"Mouth: Dick" is how man will search for porn on the future Semantic Internet
Anyways, Moe Lane is writing about Joe Biden putting a dick in his mouth, Blumenthal edition. Words are funny.
The actual article is pretty pointless, about how Joe Biden made some joke about not serving in Vietnam, because he didn’t. So I’m going to assume the entire point of the article was to make a blowjob joke in the headline, or to express a desire for such.
Every Wednesday marks a holy day on the calendar: Wingsday, commemorating when the God Woden bestowed upon us the glory of Wodensday, meaning Wings Day, but which is now pronounced as Wednesday. Let us sing a hymn to praise this day, and gorge ourselves on cheap wings and dollar beers at Two Rows.
After long thought, I think the best popculture response to the Elena Kagan nomination is this:
Alvy Singer’s rant against Allison Porchnik in Annie Hall sums up my gut reaction after these past few days. Usually when I reference Woody Allen, its to lend praise to our Jewish alpha dog, who first introduced the idea that the nebbish, neurotic Jewish guy can actually get the girl… kinda. But in this circumstance the line speaks for itself. However, thats not to say that my only opposition is out of some sort of self-loathing or Texan hatred of everything Northeast. Though that may be part of it. Indeed, my strongest reason for opposition (or at least not complete support) is political. She is not liberal enough.
Now, one could argue that her past positions have not been judicial, but political, and thus her actions should be viewed through a different frame. Or that while she has a short record, Obama can guarantee a strong liberal position. And one could argue while that position may be far out where they should be, the goals now shouldn’t be to expand the liberal agenda, but to maintain the gains made over the past decades. I disagree.
I do not expect a broadening of liberty interests to be the majority opinion, but I want someone on the court to just make the arguments. Young conservatives read the opinions of Scalia and Thomas, and it gives them a drive and inspiration to power their youthful political interests. Liberals have to look back a few decades to really get that inspiration. Even simply considering whether to get involved in the legal field, strong conservatives see that they can go far if they stick to their principles, just as the relatively young Roberts and Alito were rewarded. Liberals get the message that if they want to succeed, they need to keep a clean record and not create a strong record for liberal causes. Democrats seem to view that record as a liability, rather than how conservatives see their own similar recrds as a strength. This merely drives liberal opinion to the center and alienates liberal ideas that are reasonable and rational, yet viewed as too far out. And those views will continue to be seen as too far out by the public, while far-winger conservative ideologies in the form of justices’ opinions will be thrust into the public sphere as supposedly normal political views, hiding their extremity.
And what is the purpose of opposing this conservative march if those who fight for strong liberal causes get left behind when it comes to choose our best? A functioning political system needs strong opposing parties, with competing ideas, and the Democrats are laying down on their job.
Indeed, it doesn’t just show that Obama has refused to recognize the best and brightest legal mind amongst liberal thinkers, but it shows that he is betraying one of the implicit messages of his 2008 campaign: The importance of grassroots work.
As Obama’s personal origins and the style of his campaign seemed to communicate: greatness can come from anywhere. Whether the small town volunteers who made history or Obama’s humble beginnings and fairytale rise, it was about eschewing the usual power structure and replacing it with people power. But for his supreme court nomination, Obama went with the traditional Ivy League, Upper West Side, Harvard Law School, Clintonista insider, almost as if she were a creation by Mark Penn himself.
There were great candidates with strong liberal opinions, from outside the usual view political realms of influence. Great justices from Texas, Montana, or even California, who could disrupt the usual power patterns and show students all across the country that you don’t need to go to an Ivy League school to make it to the top: Pedigree is not the measure of the day, but talent and achievement. But that is not what Obama is communicating with this nomination.
Even just choosing someone who didn’t go to an Ivy League school would send the message that states are not destiny. We can have smart, educated liberal justices in Red States, just as we can from Blue States. This is something that Obama himself talked about oh so long ago in 2004″
We have Supreme Court Justices in the Red States… or do we? Obama doesn’t seem to think so, with his New York domination. His choices may be fine justices, but it is a sign that liberals from Red States shouldn’t aspire or work hard, because they won’t be recognized. And it sends a message to people in Red States that liberals do not care about them, and when push comes to shove, Democrats will alway choose the Northeast buddy… giving in to Harvard nepotism. There used to be a time when Obama thought it was important to send a message anyone can rise to greatness, that America has a place for a skinny kid with a funny name.
But I guess that idea is old hat. Go back with the tried a true, Harvard educated, East Coast Elite, Smartest Guys in the Room. That’s worked out great for Democrats in the past.
“As the news of Yeshiva University’s appalling attitude towards homosexuality spreads throughout Cardozo, students should be shocked, but not for the reason they may think. Sure, there is the hypocrisy of a historically discriminated demographic attempting to stifle another historically discriminated demographic. Not to mention an attitude towards homosexuality that seems more at home in Iran. But what makes the whole situation so shocking is the sheer irony is that it’s occurring at a university that named its law school after Benjamin N. Cardozo, a man whose own sexual orientation is quite questionable.
Admittedly, it is not academically honest to impose contemporary concepts of sexuality upon other times, cultures or societies. Furthermore, facts about Cardozo’s sexual orientation are limited to what is documented in the historical record, which is unfortunately sparse due to Cardozo’s private nature. However, it is not too much of a stretch to say that Cardozo was some sort of a sexual, and it ain’t hetero.
So while there is no direct evidence proving Cardozo’s sexual orientation, there is hearsay and conjecture, which are kinds of evidence.
As far as the current historical consensus says, Cardozo can join Isaac Newton among history’s famous life-long virgins. However, that does not mean he was never interested in women. In fact, he was very interested in one: his sister, Nellie. According to Richard Polenberg’s book on Cardozo, our namesake judge admitted that he “never could give Nellie the second place” in his life. This sort of sibling devotion would seem out of place in the Osmond family, let alone in an established New York, Jewish aristocracy.
Then again, this devotion to his sister may have been exaggerated by Cardozo’s friends. However, they did not tell these tales to spread rumors about Cardozo’s deviant sexuality. On the contrary, they spread the rumors to create an excuse for his non-traditional sexual habits. These are the very same friends who often described Cardozo as beautiful, exquisite and sensitive. Or as Seinfeld would put it in an outdated reference: thin, single and neat. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Even as a child, Cardozo was personally tutored by Horatio Alger, who himself was haunted by accusations of homosexuality and pederasty. One might as well say that Cardozo enjoyed spending his salad days drinking wine with the priest from Doubt.
On the other hand, Judge Learned Hand is quoted as saying that Cardozo had “no trace of homosexuality anyway.” But that doesn’t really count because Learned Hand never even made it to the Supreme Court.
Indeed, a smattering of anecdotes does not mean that Cardozo would have been the president of OUTlaw at turn of the century Columbia. However, one must admit that Cardozo’s sexual history does not conform to contemporary standards of heteronormativity. In fact, the best way to describe Cardozo’s personal life would be: queer.
In the end, historical density and Cardozo’s own privacy make his sexuality a question that will never get a definitive answer. But this mysteriousness does not mean it should never be discussed, shoved in a corner because of a perverted sense of “modesty.” Cardozo’s personal history is not something that should be treated in a discreet manner just because it may ruffle some issues of sensitivity. Academic integrity demands that universities leave no stone unturned and no question unasked in the constant adventure of academia. However, if President Joel and Rabbi Reiss have their way, we would halt at the first sense of discomfort, never leaving sight of the intellectual shore. And if that is how the current administration wants to run Yeshiva, and Cardozo, then they should put it in the prospective student paraphernalia, because that is not the sort of law school I signed up for.”
Now, as I have become accustomed to, my column received an angry response the rhetoric of which hints that the author either did not read the entire column or simply didn’t get the point. Given the string of factual rebuttals in the response, this one is probably in the latter category. (PDF: Reject Cardozo sexuality 1, Reject Cardozo Sexuality 2)
Despite the actual titles, I believe a more accurate headline would have been “Response to Evan: Nuh-uh!” Read the whole thing if you want, but it can be summed up with one line:
“With all due respect to Mr. Mintz, to advance such a provocative idea only to then ultimately plead historical inscrutability is an act of intellectual dishonesty.”
Of course it is intellectual dishonesty! I admit to that in my second paragraph:
“Admittedly, it is not academically honest to impose contemporary concepts of sexuality upon other times, cultures or societies.”
Of course its not intellectually honest, but its also lots of fun!
In the end, my column was not an academic paper, it was a column in the student newspaper, with the purpose of making a point and possibly be entertaining. Thus is the essence of punditry (?).
In conclusion, Kagan is just as gay as Cardozo.
EDIT: They’re also both Jewish, which is as close as you can get to being gay without being Asian or French.
However, with the rise of Iron Man and the release of Iron Man 2, another sprite challenges Mary Jane’s throne: Pepper Potts. So, given the question of Pepper Potts v. Mary Jane, who wins? I asked the question on Facebook, and it resulted in a much more heated discussion than I intended:
Yeah, but while she wouldn’t look at the rich kid in school (where he was a nerd) she notices him after graduation. She is also in love with Spiderman after he saves her from Green Goblin (who knocks Harry unconscious, thus he cannot save her). Then, when she finds out who Spiderman is she says, “Somehow I always knew” indicating that she knew that Peter was not only her emotional savior, but also her physical savior Spiderman.
Also, Pepper stayed by Tony even after the embarrassing thing with the kiss and the dance and even unto his lowest point. I give her high marks for that.
I can’t believe this is even a contest. I like strong, intelligent women at the top of their field. Pepper Potts is smart, sexy, witty, and confident. All MJ has going for her is that it takes you quite a long time to figure out that you’re whipped.
Reasons why Pepper Potts is the bees knees:
1) Pepper Potts is a whiz at accounting.
2) The cybernetics in her chest will prevent her from ever losing her figure.
3) Pepper Potts is not offended by sexual harassment (which is definitely a sign of confidence).
4) Pepper Potts is feisty and self-assured. She a woman to be conquered, not manipulated. She’s a woman who realizes that 49 “No’s” and a “Yes” equals a “Yes.” Pepper Potts leaves trails of worthy men dead in her wake. And she understands that being fucked raw against the wall is way more sexy than gentle love-making on the bed.
Men who like Mary Jane are merely poor romantics who search for “good girls,” those petite, salad-eating, shy bitches who men assume don’t have baggage and will play fair and will not cheat. It’s assumed that the girl next door requires little confidence to ensnare and little effort to keep. All men learn the frightening truth eventually:
As a great woman once said, “There are no good girls, only bad girls found out.
Mary Jane Watson is a flighty harpy who took that whole women’s lib thing too seriously. Her fear of commitment caused her to turn down Petey’s first proposal, which would be fine in itself, except that, after giving him the runaround, finally did marry him. After they get married she gets a psych degree (A PSYCH DEGREE!!–just farce clothed in substance) and forces Peter to quit vigilantism, only to move to Los Angeles and be a whore.
Mary Jane is the sort of woman who would talk about a relationship as if it were a third person, begging for commitment while fearing monogamy–projecting her insecurities onto those pitiful boys who happily take her abuse because they believe they don’t deserve her.
No MJ defenders? I’m in Rey’s camp, I don’t know enough about Pepper to take her down, and the Spider-Man comic plots are so entangled and confusing, especially when considering Mary Jane.
However, I can give MJ a defense using her character from the cartoon, Spectacular Spiderman.
That universe focuses on early Spider-Man while he is still in high school. MJ enters the plot late, as almost an outside character. She has little interest in Spider-Man, but focuses more on her personal acting career and in Peter Parker, whose outsized self-confidence and wit intrigues her. However, despite the waves of high school social drama, she is slave to no drama nor man. She is an individual, knows what she wants, and will go after it without concern. Like Peter, she has an outsized self-confidence, yet does not develop a big head or high expectations over it. And unlike Peter, she does not have radioactive spider blood to justify it, only her talent (and I supposed good looks).
While Pepper tolerates her boss’ insulting and even harmful shenanigans (possibly out of a money-driven hope of inheriting the company, which eventually comes to fruition) MJ does not take such abuse. Pepper sits and follows orders like a spoiled child, waiting for her father’s inheritance. MJ makes it on her own.
I’m not hating her because she comes from money, I’m hating her because she didn’t go earn her money, even if she supposedly had the talent. Like her boss, she stands on daddy’s shoulders and thinks she’s tall. But at least Tony made something himself. What does Pepper have to show besides the ability to sit and wait?
A quick google images answers all
I come from Jewish sit-com folk, so I prefer a woman who will constantly inform me when I’m wrong and remind me that she could be with someone else.
A Google Images search, indeed!
This is the first appearance of Mary Jane's face in the Spider-Man comics. It may just be me, but whenever a girl says "You hit the jackpot, Tiger," instant orgasm.
Pepper! I'd like to thank all the people on DeviantART for making slightly pervy pictures of comic book characters. So thanks shibamura-prime for this one!
All this, and she's a CEO!
If I remember my nerd history, this collectors statue of Mary Jane washing a Spider Suit created a bit of scandal because it was overly objectifying. Because comics don't objectify women, or anyone, ever.
Oh how pervy! Is there some sort of odd cross-dressing fetish here of a girl wearing her guy's clothes. I guess its only really cross-dressing if a guy wears women's clothes, because third wave feminism dictates that women can do whatever they want. Its all about choice. Guy's don't have this option. But that's a discussion for later after I've had a lot to drink. I mean, I don't want to wear women's clothes, I just want to know that I had the option. If I wanted. Which I don't....
Kirstin Dunst was possibly the worst choice ever for Mary Jane. MJ was supposed to be the party girl who consoles Peter Parker after his first girlfriend, Gwen Stacy, dies in his arms/web. Rather, she played her as an annoying wanna-be actress.
This is probably a way better casting job. Though both of their faces look like they spent too much time sucking on lemons.
In conclusion, there is a veritable debate here. Thoughts, concerns, commentary? Does anyone actually read this far. I mean, I assume most people will get caught up on the pictures. Admittedly, there were a lot more Mary Jane pictures than Pepper Potts. But like I said, Spider-Man is a lot more popular and Mary Jane has a lot more exposure. Give it a bit more time, and maybe a better Iron Man cartoon than the crappy CGI one on Nickelodeon, and maybe she’ll have the same impact on the developing sexual identity of a bunch of pre-teen and teen boys who watch cartoons.
Via Twitter, future primary source for all history papers, David Corn raises the concept of combining gay history and confederate history months into one single celebratory month. The result is beautiful.
I believe Cleveland Sewall was the first to invent this flag
It is just glorious, hypnotic even. Of course, much like Confederate History Month, Gay Confederate History Month is all about asking questions concerning our national history. To quote the site where this flag was posted:
Is it possible for gay men to openly express their pride in Confederate heritage?
Would the discovery of an individual’s sexuality threaten their standing as a legitimate member of the Confederate heritage community?
Were there any gay Confederate soldiers?
Were there any gay Confederate officers?
Were there any gay Confederate politicians?
What was the frequency of gay sexual encounters in Confederate ranks during the war and were those parties any less Confederate?
Were there any gay “Christian Warriors” in Confederate ranks? Could there be a gay Christian Warrior in Confederate ranks? [After all, status as a slaveholder doesn’t seem to be a problem for some.
But looking back of the flag, good lord is it amazing. This really should be the city flag for Atlanta, which according to Wikipedia has the third highest LGBT population per capita, behind San Francisco and Seattle. (One can argue that these statistics are swayed because SF, Seattle and Atlanta only refer to the central city and do not take into account the outlying suburbs, unlike Houston which incorporated the suburbs into one huge sprawl that dilutes the gay population. But numbers are numbers). I mean, Sherman burning Atlanta? More like Gayman Flaming Atlanta? amirite? Confederate flag? More like confederate fag? amirite?
Really, next pride parade I want to see that flag.