When the cat's away

The Missus is out of town on business for a couple days.



Got the house to myself.


I think you know what this means. . .











And, to be honest. . .

A little of this:

Why is this lady in my newspaper?

Who Benefits from Our Inaction Abroad?

By Mona Charen

Why does an actual professional newspaper spend money on ink and syndication rights to let this looney re-write history?

Let’s consider the origins of the Islamic State. The radical Sunni offshoot of al-Qaeda was hatched in an environment made possible by President Obama’s nonfeasance or malfeasance.

 

Is that really what happened? Really?

Was it Barack Obama who destabilized the region? Really?

Also, "malfeasance?" You're coming awfully close to libel there. You're implying. fairly overtly, that the ugly situation in the Middle East was created intentionally by the President.

The first policy was President Obama’s determination not to provide aid to the rebels seeking to topple Bashar Assad. His own ambassador, Robert Ford, resigned in protest of Obama’s denial of aid to the Free Syrian Army (the non-radical forces opposing Assad).

Oh, the "non-radical" forces? Interesting. According to the BBC report of Dec.13, 2013,

The opposition National Coalition describes Gen Idris as the commander of the FSA [Free Syrian Army], however observers have said the FSA is simply a loose network of brigades rather than a unified fighting force. Brigades supposedly report through the chain of command to Gen Idris, but he is yet to assert operational control and serves more as a spokesman and conduit for foreign funding and arms shipments. SMC-aligned brigades retain separate identities, agendas and commands. Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.

 Those are the "moderate forces" you would have had us support?

Does no one realize that every time we interfere in that part of the world, we make things worse?
Last time we supported a rag-tag group of Muslim rebels against a powerful foe, we ended up arming the guys who went on to become al Queda and the Taliban. Thanks, President Reagen! No blow-back from that operation at all!

Today, the Islamic State rampages through a lawless Mesopotamia threatening millions of people and committing atrocities that shock the world.

Hmm, I seem to remember a time when Mesopotamia was anything but lawless. . .
Whatever happened to that Saddam guy who used to keep these Islamic radicals out?
Probably Barack Obama must've got rid of him!

How is this even possible?

This has just gotten insane!

Alabama Minister Arrested for Disorderly Conduct After Trying to Officiate Gay Marriage

It's not bad enough that troglodyte chief justice Roy Moore has decided that Alabamans don't have to obey the law if they don't want to, now they can arrest someone who does obey the law?

Same-sex couples married in some Alabama courthouses today, but many counties refused to allow the unions despite rulings on Monday from a federal judge and the U.S. Supreme Court to permit them.

Jeezus Christ! Haven't we been over this already? Didn't you assholes already try try this shit with segregation? And you're still just going to pretend that the Supremacy Clause doesn't exist?

As of Friday, the Autauga County Probate Office ceased all marriages inside the office. Probate Judge Al Booth told the Montgomery Advertiser newspaper that the decision to stop performing the ceremonies was related to work flow, not the recent federal court order lifting the state’s ban on same-sex marriages. 

Oh, of course. Of course. There are just so darn many people trying to have their weddings at the Astauga County courthouse, you just can't possibly accommodate all of them!  The only way to be fair is to just not do your fucking job for any loving couples. gay or breeder. Of course!

Autauga County Sheriff Joe Sedinger tells ABC News that Diprizio's attempt to perform a marriage was the only reason she was arrested for disorderly conduct and not with the fact it was a same-sex marriage.

Of course. It's weddings in general to which you object.
Obviously.


How many times do you slack-jawed yokels want to re-fight the Civil War? The Supreme Court of the United States is, as the name implies, the supreme court of the United States. If they say same-sex marriage is legal, guess what, moron? It's legal. Do you never tire of being on the wrong side of history?

You're just lucky Ike isn't president anymore, or he'd have the National Guard down there enforcing the goddamm law.

Dipshit of the day

Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA)

While explaining why he believes that funding for education should be cut, Brat crapped out this gem of logic:

 “Socrates trained Plato in on a rock and then Plato trained in Aristotle roughly speaking on a rock. So, huge funding is not necessary to achieve the greatest minds and the greatest intellects in history.”

Oh, of course! Oh, it's so simple! How did we not see this?

Instead of spending a bunch of money on schools, all we have to do is give each student a rock!

And then hire a brilliant philosopher to be a personal tutor/teacher/mentor for each student. Each student gets a rock and his own personal genius to take him under his wing and mold him. How much could that possibly cost?

Gosh, it's almost like he wants to return to a time when education was a luxury of the wealthy!

Two things that proved to me that I am still capable of being shocked

Thing #1:


It's fairly shocking that the "50 Shades" books became so popular. Partly because when did it become acceptable to tell people about the bondage porn you're reading, and also because from the excerpts I've seen online it appears to be a poorly-written extta-long letter to Penthouse Forum.

It's doubly shocking that the books have been embraced largely by suburban housewives because first of all, since when do suburban housewives read pornography, and second how is anyone not offended/disgusted by these books?

I've not read the books, nor do I intend to see the movie, but from what I've gathered from seeing the ads and a few brief on-line excerpts, the "50 Shades" franchise seems to teach the following lessons:

--It's super hot when a guy forces you to do something you're not comfortable with
and
--If you put up with his abuse long enough, he's sure to fall in love with you even if he says he won't.

So naturally, there has been a backlash on social media which is good. But what I find shocking is that, among the posts and tweets decrying the film's portrayal of domestic abuse as erotica, I've seen several like this one:

What ’Fifty Shades of Grey’ gets so very wrong about BDSM

After visiting a BDSM dungeon while preparing for his role as Christian Grey in the 50 Shades of Grey film, actor Jamie Dornan told Elle UK, “Then going back to my wife and newborn baby afterwards… I had a long shower before touching either of them.”
It’s this kind of shame, fear and judgment that has kept the BDSM community out of the limelight in the past decades, and so many people confused and prejudiced.


And Fifty Shades is hurting more than it’s helping

Seriously? That's your objection to "50 Shades?" This is a book series and movie that glamorizes and romanticizes an abusive relationship with lines like this:

1. 1. 

      
      

      

      
      

      

      

And your objection is that it's contributing to misunderstandings about the "BDSM community?" Really? That's what bothers you about this, not the fact that forcing her to do some sex thing that she doesn't want to is presented as erotic or hot? Not the fact that emotional manipulation and intimidation are presented as a romantic love story? You see that and you think "darn it, now people will think that sadists are bad people!" Any normal, decent person would think "dammit, I hope no young women/girls see this and think that this is acceptable behavior from a partner." What the fuck?

Thing # 2:

 Two actual sitting members of Congress, not am talk radio loons or random internet morons, but actual United States Congressmen accused the President of the United States of siding with ISIS.

First up, Pennsylvania Republican Scott Perry

Perry said that while he feels “duty bound” to stop the “growing scourge” of the Islamic State, he doesn’t want to sanction the use of force by Obama, who he claimed is “really working collaboratively with what I would say is the enemy of freedom and individual freedom and liberty and Western civilization and modernity.”
“And in that context, how do you vote to give this commander-in-chief the authority and power to take action when…you know in your heart that, if past performance is any indicator of future performance, that he won’t, and that he actually might use it to further their cause and what seems to be his cause and just drag you as a complicitor [sic] in it,” he said.

And then Arizona's Matt Salmon

Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., is joining other Republicans in expressing doubts that President Obama actually wants to defeat the ISIS terrorist group, telling the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins yesterday that he is wary of voting for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force because he fears Obama has no intention to fight the so-called Islamic State, also called ISIL.

“This president, I believe, does not want to do anything to make Iran mad, and so I think if he did what it takes to topple Assad and destroy ISIL, it could upset his applecart,” Salmon said. “I don’t believe that the president really wants to prosecute a war that would truly destroy ISIL, I don’t think he has any intention of doing that it. I think he wants to micromanage his generals to the point that it’s a political front, it is not a real prosecution of an effort to destroy ISIL.” 

Wait, check that. It's 3 US Congressmen now, including Texas' Randy Webber

 “I was at an Israeli function, uh, AIPAC function couple weekends ago,” said Weber. “One of friend’s there said, ‘Congressman Weber, we’re not sure the president has Israeli’s back.’ And I looked at him dead center Craig and said, ‘friend, we’re not sure he’s got America’s back.’”

 “So we don’t trust him to prosecute the war. Now we don’t want to seem to be anti you know, anti—not to be in favor of fighting terrorism. We understand that this is a cancer that has got to be cut out and so we have to be very diligent about how we do this but again realizing that the president apparently thinks he is the smartest man in the world. He doesn’t have to listen to his generals. He knows better than them? And so really it puts us in a quandary because really we want to go after this cancer and cut it out but then we remember who the commander-in-chief is.”

 Jesus Christ!
Remember when the Dixie Chicks said something mildly negative about the President and got death threats and had their music boycotted and everything? Now it's apparently perfectly acceptable for, not entertainers, but men in positions of serious responsibility to accuse this President of siding with the nation's enemies?
Has there been any uproar about these scumbags slandering the President?
Has anyone called for them to be drummed out of office?
Has anyone even demanded an apology?

How is this acceptable?
If they said this shit about a private citizen they should be sued into the poorhouse. And they're saying it about the goddamm president? And there are no repercussions?
Every time you think these shitbags have hit rock bottom, they find a new low.
And I wouldn't have thought it was possible anymore, but I am shocked!