OMG. Because everyone should see this. (NSFW)

You guys. Seriously. Wow.




You're welcome.

Why Representative Rick Crawford is the Worst. Congresscritter. Ever.

What is the job of a congresscritter?

IMHO, those in Congress are representatives of their constituents. They show up in DC and, informed by the viewpoints and opinions of those in their districts, they legislate.

So what happens when a congresscritter deliberately refuses to listen to those constituents who hold opinions that differ with his? I'll tell you what. She gets pissed and posts to her blog.

What happened? This little constituent wrote to her congresscritter with a plea to sit down with his fellow critters and compromise to avoid sequestration. He never responded. Meanwhile, I decided to follow Congressman Rick Crawford (R-AR) on Facebook. When I got tired of every other post on his feed being a critique of Obama--not a critique of a situation or issue, not a suggestion for improving or solving a problem, not a suggestion and call for feedback on a new idea, but rather a post that was so predictable, we could create a madlib to construct one for him--I started leaving feedback. And when sequestration approached, and his only posts regarding the looming deadline were about how Obama is failing this country, I got a little frustrated.

My comments on those posts never veered into unacceptable language, never flamed or insulted, never derided. My last comment, however, was on March 1, when I responded to his latest "Obama sucks" whine. It was a harsh but civil critique that ended with a comparison of all politicians in DC acting like a bunch of pre-teens fighting over a pair of 7 Jeans and glitter polish. I may also have borrowed from the fabulous Tucker when I told him to do better.

Cut to two weeks later, and he posts yet another bit of ridiculousness about Obama. Behold! More deliberately missing the point and refusing to engage on the issue, instead taking the opportunity to finger-point!

So I went in to point out that, if he looked at it with both eyes open and without partisan wangst at the ready, they actually share the same viewpoint. (Not that I think it'll do any good--I'm pretty sure, gauging by his other posts--that he's stuck in a vapid abyss of willful ignorance.) Except I couldn't. I could see his posts, and some posts, I could share. But all comment ability was gone.

He banned me.

Mind you, I've never received confirmation that he received, much less read, my e-mail to him earlier this year. Unlike every other legislator I've corresponded with, I have not received even a form e-mail response. And then, when I offer my opinion to him on his FB page--where I can at least reasonably assume he has staffers reading and watching, if only to CYA on content posted there--he bans me.

Which means, in effect, he is not listening to my viewpoint. He refuses to receive my opinions.

He and I stand on nearly opposite sides of the political spectrum--I am two steps left of center, whereas he is standing on the right's edge like an Olympic high diver preparing to do The Twister. And as much as it irks me to have someone so opposed to my beliefs representing me in Congress...way it goes. This is our attempt at democracy, and it works. I dig it, anyway. Having a congresscritter who doesn't do what I want him to do doesn't make him a bad congresscritter. It just makes him not the ideal representative for me.

But when my representative is unwilling to hear my voice, my critique, my requests, then as a congresscritter, he is an abysmal failure.

And if his skin is this thin, he's in the wrong frakking line of work.

Because I'm on a tear...

Remember when that jizzcrisper Joe Walsh declared that "life of the mother" is just an excuse to provide "anytime, for any reason" abortions? Remember when he said technological advances mean women don't die because they're pregnant?

Yeah. Mr. Walsh should read up on Savita Halappanavar. She died because she was was miscarrying, but the fetus still had a heartbeat. So after days of agony, knowing she was losing her baby on top of the physical pain, she died. This could have happened here. Hell, it probably has happened here when a woman chose not to have a life-saving emergency abortion. And if religious (read: Catholic) hospitals are allowed to refuse both to perform an emergency, life-saving abortion and to refer a woman to a hospital that will save her life? Yeah, expect to see a few Savitas here, too.

So what does all this abortion wangst have to do with the military?

Tricare won't cover the cost of a non-emergent abortion. Not even aborting due to fetal abnormalities or selective reduction are covered (but dudes are welcome to all the penis pumps and Vitamin-V they can get their hands on, of course! as long as their issues aren't psychological...). So, ensure the sexual health of a dude? CHECK! Ensure the sexual health of a chick or, say, her fetus(es)? FUCK THE SLUTS AND THEIR OFFSPRING!

In related news, civilian employees of the federal government have insurance which covers abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Service members? No. Unless Senator Shaheen gets her way. I wonder if service members' penis pumps are covered....

In which, against my better judgment, I call out a person for being a cockburger.

Today I was reading through Left Face's recent posts (I've been so internet-naughty lately and haven't kept up with shit like I orta) and found a trackback from Ophiolite's post about how she braved the Navy Ball and found that she enjoyed it despite the reservations built up from years of being subject to Mean Girls attacks. So I clicked on the trackback. And what did I find?

A mean girl, wangsting ineloquent about how the "Debbie Downers"* can never find anything positive and can't seem to "bloom where [they're] planted." To which I respond: Fuck her in the ear.

This here blog post is why I find her attack so reprehensible. Let's call this particular blogger the very fucking heavy straw that broke this camel's back. I've been pissy about shit like this for a while, but I've had enough after the articles at milspouse blogs about how classy women don't dress like they'd prefer to display their quickevering, dick-eating vulvas on sterling silver platters; recent attacks against girls who've been abused by grown men and then slut-shamed sometimes into suicide; and the reporting around a certain ex-CIA director and his inability to direct his cock into his wife when there are women apparently throwing themselves at him.

And guess what? I'm not even going to talk about how she's a mean girl who can't seem to let go of that high school mentality. Oh, no, darlings. We're going to look at some of the shit she wrote, and I'mma 'splain how it makes her a perpetrator of evil.

The shitbaggery begins in her opening statement:

How many adult women get the chance to dress up and spend a night dancing?
...
And with that, I introduce you to this girl:

Where by "this girl," the blogger means Ophiolite.

So first, let's look at the fact that she infantilized someone straight off just because Ophiolite has a different opinion, different life experience, and different methods of dealing with the stresses of being a milspouse. She starts out referencing women--ADULT women, specifically, because apparently women come in kid-sized, too--and then drops down to infantilization via "girl." Oh, but I bet she does not know this word. It's not one generally referenced outside of intellectual circles, I know, so I'll define it here in case she gets a trackback and sees this post and does not comprehend all these words I use. I'm so sweet like that. It's my Southern upbringing. Momma always taught me to help out those who are disadvantaged.

From Dictionary.com, natch:

in·fan·til·ize

/ˈɪnfəntlˌaɪz, -taɪˌlaɪz, ɪnˈfæntlˌaɪz/

verb (used with object), in·fan·til·ized, in·fan·til·iz·ing.

1. to keep in or reduce to an infantile state.

2. to treat or regard as infantile or immature.

Infantilization is a hallmark of sexism, practiced intersexually. Hell, sometimes we even do it to ourselves (e.g. calling oneself Victory Girl). That's what happens when we're all indoctrinated and socialized to believe bullshit, and we've not taken the opportunity to dissect our attitudes and biases in order to better ourselves. Just sayin'. But let's move on!

I’ve read some of [the MSM and SB] ball advice posts. For the most part, they’re common sense. Don’t wear anything slutty or ostentatious, for example. Because it’s true. Wives do it every year, too. They skank it out, wear cocktail dresses to a black-tie event, or wear a dress with so much sequins and glitter that Las Vegas surely must have run out.

Behold! We have graduated from infantilization to slut shaming and judgment based on attire. Let's hit the latter first.

What if a woman chose to wear a formal gele to the ball? If it's a part of her heritage and something she considers formal, would this blogger declare her Too Ostentatious For Mah Delicate Eyeballs and make snark all over her blog about how they clearly ran out of silk in Africa and can you believe how low-class she is?

What if a woman chose to wear a sequined abaya to the ball? If it's part of her heritage and something she'd be comfortable to wear to a formal event with other women of her heritage, is she going to judge all those black sequins and the yards non-form-fitting black silk as Too Ostentatious For Mah Delicate Eyeballs and make snark all over her blog about how they clearly ran out of sequins in Dubai hurr hurr hurr?

Might come as a bit of a fucking shock to someone so clearly unworldly and intellectually penned in as she makes herself seem, but even different regions in America have different traditions and definitions. My hand to the sky, I never got a better picture of this than when I went from living in Houston (yee haw!) to living in Buffalo (the fuck happened to the temperature??). Fashion is different across the nation. Style is different across the nation. And both are even different within a family. I'd rather go to a ball naked than wear some of the shit the women in my family consider classy. Texas had nothing on Buffalo Big Hair back in the day. And Texan prom dresses, which could be anything from cocktail-length to formal with trains, had nothing on some of the Buffalo dresses that looked like they were ripped from screenshots of My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding.

So making a snap judgment about someone's dress because they dolled up in lots of sequins or are showing more skin than might be comfortable for the judge to wear? Unfair. And actually a little infantile, if I do say so.

Now let's look at words like "slutty" and "skank." Allow me to show how to express the same sentiment...only with class.

 Some of these women don't look up what the standard definition of formal attire is, and they decide clubwear and Red Carpet Shocker Attire are appropriate choices for a military ball. And they're not. Formal attire at a ball means the only skin showing should be arms, chest with no cleavage, and at most 50% of the back. Hands and face are optional.**

Instead of choosing words that actually refer to what is wrong with the clothing these milspouses have chosen to wear, they cast that clothing into a sexualized judgment and then shame the woman for daring to have ventured so close to her sexuality.

That's what you'd call slut shaming. Here? It's pretty mild. I've definitely heard worse, though I still want to bite faces and kick puppies when I hear clueless, brainless fluffburgers slut shame even on this level. And then I want to show them what it feels like to be slut shamed by men from different cultures who think women like her should be beaten in the streets for showing a slip of their ankles.

But here's where slut shaming goes as it rolls downhill and picks up speed. It goes here and here and here and even here. Note this particular paragraph in that last link (emphasis mine):

Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.

In other words, how terrible that this little eleven-year-old girl was raped but clearly she was asking for it, that shameless hussy!

What's wrong with slut shaming? Well, first, it makes a big deal out of something natural...but only for a certain sector of society. Teh wimminz must keep their legs closed. If they open for anyone but their husbands, or if they dress in a way that allows the viewer to infer the person might possibly be sexual, they are sluts. Men? Not so much. They could show up to a ball wearing nothing but boxer briefs and a bow tie, and the only pronouncements made about them would be their lack of class, intelligence, and either sanity or maturity. A woman would be slut-shamed. How dare that skank-whore! I bet she waits for deployment so she can ride every dickstick in town, that shameless tramp!

So aside from just being a checkmark on the Am I A Sexist Asshole list, there's another issue: slut-shaming attempts to remove a woman's agency. It's a form of objectification that boils a woman down to her vajayjay (and maybe her tits, if we're venturing into boobs-as-sex rather than boobs-as-baby-food). She could have discovered cold fusion and could be on the verge of bringing free energy to the entire world, but if she dresses like a man-eating cock-monster, then she's only the sum of her ladybits. Right? Yeah.

All of this, bee tee dubs, is part of the rape culture. For those of you who haven't heard me harp enough about rape culture, allow me to refer you to a much longer and less f-bomb-riddled dissertation than I have time to type up. In short: by objectifying women, sexualizing them, shaming them for having ladybits (much less using them TEH HORRORS!), we lay a breadcrumb trail of excuses for why it's their fault if they're assaulted, and for why the menfolk just can't help themselves when all they see is ladybits...rather than the woman who happens to have those bits.


So congratulations to Victory Girl! She's just contributed to the rape culture. I hope she feels all warm and fuzzy about being a perpetrator of evil. She might despise the articles at MSM and SB, but her attitude places her among the ranks of those with a penchant for slut-shaming and cockburgery.

* In which she's referring to those wives who are sick and fucking tired of jizzdrizzles looking down on the rest for not fitting into their definition of a Good Military Wifey, which is generally some permutation of Pretty Pretty Princess.

** That's not the standard definition of military formal attire for civilians, but I imagine that's what self-appointed Slut-Skank Guard members have deemed appropriate.

A little story for you that I thought of today when I saw election reactions.

I so need this poster.

Once upon a time, there was a stronghold of three people against the zombie hordes, and inside, they had enough machetes to allow each person to have three. But since they only needed one or two (depending on their zombie fighting skillset, natch), they kept the extra machetes back.

One day, three newcomers came to the stronghold. They’d fought long and hard against the zombies and had lost half their numbers trying to make their way to the relatively safer stronghold, and they had lost their machetes to the violent battles. But when they knocked on the door during a zombie lull, the original three strongholders freaked the fuck out. 

They’ve come to take our machetes. They’ve come to take our supplies. They will leech us dry. We’ll never survive the zombies if we let them in.

One of the strongholders pointed out the three extra machetes they had — one for each, while the strongholders would still have two each. But another strongholder reminded them of Stu, the machete queen who sat on the bench all day and shaved his ballsack with his machete and refused to fight off the zombies. These newcomers will be just like them. Look! They have no machetes, and they’re all gross and have zombie bits on them, ew!

But they weren’t complete assholes. They let the newcomers in and kept them away from the machetes and the other supplies. And the newcomers, though safer now, grew weak as the food supplies they'd brought diminished. Without machetes, they couldn't hunt for more food, and they lost their mad machete skills.

Then one day, a ginormous zombie horde attacked, and the strongholders watched the weak newcomers without any weapons try to fight and fail, and they gloated, for they knew those lazy motherfuckers would be eaten by zombies. 

When the zombies ate the strongholders, the flavor reminded them of another douchebag with entitlement issues and an unwillingness to be a team player, a brain casing with shorn balls and a dull machete, which the zombies approved of.

And so the strongholders died because they were only three against a ginormous zombie horde, and they’re fucking idiots, and that’s how survival of the fittest works, the end.

The moral of the story: Don't be a dick, or else the zombies win.

Oh look! Mittens made my point for me.

Tagging along my last post earlier this evening...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the job of President of the United States is motherfucking Commander-in-Chief, right? Right?

Am I fucking right?

So why, dear plastic baby Zoroaster in a manger, does Mittens not want to acknowledge that's part of the job he's angling for? Twice now, service members and families are ignored. Twice. Last time, we were a laundry list. What will his excuse be this time?

Oh, what's this time, you ask? Why, his "closing argument" speech given in Wisconsin today. Check it! Proof from his own website that none of us matter. Not those in Afghanistan now. Not those injured and recovering from war here. Not those retired from the military. And not those of us who man the "home front."

I'mma say it again, fellow milpeeps: THE REPUBLICAN PARTY GIVES NOT ONE SHIT ABOUT US. We can tell because the dude who's supposed to be at the head of the party? Avoids discussing the numerous issues we're dealing with and considers proselytizing in foreign countries to be on par with riding in an up-armored vehicle down a road known for being peppered with IEDs.

Do not read this political rant.

I am sick of this fucking election. I know most of us are.

I'm tired of Paragould, Arkansas, calling me to ask if I'm voting for the REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE or aherm, aherm the other one. I'm tired of the bullshit, fear mongering ads (I'm looking at you, Mittens, and the OMG CHINA bullshit that makes no fucking sense whatsoever). I'm tired of the hyperbole and insults and lies from my fellow citizens ("When is Obama just going to admit he's a socialist?" asks a certain unnamed social studies teacher...yes, people. Be afraid for our youth when dumbasses like her are teaching them.). I'm tired of the exaggerations on both sides of the campaign and of the negative ads on both sides and of the unrelenting barrage of bullshit and scare tactics and unreasoned arguments from voters on both sides.

Why in the glorious fuck can we not have a reasonable debate without devolving into logical fallacies and name-calling? Y'all, listen up. You can drop f-bombs while making your case. But if you drop insults to make your case? You're doing it wrong, and like as not you're a fuckhole. I'm guilty of the insult thing sometimes, so I spend time in fuckholery. I recognize my peeps when they go there. Sometimes someone's just plain fucking evil or an idiot in your opinion, and that's fine. Everyone's going to have issues.

But for fuck's sake, if your debating zinger rests on an insult? That makes you a crusty dong. (see what I did there? just sayin'.)

Right now in particular, I'm really fucking tired of my fellow milpeeps wanking about how only the Republican party gives a shit about the military. Um...bullfuckingshit, my milpeeps. Bull. Fucking. Shit. I point at the RNC and the "laundry list" response the might-be-Commander-in-Chief gave. Same people seem to be the ones hollering about how they'll have to go hording more ammo because the ammo fairy takes orders from the prez and will sneak into all the gun shops and steal all the ammo because Democrat=gun Nazi! Yeah, so...go ask the Brady Foundation why they gave Obama straight F's on gun control, meowkay? And, hi. Am a dirty liberal, and not only do we own guns, we're about to buy a gun from the Enterprise's coffers and giggle madly over it. I don't dream about the day we take all the shiny guns from all the ignert masses and sell them on the black market so only the criminulz and illeeegulz can get a hold of them and take over the world!!!1! Nope. Not even. And I'm not bothered by Obama's complete silence regarding issues of gun control. So yeah. Eat it, haters.

Frankly, earlier in this election, I wasn't concerned. Either way, we'd be okay. Either way, there's going to be a Culture of No in the legislative branch when the congressional toddlers refuse to share and confab. Either way, the president is going to do shit we don't like, and he's going to do shit that's going to make things better. Either way, we're looking at Americans who, though their perceptions of what America is and what we stand for are VERY different, love this country* and will do what they think is best for it.

Check this for one example of why I'm kinda...yeah, okay. Either way, we'll continue on.



Either way, not everything the president does will not be best for this country. Way it goes. Fallible humanity and all that shit.

And then... Paul Ryan. What the fuck, Mittens?

Mitt in that moment went from just another presidential candidate, albeit one who can't seem to pick one side of an issue and stick with it, to a W. He's so wishy-washy on everything that matters that we really have to look at the running mate he picked to decide where he is. And Paul Ryan? Does not have this country's best interests at heart. He has his religion's best interests at heart, and that does not belong in politics. How so?

• He has a score of 100% from the National Right to Life Committee, which means he's anti-abortion in the extreme. 
• He supports an abortion ban even in cases of rape. The only exception is in the life of the mother. He has said he'll go with Romney's rape exception. But...
• He was a co-sponsor on the Hyde Amendment, which would redefine rape. You know, to only the "forcible" kind, which I assume means the statutory, roofie, some date, coerced, and similar rapes would be excluded. So buck up, laydeez, and be walking incubators with no rights to your own bodies thanks to missing out on the "forcible" thing.
• He went on camera and said that the "method of conception" doesn't change that a fertilized egg is a life. Not implanted, mind you, which is required for the body to start an actual pregnancy and sometimes doesn't happen because it just doesn't. Fertilized. Which means what when the body naturally flushes a fertilized egg outcher vajayjay? Are women liable for that "death" because they didn't take their folate or drank a bunch of booze or went rock climbing, and what if one of those kept the "person" from implanting?Just asking where that line is drawn there since some states were leaning toward the same laws and leaving those questions wide open in the legislative verbiage.
• He co-sponsored a bill that would allow a hospital receiving federal funds to deny a woman an emergency (aka life-saving) abortion or to even refer her to another hospital. Religious hospitals could already refuse to provide an emergency abortion, but this bill would have allowed them to refuse to save the woman's life...and refuse to send her to a hospital that would save her life.
• He voted for a federal personhood amendment and to defund Planned Parenthood (news flash! abortions aren't their only service, and the services they provide are often the only way some women can maintain reproductive health and access to birth control...which is one way to avoid needing an abortion, eh?).
• Medicare. O.o Okay, this isn't related to his religion at all because even Catholic bishops are calling him out for being an uncompassionate douchecanoe (not their actual words, but that's the subtext) in moving to defund programs that give a hand up to those who need it.
• Ryan voted against repealing DADT and has voted against adoption and marriage rights for homosexuals. 
• He believes (according to OnTheIssues.org) that states should decide on how to define marriage. Kinda like states should decide who gets to sit in the front of the bus.

I'm sorry I didn't link to my sources up there. I'm busy as hell and not really in the mood to dig around in the shit stew that is news about these teabagger types. A quick google will reveal my sources easily if you're inclined to check. For shits and giggles, here's one starting point.

And I could go on all day about the fiscal shit. He's at least an actual fiscal conservative, which I can get behind to some extent...though definitely not in the same direction as he does. But his stance on social issues is unwavering. He did vote for non-discrimination against gays in the workplace. Elsewise, his views on women and on LGBT are firm. And since Mitt's change with the breeze (or the particular audience who just shelled out a $50,000 check for some surf and turf and Mitt), we have to wonder why he picked a running mate--a man who could be president if something bad happened to the Mittster--with an unwavering homophobic and sexist attitude to stand beside him.

Suddenly, I don't feel so blase about the outcome of the election. Suddenly, I don't think we'd end up with such a centrist outcome in the laws that are passed and the direction the country takes. Maybe Ryan loves this country, but I think he loves his religion more, and he's willing to inflict that religion on his country.

You know what I want to see? If conservatives manage to get Roe v Wade overturned or work around it with their personhood shit, I demand one more exception: religious. Jewish law says a woman must get an abortion if the pregnancy endangers her life. My religion says I am the arbiter of the life I create in my body, and regardless of when that collection of cells becomes "life," I have the burden of deciding whether this life-not-yet-begun will have its opportunity now or in another incarnation.

And Ryan (and therefore the nebulous Romney) with their hatin' on homos and their subjugation of women's rights can lick my silky taint.

In the words of Jon Stewart, here's your moment of Zen:





* How much do they love this country, though, when they don't think it's good enough to house all their bank accounts...or jobs... Hmm. Again, different perceptions!