Chick Dissection | Charlie’s Ants

Through Charlie’s ants, young readers learn that God became man to die for us. Great salvation message!

A story about a little boy and the three sexy ants he sends out on missions of espionage and intrigue.

Actually, this is yet another cartoony, oversimplified (even more so than the adult-oriented ones) one aimed at kids. Get ‘em while they’re young! Nip their independent and rational thought in the bud, before it gets a chance to blossom!

It’s also yet another failed attempt at a metaphor for God, and is just plain fucking silly in general.


Continue reading

T CONSERVATIVES: SHUT THE MOTHERCHRIST UP ABOUT BILL CLINTON’S BLOWJOB ALREADY

Gyah. Will conservatives never ever fucking shut up about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski? I’ve been seeing this a lot lately, where, unable to actually construct a relevant argument, they’ll lay forth a pathetic attempt to attack a person’s credibility by yet again bringing up Bill Clinton’s blowjob. (The most recent I’ve seen of this is this comment on this post, which is a rather awesome, scary and hilarious video about fundamentalist nutjobs, and I’ll probably be commenting on it in another post.)

Anyway, it’s rather amazing that they can honestly convince themselves the whole fiasco was anything other than a politically-motivated character-attack. I know I really shouldn’t dignify these dipfucks with a response, but as part of an overall effort to get them to finally shut the fuck up:

Say you’re a political official and you’re on trial for… let’s say insurance fraud. During this trial, someone asks you, “have you ever used a wallhack in a first-person shooter?” You say “no”. It’s then revealed that they have records of a server where there’s a log of you using a wallhack. Should you be impeached because you “lied under oath”?

If it’s fucking irrelevant, it’s fucking irrelevant. Blowjobs from an intern had NOTHING to do with the matter at hand. It was a blatant attempt at defamation from the very start, and a clear demonstration of using the letter of the law to pummel the shit out of the spirit of it.

So basically:

a) Ask your political opponent a very personal question about something potentially embarrassing and career-damaging though totally irrelevant to their ability to do their job, even though it’s entirely unrelated.

b) If they answer truthfully or plead the fifth, YOU WIN! If they answer dishonestly, you can get them under a legal technicality, and YOU WIN!

c) Let loose a violent barrage of piss that wastes taxpayers’ money and turns our entire political system into even more of a joke.

d) Win elections at the expense of shit that actually matters.

Is this what the American legal system was intended for? Even the absolute shittiest stand-up comedians have given up on their “Clinton Blowjob” material, like, a year or two ago. Why haven’t conservatives? And given all the lies Bush has told that have actually had severe real-world implications and consequences outside an individual marriage, why aren’t they clamoring for his impeachment? Apparently it only counts if you lie during a hearing about an irrelevant subject.

Hey, everyone:

Read a motherfucking book, motherfucker. Edit: Video no longer works, because Viacom fucking sucks ass, and copyright law is no longer copyright law, but instead simply exclusivity rights. Won’t someone please get these guys’ raping, slobbery dicks the fuck out of the Constitution? KPLZTHX

Edit Again: Link fixed.

In other news: It’s amusing that nobody suspects the cause/effect relationship might be the opposite of what they assume, here. That is, that the cat might actually be the cause of death. Even more amusing is the ad I’ve gotten at the top of this page, even after a refresh or two:



I think they should add a column with “Old People” to the little grid.

Anyway, I’ll have a more substantive post up tomorrow, instead of links you’ve likely already all seen.

Chick Dissection | Guilty? (Guest Dissection by Ascendance)

Another Guest Dissection, this time by Ascendance.

The judge risked his life to save Jimmy as a boy. What will he do when Jimmy is found guilty of murder?

This one is supposed to be, in a way, an allegory for fundamentalist Christianity. It succeeds, but not in a way Jack intended, and with ultimately sort of the opposite message. I guess you could call it an anti-allegory, maybe.

Again, my comments will be denoted by a preceding J:.


Continue reading

The Great American Binge

From Alec, in the comments on this post, for anyone who might not have seen it:

The best analysis I ever read, or at least the best I’ve read in a long time, was on the reason that poverty and fatness are correlated in America.

Living one or two paychecks behind (which is typical for most of the lower and lower middle class in this country) leads to grocery-shopping habits along the lines of

Day 1: Get paid. Fill up the fridge; eat like a king.
Day 3: Eating like a king no longer practical, but you’re still eating OK.
Day 7: The good food has run out, but you’re still eating semi-regular.
Day 11: There’s little to nothing to eat except stuff that has to be made into a large meal. The kids are begging you to go out and get more stuff, but you can’t, not yet.
Day 13: At this point, you and the kids are living off of sporadic trips to McDonalds. The grocery store would be too expensive and you don’t get paid until tomorrow. You’re surviving, but you’ve all been so damn hungry lately.
Day 14: Get paid. Fill up the fridge; eat like a king.

Not only does society tacitly encourage these kinds of habits, but the only way they can be livably maintained is with cheap, poor-nutrition, high-calorie foods such as french fries and cheeseburgers.

The result is that at least a quarter of the population, and quite possibly more than half, is living on a binge cycle. Binge cycles are the most reliable way to gain a lot of weight in a hurry; during the starvation period you lose at most 1 or 2 pounds of body mass, while during the binge period you put on better than 5 or 10. After anywhere from a few months (if it’s really bad) to a few years (if it’s only moderately bad), the skinniest, fastest-metabolismed motherfucker you know could be wider than tall.

The problem is, the way most people view it is a problem of the poor eating really shitty, so their view on the subject vacillates between pity and contempt, and explicitly blames the victims for the obesity problem.

The obesity problem is caused by what almost always causes non-congenital obesity: a national binge cycle, induced by inhumane labor and economic practices.

It’s no coincidence that the obesity epidemic in America has coincided splendidly with the years since Reaganomics.

As for the female beauty ideal: every woman is taught from the time she is a little girl that everyone would love her so much more, like a princess and everything, if only she was prettier. ‘Prettier’ becomes concrete as they become older, and starts carrying a concrete reward-punishment system when they mature sexually.

If I weren’t in an amazing relationship with the most beautiful, wonderful woman I’ve ever met, I’d be willing to sleep with 90% of women, hands-down. I’ve found something attractive in just about everybody with the right set of genitals, even ones with some kind of severe palsy or skin or weight problems. The most important thing when it comes to sex is the brain. When you get right down to it, by mechanics alone the experience is roughly the same no matter what; what can make it ugly or magical is the personality of the person you’re bumping uglies with.

I don’t think I’m in the minority. I think most men, given the choice, would take a sweet, funny, rabidly sexual woman with a harelip, a unibrow, and a hundred extra pounds over a supermodel who could barely speak her own language and who just sits there in bed. It’s not a choice I had to make – Sam is amazing on both counts – but the only thing the supermodel’s better for is looking at, and that is what they make porn for.

Of course, the tiny minority of heterosexual men who for some reason think women are to be looked at, occasionally touched, and not loved in any meaningful fashion receive the active encouragement of society; the majority get shamed for their preferences — because women are children and they’re to be daddied around and admired, not to be engaged as human beings.

This suits the powers that be just fine. As long as all of us are miserable and trying to want something we have no reason to want, we’ll buy anything to make the hurting stop.

Defective Thinking

Pope Ratzinger or Benedict or whatever he’s supposed to be called nowadays has whipped up something of a fuss recently with his declaration that all Christian denominations other than the Catholic Church are “defective” and are not true churches. Apparently they lack “apostolic succession”, one of the countless arcane abstractions which theologians have concocted through the centuries to give their spinning of word-webs about imaginary phenomena the veneer of an actual intellectual discipline. This means that non-Catholic clergy are not “real” priests, therefore the mumbo-jumbo recited by those clergy during their rituals is not authentic Christian mumbo-jumbo in the eyes of God, therefore the rituals themselves lack validity or magical power or whatever quality it is that such rituals are supposed to have.

This pronouncement has been greeted with some surprise and alarm, as a sign of the Pope’s reactionary character and as a setback for the Christian ecumenical cause. This reaction, however, just shows how far most modern people — even most Christians — have moved on from real religious thinking.

In any major religion, given how incoherent and befuddled the sacred texts always are, over time a variety of interpretations is inevitable, which means that sectarian splits are inevitable. But of course each group must insist that its own interpretation is correct and those of all the other groups are wrong. That’s part of what believing in a religion means. Think about it: if He Who Zings Rats had announced that all the other churches’ clergy and doctrines and ceremonies were just as valid as Catholic ones, meaning that the Catholic Church had no unique status as the one true Christian church — that’s what would have been bizarre and unprecedented.

I don’t know whether it’s a bug or a feature, but it does seem to be an inevitable trait of any religion that takes itself seriously: the religion will split into an ever-proliferating number of subgroups, each of which views the others as heretical, misguided, or “defective”. In the past, this tendency led to things like the Thirty Years War. Today, at least, it means that the religionists are often divided against themselves; and at best, it allows an opening for rational argument. If Catholicism and Protestantism both claim to be Christian but are so different, then one of them must be false. But as Carl Sagan said, if one of them is false, why not both?

The Future of Human Evolution, Brought to You in Part by Redbook, Maybelline, and Photoshop


(Via Pandagon)

Young lads of the world, look to this image as the arbiter of your mating selection criteria. This nigh-unattainable filtered photograph contains the very image of what you should want to be placing your seed into. Settle for nothing less than this, but if you end up having to, remember to always treat her like you’re doing her a favor just looking at her. After all, you could’ve had perfection, but you settled for her instead. She owes you!

Oh, and don’t feel left out, ladies — you can learn a thing or two from this as well! Want to catch yourself a gent? Just abide by these simple 8,635,192 dozen different guidelines, outlined by Cosmetics Experts, for how you ought to present yourself to even be considered acceptable! Strive toward this “perfection” day and night, at the expense of all other pursuits, even knowing you will never attain this ideal we’ve convinced all the sheep-minded young lads they should be seeking! After all, even the reportedly most attractive women in the world still seek cosmetic surgery to make themselves even more beautiful. You might ask yourself, “what are they comparing themselves to?” but that’s just propaganda being beamed at your brain by Communists and Atheist Jews. Remember, ladies: You’re only as good as you look!

(This objective public service message brought to you by BeautyCorp Co, a conglomeration of Avon, Schlicht & Field publishing, Maybelline, the American Association of Cosmetic Surgeons, Playboy, The Clostridium Botulinum Farmers’ Union, Redbook, the Diet Pills Collective, and Weight Watchers. BeautyCorp Co: Steering Human Biology In a Profitable Direction.™)

Chick Dissection | The Last Generation

Big Brother’s nightmarish world order is just around the corner. Christ is coming soon for believers. Will you be left behind?

Yes, if George Orwell supported anything, it was the kind of religio-fascist state that fundamentalists want to implement, where art is “censored” to ensure that the people are protected from the vileness of the sight of a person’s genitals, where gays are persecuted into hiding or feigning conformity out of fear of unjustified punishment, where sexual deviants and subversives are treated as second-class citizens, where every miscarriage is accompanied by a murder investigation, where people are forced to worship a God they don’t believe exists, and basically every other message that has ever appeared in a Chick Tract. And for those of you who may not have read it, 1984 is all about a governmental system that exclusively persecutes fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and everyone is free to do whatever else they want as long as it’s not “believe in God”.

Give me a fucking break. Rather feeble an attempt at making it seem like being religious is somehow subversive, and that George Orwell was on their side, or something.

Not only that, but “just around the corner”? Hey, everyone! Be scared into believing in God before all the nations of the world somehow arbitrarily set aside their differences and agree to be governed by a central force of violently anti-God fascists! IT’S SRSLY GONNA HAPPEN 4 REELZ U GUYS! I MEAN IT!


Continue reading

The Slow, Steady March Toward Gilead

A few interesting bits via Pandagon, this week. This is a bit of a long one, but it’s worth a read. Think of it as making up for not really providing as much middle-of-the-week content over the last few weeks.

First comes a hilarious masculist troll in the comments of an interesting post about anal sex. In short, feminists in America are destroying civilization because he doesn’t want to have sex with them. Or something. I don’t know, he’s an idiot. He prefers, in his own words, “women that live elsewhere and don’t speak English as their first language”. Note the word “that”, by the way. Not “who” but “that”. It’s kind of amusing. He claims, basically, that American women, or “Western Women” are annoying with their desire for, y’know, equality and independence and all that.

He goes on to enumerate some key points of what he feels to be the downfall of American civilization at the hands of feminists.

-That 60% of College Grads and enrollees are women, yet women are a ‘minority’ and need AA and special programs to ‘remediate their disadvantaged status’?

Er… first, don’t women make up about 52% of the population? I’ve always heard women are a numerical majority. Second, there’s a much higher number of college-aged men who enlist in the armed services than there are women. Third, I really don’t think gender counts for much with regard to college admissions.

-That on the woman’s word alone, any man can be evicted from his own home. Not the mans’ word, hers, alone, is defacto proof of a crime. “I was afraid of him” is all she needs to say. Due process, innocent before proven guilty, secure in his own possessions – all gone, for men only.

I’m sorry, what? It’s… I don’t even know what he’s trying to get at, here.

-Women can abandon ‘their’ children at will in the first week. Men cannot do this, and cannot stop her from abandoning the child. Just like in an abortion, the child is legally considered to be her property to dispose of as she wishes.

Okay, okay, children issues are where I diverge somewhat from most feminism, but I try as much as possible to fill the gap with socialism. If a woman can either have or not have an abortion regardless of the father’s wishes — as well it should be, because it is, in fact, her body — then the father should also have the option of bailing out as well. There’s nothing necessarily “fairer” about either’s decisions. Of course, this is much easier under a better, fairer economic system where people who are in these situations don’t end up financially rather fucked, and can actually get support to provide for their families.

However, that in mind, I don’t get what the fuck this guy is talking about. Men “cannot stop her from abandoning the child”? Well, fuck, just take custody of it. You’re the father, after all. I mean, what the hell’s his point?

-That IMBRA2005 makes it nearly illegal to contact women or men in other countries? While this law is gender blind, it was enacted to protect women alone and to thwart the 45,000 men each year bringing in FW to marry. Cantwell and Marcotte would have you believe that men who find AW unsuitable mates are molestors, pervs and violent. Actually it is the opposite. They are of the upper middle class, established, and earn more than most.

This is arguably the most amusing part of his argument: “He can’t be violent! He’s upper middle class. Why, what a preposterous accusation. Do you really think he molested that child? Really? I mean, come on — think about that Jaguar of his, or his Mercedes, and tell me how what you claim is even possible.” What’s more, he uses “opposite”. The “opposite” of perversion is being “established”. The “opposite” of being a sexual predator is “earning more than most”. I mean, seriously, what the fuck? Obviously a goddamned lunatic.

Later in the comments, Amanda Marcotte is accused of minimizing rape, because she agrees with Dan Savage’s assessment (near the bottom, the last one) of a letter he received wherein a woman claims a previous writer was a rapist and that Dan was condoning rape with the response he’d given.

The original letter was about a guy who liked fucking women while they slept. However, every time he’d try it with his wife — who’d consented before they went to sleep — “when [he'd] try to touch her in her sleep, [she'd whimper, turn away, and otherwise make herself inaccessible]“. Dan’s response was a quick: “Ambien. Next!”

Dan’s assessment — the one with which Amanda agreed, and I do as well — is that grown women are capable of making decisions for themselves, and if someone consents to a kinky sex act wherein they’ll be incapable of continuing to give consent, or incapable of withdrawing consent, and they’re aware of such conditions, it’s certainly not rape, and that any claims that it is are offensive to anyone who has actually been raped. For this, Amanda gets called out for “not being feminist enough” or something ridiculous like that, as though feminism involves other women making decisions for individual women, as opposed to men doing it, or something.

Meanwhile, we find ourselves in the midst of the Miss New Jersey non-scandal, which isn’t actual news, but a completely non-exciting simulation thereof. Read the post on Pandagon for cutting and intelligent commentary on the issue itself. But really, just… just fuck it.

This is the kind of shit that’s gotten me to stop watching any televised news (other than the Daily Show or Colbert Report whenever I have access to cable). I prefer to get my information on current events from the internet, where I don’t have to actually watch that overly-friendly-but-concerned-chipmunk looking Matt Lauer son of a bitch and his ilk try to shame a woman into feeling guilty for not wearing her burka and following ten paces behind. Of course, even then, it’s difficult to avoid the increasing sensationalism of non-events like this.

I just… I don’t fucking care. Why is it suddenly news that a girl goofs around with her friends and takes pictures of it? Why does anyone give a rat’s fuck? This has got to be one of the stupidest mainstream news stories of at LEAST the last five years. Maybe even the last century. Maybe even of the entire course of human history. Fuckers want me to feel outrage, and you know what? I do. I’m fucking pissed off that this shit even gets reported in the first place. So way to go, guys. Here’s your fucking emotional response.

What a bunch of shit. Just leave the goddamned woman alone. Just because you have a camera doesn’t mean you have to point it at every fucking thing in the world that registers even a mild vibration on the seismograph of the “unexpected”. You can eat that fucking microphone, you goddamned prick.

This — THIS — is the most common use of the mass of communications technology we’ve been developing over the last century. This shit. We’ve got a worldwide infrastructure for instantaneous communication, and what is it most often used for? Bullshit like letting us know that there’s a picture of some girl having extremely timid, rather banal fun, and that we should all be mortified by it. Or keeping us up to date on the police chase of the guy who actually didn’t turn out to be the murderer of that one little girl, like, a fuckin’ decade ago.

This is the kind of shit that makes me root for the fuckin’ Decepticons, man. Just… just goddamn.

An Open Letter to the Teenage Girl Behind Us at The Transformers Movie

Dear Teenage-Girl-Sitting-Behind-Us-at-Transformers,
(July 11th, the 10:35 show, Forest Hills, NY),

Why, yes, that is indeed a car. I’m very glad you pointed it out repeatedly, because I was having trouble remembering what, exactly, that mechanical contraption was. Before you started piping up about it, I was sitting there in my seat, wondering “what IS that, exactly? Is that… is that a donkey? No, that’s not what that’s called. An ear? No, that’s not right, that’s on the side of my head. Hrmmm. Shit. What is that? Wait, Terry Bradshaw? No, no… Dammit. What the hell is that called?” So thank you.

You don’t need to scream at him to buy the car. The whole movie to this point has been building up to him meeting up with the car. I’m sure he’s going to inevitably buy it. It’s making a special effort, even, to ensure such an outcome. Just let the goddamn scene play out. Just — STOP SCREAMING ABOUT HIM TAKING THE CAR. STOP ALREADY. STOP IT. HE’S TAKING IT, HE’S TAKING IT. Christ.

Okay, okay, we get the idea already, you think the dog is cute. You don’t have to scream “awww, cute doggy, look” every time it shows up on the screen.

No, none of us give a shit that you’re a fan of that brand of truck. I’m sorry, but just… we don’t.

Ahhhhh, so those glasses-looking things that the movie has shown and discussed in dialog about sixty times so far that fell out of the kid’s pocket were the glasses. See, I was unsure about that, so pointing it out was helpful. Just like Clippy. You know, that Microsoft Word paperclip? Hey, you know what? I appear to be writing a letter!

That was indeed funny. We all laughed about it. Did you hear us? We were — nearly all of us — laughing. That was what is called a “joke”. It’s written into the script for the purpose of being humorous. The writer did that, see, because he didn’t want to have to rely on people — like you, for instance — pointing out to the rest of the audience that “that was funny”. He was hoping we’d laugh without being told that it was funny.

I’m sure that character is trying to run away from the Decepticon. Look, do you see his fucking legs moving? He’s running, okay? He’s running away from the scary robot. He doesn’t need your encouragement. He can’t even hear you — he’s light projected onto a screen. IT’S CALLED SUSPENSE. NOBODY NEEDS YOU TO DESCRIBE YOUR PARTICULAR EXPERIENCE OF IT.

Hey, I have an idea! Why don’t you look at more things on a movie screen and then tell us all very loudly and sometimes repeatedly what the words for them are?

Odd, you don’t look retarded. However, I have a strong suspicion that you are, in fact less than meets the eye.

- J Crowley