil spirits?
So you know how many people have read the Harry Potter books? Over half a BILLION of these books have been sold. And God knows how many people have checked them out from libraries. So, hundreds of millions of people have read these books and I promise you - I PROMISE you - none of these people have inadvertently or intentionally summoned any demons into our realm. Zero evil spirits have been conjured up by the readers of the Harry Potter books. Zero. Which is, coincidentally, the number of evil demon spirits that actually exist.
I mean, you know J.K. Rowling just made these spells and incantations up, right? She didn't copy them from ancient scrolls she unearthed in a repository of forbidden knowledge. She made them up. Honestly, she didn't even put a lot of effort into them. She just used some high-school Latin words that approximate the description of the desired result. Like this:
Aqua Eructo (Aqua Eructo Charm)
| Type: Charm |
| Pronunciation: A-kwa ee-RUCK-toh |
| Description: This spell is used to create, and control, a jet of clear water from the tip of the wand. |
| Etymology: Aqua means, in Latin, water. Eructo is a verb meaning "I raise"; roughly translated, it means "I raise water". |
The email also reportedly shared that Reehil had consulted with several exorcists who also advocated for removing the books from the school’s library.
Okay, this is a joke, right? This article is from the Onion, right?
Right?
No, this was actually reported in the Tennesseean, a part of the USA Today network, which isn't exactly LeMonde or Der Spiegel, but is a legitimate newspaper not known for playing pranks.
Why on Earth would you consult with exorcists? I didn't think the Catholic Church even did exorcisms anymore. Where would you even find exorcists with which to consult? Haiti? New Orleans? maybe some hidden pocket of Appalachia? What century is this? How long was I asleep?
Rebecca Hammel, the superintendent of schools for the Catholic Diocese of Nashville, confirmed to the Tennesseean that Reehil removed the books.
As for whether students should be allowed to read the Harry Potter series on their own time, Hammel told the Tennesseean that it’s up to each child’s parents to make that decision.
"Should parents deem that this or any other media to be appropriate we would hope that they would just guide their sons and daughters to understand the content through the lens of our faith," Hammel said. "We really don't get into censorship in such selections other than making sure that what we put in our school libraries is age-appropriate materials for our classrooms."Wait, what?
Age appropriate?
I'm sorry, what is the appropriate age for conjuring evil spirits?
Is that the objection? That these children are too young to be conjuring evil spirits? Like, in Catholic high schools, sure. Summon all the demons you want, you're old enough to handle them. But in elementery school it's just irresponsible to have these kids communing with the underworld. That's just child psychology 101.
Age appropriate!
What is going on in this country?
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Joe Walsh is Not Your Friend
Okay, I can't believe that this needs to be said, but from some things I've seen on Twitter, apparently it does: just because Joe Walsh is critical of Trump, that does not - in any way - make Joe Walsh a good or decent person.
On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump.— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) October 26, 2016
On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket.
You in?
One of the most wrong-headed aphorisms is " the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I'm not saying that it is never true, but if the enemy of your enemy is also a vile disgusting excuse for a human being, you can enjoy watching the two enemies fight each other, but neither of them is your friend.
Sometimes, there's just not a "good guy" in the fight.
Which brings us to today's headline.
Joe Walsh Apologizes for ‘Creating’ Trump, Calling Obama Muslim During 2020 Announcement
Wow. "Sorry I fucked everything up, please vote for me for President" is a pretty ballsy approach!
After making his case for why Trump is “completely unfit to be president” and he could be the “alternative” more traditional Republican voters have been craving,
Ah, yes. the "traditional Republicans." The grand tradition stretching all the way back to 2008 when Republicans first discovered that they didn't like having a black President! Of course, back in those days, their party was known as the "Tea Party," for those of you who are too young to remember back to those halcyon days.
Ah, sweet tradition!
Pity the poor "traditional Republican" voter. Disgusted by the boorish, bumptious Donald Trump, they went into the 2016 primary with no one else for whom to cast their vote except for Ted Cruz. And Marco Rubio. And Rand Paul. And Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and John Kasich. Oh,and Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, Scott Walker and Rick Santorum. So, even though they craved - CRAVED! - an alternative to the despicable dim-witted Donald Trump, they somehow must have had no option but to nominate him. Apparently, no "alternative" like Joe "deadbeat Dad" Walsh had yet presented itself.
“I helped create Trump,” the right-wing radio host replied. “And George, that's not an easy thing to say.” As part of the “Tea Party class” in Congress, Walsh said he “wanted to shake Washington up” and sometimes “went beyond the policy and the idea differences, and I got personal, and I got hateful.”
I got personal and I got hateful. You know, I'm pretty much the anti-Trump!
For much of the Obama administration, Walsh repeatedly pushed the same “birther” conspiracies that Trump did and, as the host pointed out, was calling Obama a Muslim as recently as December 2016. “Did you really believe he's a Muslim?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“God no. And I have apologized for that,” Walsh answered.
Haha, no! I'm not dumb enough to actually believe that, George! I'm just a shameless race-baiting liar! Vote for me for President!
“But think about the contrast, George,” Walsh added. “Again, I'm baring my soul with you right now on national TV. We have a guy in the White House who's never apologized for anything he's done or said. I think it's a weakness not to apologize. I helped create Trump. There's no doubt about that, the personal, ugly politics. I regret that. And I'm sorry for that.”
Look, George, Trump will say racist, homophobic misogynist shit and never apologize. I, on the other hand will say racist homophobic and sexist shit and then I WILL apologize. And I'll even feel bad about it! Vote for me for President!
Need any more reason to vote Walsh? Check out thgis other interview he did on MSNBC:
"I wouldn’t call myself a racist, but I would say, John, I’ve said racist things on Twitter. There's no doubt about it. And an apology is not enough," Walsh, who represented Illinois's 8th Congressional District between 2011 and 2013, said on MSNBC.
Found out if I said Redskins or Cracker or Redneck Bible Thumper, I could stay on. But if I said Nigger or Spick, they cut me off.— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 20, 2014
An apology is not enough to make up for the horrible things I have said. I feel like I should not only apologize but also be the President of the United States. That's really the only way to heal this nation.
"When I said Barack Obama was a Muslim, that was a horrible thing to say, and I said it because I was so disgusted with Obama’s policy toward Israel that I went a bad, ugly step," he said.
So. . . unlike Trump, I just try to slander my political opponents when I find their policies disagreeable. And, unlike Trump, I think that it si a gravce insult to refer to someone as a "Muslim."
I'm pretty much the Bizzarro-Trump!
Walsh, who has been openly critical of Trump's presidency, on Sunday announced that he was launching a primary challenge against the president.
"I'm running because he's unfit. Somebody needs to step up, and there needs to be an alternative," Walsh said on ABC's "This Week."
Yes, an "alternative." If only there were an "alternative" to Trump. Some. . . other candidate voters could choose, maybe someone from, oh, I don't know, maybe a different political party, or something? Maybe someone who presents a different platform and different policy approach. . .
Oh, if only there was someone - anyone - willing to step up and say to the American electorate "You needn't stick with Trump for another term, I volunteer as tribute! You can vote for me instead, and I will serve as your president!"
Why oh why can this nation of three hundred million people not come up with a single alternative to Donald Trump? If only some brave soul would come forward! But wait. . . there on the horizon. . . drawing ever closer, in a cloud of unpaid child support bills. . . Who is this dashing figure on a white stallion? Why, it's Joe Walsh! Riding in to save the day. Having had a taste of power, he now bravely attempts to leverage his newfound never-trump credentials into a quixotic White House run! Will this end with Walsh in the White House? Will our hero find himself with a book deal? Will our intrepid champion be given a shoe on FOX? Only time will tell what the end result of this act of selfless bravery will be!
Only one thing we know for sure. Joe Walsh is every bit as evil, racist, and dangerous as Donald Trump, he's just somewhat more professional about it. And he is not someone to root for.
The KKK, neo-Nazis, Black Lives Matter, Antifa:— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 14, 2017
Do you have the courage to condemn ALL of these hate groups?
I didn't think so.
To say that it's "racist" to call Haiti a shithole is like saying it's "racist" to say Chicago has a violence problem.— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) January 12, 2018
Haiti is a shithole and it's run by blacks. The violence in Chicago is all black on black.
Those aren't racist statements. They're just facts.
Outstanding work, USA Today Entertainment!
'SNL' standout Leslie Jones won't be returning for Season . . .
Yeah. . . that's not Leslie Jones.
This is Leslie Jones.
What you got there is a Kate McKinnon.
Easy mistake to make. I get the cast of Ghostbusters mixed up all the time. Like I can't tell the difference between Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)