Pope condoms! I'm still not sure whether these are more or less effective than Trojans. The Pope believes that condoms spread HIV, so of course his brand would need to suck in order for the prophecy to be self-fulfilled. But I think the Pope's face on a rubber is enough to kill the romance.
Portia de Rossi apologizes for marry Ellen DeGeneres on Jimmy Kimmel Live.
The following videos have nothing to do with anything, but they're still funny. Enjoy these infomercial parodies:
A Little Bit of Both
Alan Keyes' latest hydrophobic rant is against Norte Dame for inviting President Obama to speak at this year's commencement. We get it, Keyes. Now that Barack Obama is the President and Michael Steele is the head of the Republican Party, you're the other other Black guy. You're a notch below Tracy Morgan when he was on Saturday Night Live. It's a sucky place, but it's yours now. Anyway, I wouldn't suggest reading the whole thing. The three paragraphs posted at Pandagon were enough to make me cry.
Yes, I am. It's not much of an accomplishment, but I think it could pad my resume.
Rush Limbaugh attempted to make a joke on his show today. This is what I think happened. His first thought was "I'm going to tell a joke." Then, mid-joke-telling, probably due to chronic drug abuse, he totally forgot that anyone listening to him might be expecting to laugh after he finished speaking. And therefore . . . .
The old joke is this: God is watching The Oprah Winfrey Show, and he's just had it, 'cause he figures the human race -- and then he heard about Obama being invited at commencement speech at Notre Dame. He says, "That's just -- Notre Dame is inviting somebody who believes in infanticide to give the commencement speech? The most anti-life president in the history of the country and Notre Dame extends a commencement invite?" God, watching that and the Oprah show, says it's over. Humanity has failed. I have to step in. I'm going to end the world.
To answer the question on everyone's mind: Yes, some people still care what Joe the Plumber has to say. There's an organization that still cares about Joe the Plumber, and that organization is popular enough to fill a room of people who want to listen to Joe the Plumber speak. And if that wasn't nutty enough, some of them actually care about whether or not he is currently experiencing sexual arousal. I know all of this because Joe the Plumber uttered the following sentence in front of a group of people at an event sponsored by the Media Research Center:
Well, that clear podium isn't gonna hide anything.
President Obama isn't a very good bowler. He's also not good at making jokes. Last night on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, the President made this tacky joke about his lack of bowling skills:
Leno: Now, are they going to put a basketball -- I imagine the bowling alley has been just burned and closed down.
Obama: No, no. I have been practicing all -- (laughter.)
Leno: Really? Really?
Obama: I bowled a 129. (Laughter and applause.)
Leno: No, that's very good. Yes. That's very good, Mr. President.
Obama: It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something. (Laughter.)
Leno: No, that's very good.
Obama: No, listen, I'm making progress on the bowling, yes.
Leave the jokes to Leno. Or maybe not, since he's not that funny either.
I'm pretty sure the conservative pundits are going to be all over this. And while they really have no right to criticize the President's comments, I'd still love to hear what Rush and Michael Savage have to say.
Is it me, or is there a lot of needless pearl-clutching over the new look for Dora the Explorer? What surprises me most are the comments about Dora's outfit. Veronica at Viva la Feminista says, "Yes, they are cute, but they are not adventurous shoes." Alex Alvarez of Gunabee predicts, "Her Limited Too tunic is totally going to get caught on a fence mid-environmental rally." Both commentators make some good points about Dora's revamping, so why mention the clothes? She looks like the average 11 or 12 year old of today.
But she's also a cartoon. Why does she have to be practical? Maybe we should ask Boots, her talking blue monkey friend, what's sensible for a 12-year-old to wear while she's going on adventures in the Amazon. The whole show is a fantasy. That's the point! She's a cartoon. Are people seriously going to worry about girls learning that they can go exploring with ribbons on their tunics on a show that could be teaching our kids (keep in mind, our really dumb kids) that befriending wild animals is totally safe? Give me a break, people.
TLC is premiering yet another series about families with a zillion kids. This one's called Table for 12. It's about a family with two sets of twins and sextuplets. I don't think I have to tell you what color they are, or what the mother does for a living. Please, TLC. Stop it already. Or at least make a show called "16 Kids, 14 Fathers."
I was flipping through the channels on Sunday night and stumbled upon this show called "Manswers" on Spike. Like mantyhouse and the manssiere, manswers are totally different from their female counterparts. The clip that I saw (posted above) answers the important question "How much blood can you lose before you die?" I'm pretty sure the average pig-headed Spike viewer finished watching this hoping they didn't miss anything important, because you lost them at Naughty Nurse #3.
This is just as dumb as using "gay" when you really mean "stupid." But it is funnier. Parenting tips via Pandagon. But there are those days when I wonder if this book should be moved from "Humor" to "Reference."
I had a poll going on for a while, and now it's officially closed. I realized that the first to options can be interpreted the same way, but it was too late to change it because someone already voted. Here are the results:
WHEN YOU CALL SOMEONE A DICKHEAD, WHAT ARE YOU REALLY TELLING THEM?
They have a dick for a head 16 (50%) They have a dick instead of a head 10 (31%) They're the head of a dick 6 (18%)
The first one was supposed to be "They have a dick on their head," which is totally different from what I actually put, and it makes me wonder what my problem was that day.
Women, feminist women especially, hear my call. You don't have to be right all the damn time. Sometimes, it's nice to be wrong. When you have this long-standing belief that makes you feel like shit and like the world is against you, it feels wonderful to be proven wrong. But it seems like some people still feel the need to be "right," by which I mean wrong, since they're holding on to a belief that is based on things that might have been true at one point in time or were never true in the first place. Instead of relieving themselves of this oppressive burden, they choose to remain oppressed just so that they can be "right." Case in point (I feel like this isn't going to be a mini rant after all).
Feministing has been publishing some anti-fashion posts lately from their community bloggers. As someone who shops like a fiend, I get pissed off with this supposedly basic feminist gripe with fashion. These posts become a breeding ground for those who believe there are no clothes on earth that look and feel good for them and that everyone else in the world, especially the skinny ladies, have wonderfully amazing experiences with shopping and fashion. As a skinny lady, I know this to be false. Shopping is tough for everybody and, like anything, it takes some hard work to find clothes that work for your shape. It doesn't matter if you're tall, short, plus-sized, or petite, we all have to put in some effort to make our clothes look great. The good news is that your efforts will pay off. But you wouldn't know that by reading what some of these feminists had to say about "mom jeans." After reading the good news that I spread about shopping being sort of an ordeal for everybody but there's great stuff out there for women of all sizes, people had to save face by holding on to their irrational belief that they're freakish and that the fashion industry is horrible and that I have it much easier as a thin person than they do as a fat person. In other words, they just reinforce the fallacies that the people who want them to feel bad about their bodies have been telling them they're whole lives. In other words, there's no use in holding on to this belief unless you value being "right" over feeling good about yourself, which is something that only people with a serious mental illness do.
Exhibit two. Someone asks if high heels are oppressive or empowering. I say neither, and I squash the rumor that heels are uncomfortable. I have several pairs of heels that are comfortable, and it doesn't take much effort to find them. I even suggested wedges and platforms, which are way more comfortable than stillettos and still give height. Pure wisdom, right? Not for the feminists who believe they must be uncomfortable at all times so that they can prove to the world that women are forced to wear stuff that makes them feel like shit! I didn't get the memo that women are pressured to wear shoes and garments that hurt. I'm glad I didn't. Or maybe I did but I threw it in the trash. And then the women in this thread went through my trash, read that memo, and thought it was a good idea to live by it, against the better judgment that their feminism allows them to exercise without feeling like a jerk. You know, the better judgment that liberated women have that they use when it's convenient and abandon when it's time to prove why they're feminists in the first place. The better judgment that I use to look good and feel comfortable and not blame uncomfortable shoes and ill-fitting clothes on The Man instead of my own choices. Because apparently there's so little evidence to support our belief in gender equality that we need to make shit up to talk about. All in the effort to be "right," though, which is more important than anything else.
Someone in the high heels thread actually claimed that I believe that people aren't influenced by society when making their clothing decisions, despite saying nothing of the sort (refer to the serious mental illness bit above). If there's anything that should hurt more than heels, it's definitely picking a lie that gigantic out of your own ass. Anyway, there are plenty of people who base their clothing choices solely on what the powers that be expect them to wear. That's one trend I don't follow. It's not worth it. My clothing decisions are based on my body and mind. I've looked at myself closely in the mirror with just my undies on many times. I've noticed some things about it. I love my body a lot, even though there's a lot to it that people probably would want me to hate. Too bad for them though. I put on clothes that look good on me, and I get them altered if need be to really look my best. I feel great and look great. Pretty neat. Not to someone who calls themselves a feminist but still insists that people who take time to look great can't possibly make these clothing decisions based on anything but the patriarchy. If I did dress myself according to what the powers that be want me to, there would be a lot of things I would be doing at the expense of looking and feeling my best:
I'd be stuffing my 34 A bra. But I don't. I don't buy padded bras either, unless I can take the padding out. Taking the padding out of a 34 A. That's empowering
I'd be wearing skinny jeans. But I don't. I've tried them on, and they're really made for women who don't have much in the hip area. That's not me, so I don't wear them.
I'd be wearing maxi dresses. But I don't. Maxi dresses are for women who are taller than average. I'm only 5'2", so to-the-floor dresses would make me look even shorter. That's not what I want, and it's not worth looking like an elf for the sake of a trend.
I would try to gain weight so that people would stop calling me anorexic or complimenting me for the weight that's due to my genes.
After gaining some weight, I'd try to lose that weight based on other people telling me that I looked better the other way.
I would hate my body and my very self.
But there are women out there, feminist women even, who prefer to look and feel like shit in order to validate their beliefs. They also prefer to try to make the feminists who disagree with them feel like shit. They try to take advantage of the fact that most women are unhappy with themselves, but don't realize that they're talking to someone who is very satisfied with herself (thank you feminism!). It makes no sense. Is it better to be "right" than to be sane? I enjoy being both.
I got this Herbal Essences "body envy" shampoo and used it for the first time today. Even though directions on all shampoos are generally the same, I decided to read the directions on this bottle of shampoo, just to make sure I didn't have to repeat or whatever. Well, it's a good thing shampoos generally work the same way, because these directions would have confused the crap out of any poor soul who didn't know how to use shampoo.
use me: work your hair into a lather-frenzy. rinse and repeat -- are you full yet?
Kansas is proposing adding an Equal Rights Amendment to their state constitution.
“Quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state or any of its political or taxing subdivisions on account of sex.”
Very simple. Straight forward. Innocuous. Something that everybody can get behind. Right? Not so much.
But Catholic and anti-abortion groups worry that an ERA could make it impossible for the state to restrict abortions or curtail Medicaid-funded abortions.
“If we allow it to pass, Kansans will wake up one day wondering how a right to unrestricted and taxpayer-funded abortion was smuggled into our constitution,” said Beatrice Swoopes, a lobbyist with the Kansas Catholic Conference.