With apologies to Rufus Thomas, B.B. King, and James Brown.Let everybody say "Yeah." Alright, break it down fellows, I got something I want to say. That's right, now bring it way down so I can talk to the ladies for a minute. Ladies? I said LADIES! That's better. Let me ask you a question. Did your old man come home drunk last night because he was laid off at the job, and he crawled in bed feeling all romantic? And while usually you might push him away, this time you didn't since times have been so rough on everybody, only now you have need for the morning after pill, Plan B, or whatever they call it. So you go down to the corner drug store only to find that the pharmacist refuses to sell it to you because he has a religious objection to birth control? Well, did you know that's just what Senator Roy Blunt's new bill will allow. Anyone along the birth control distribution chain whose religious views frown upon contraception can claim a "conscience objection," and refuse to sell it to you. That includes clerks, shelf-stockers, and cashiers. Now, can I give the drummer some?
"Everybody, scream!" Let's say you're a single lady and you went to a party and met a nice guy who seemed attentive and funny, so you ended up having nightcaps at your place, and Marvin Gaye was playing on the stereo and one thing led to another. Only, some time later you discover that the SOB was married and something is off with your cycle. It's been less than a month, and since you would never consider carrying the child of one so despicable, nor do you consider a non-breathing zygote with a prehensile tail as human, you wish to terminate the pregnancy. Only President Santorum has gotten his wish that abortion be criminalized and outlawed in all cases, and even rape victims should consider a resulting pregnancy as "a gift." So, you turn to Planned Parenthood, but they've been defunded and/or bombed and all the physicians that performed the procedure have gone underground to avoid assassination from the insane anti-abortion zealots. And now, the only place left to go is underground. Can I get a witness?
Break it down band, and let me talk to the fellows. Guys? You didn't think this isn't your issue too, did you? Imagine your 16 year old daughter getting early admission to that prestigious college she'd been dreaming about. All the arrangements have been made, only at the last minute, she gets pregnant by her ex-boyfriend who is joining the Marines. After your family has cried about it and prayed about it, you all decide the best course is an abortion. Only, you live in Virginia, and the state legislature has just passed a law that requires any woman seeking an abortion to first have a state mandated ultrasound, in order to humiliate them into reconsidering. Since most abortions occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, this requires a "transvaginal procedure," in which a probe is inserted into the vagina and manipulated to produce an image. Any woman may refuses the procedure, but that refusal is then inserted into her permanent medical record. Fellows, I don't know about you, but forcibly penetrating a woman for no medical reason sounds awfully close to rape to me. Now, 'scuse me while I do the Boogaloo.
People always talkin' bout less intrusive government. That's just about as intrusive as you can get. Then, all these candidates for president are trying to prove who's the most conservative. One guy is "severely conservative," while his opponents line up to say, "I'm the most," "No, I'm the most," when what they're really saying is my penis is larger than yours. Have you ever heard anyone describe themselves as "severely liberal?" Ever heard progressives brag about who's the most liberal of all? Not even Barney Frank is that liberal. And what about that congressional hearing about women's reproductive issues held by Rep. Darrell Issa in the House? Women are 52 percent of the population, yet a House committee couldn't find any to join their stag party. "Issa in 'da House!" Republicans want to run your sex lives when they can't even run their own primaries. Now, did you heard me?
Now, I got one more thing I want to say right here. I believe in the power of love, yet here comes this guy Ricky Santorum, who thinks he has the final definition of what love ought to be for you and me. He believes birth control is destroying society and that sweet lovemaking should only be done by married people and even then, just for procreation. I know someone else who believes the same way; his name is Pope Benedict.XVI. A long time ago, a Catholic man named John F. Kennedy ran for president and assured the electorate his allegiance was not with the Church in Rome, but with the United States Constitution. Now, this Santorum person runs for office assuring the electorate that he prefers Papal edict. Not the kind of Christianity practiced by Obama, because, according to Rick, "He has some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible." The Sanctum Santorum believes contraception is against God's will, and In Rick's world, prenatal screenings cause more abortions to "cull the ranks of the disabled." So, good people, what I'm trying to say is that you should get down on your knees and say, "Thank you President Obama for being a moral, family man who keeps his business to himself. Thank you, Barack, for concentrating on the entire house instead of just the bedroom. And thank you for being the only thing standing between us and the Sexual Inquisition." Any woman who votes for a conservative now, has got it coming. Now, can I get an "Amen?" The name of the group is The Coat Hangers. Let's hear it one time for the band. Goodnight everybody!
22 comments:
Amen, Brother.bydufu bstock,
Yellow journalism of the lowest order. There are three branches of the government, dim-wit. Do you think that Santorum is going to single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade? America is a secular nation now. Where is the grass roots support for this fantasied anti-abortion movement going to come from. I don't like to make people feel bad, but your journalism is the least objective of any I have ever read. What do you have against presenting balanced truth? Do you not realize that there are two sides to every story, and then there is the TRUTH. And, I know better than to bring up the issue of the civil rights of the unborn. You are in league with those that equate a fetus with a wart...just cut it out and throw it away, because it is inconvenient. Unwanted children can always be given up for adoption. The only alternative to a pregnancy isn't murder. Why are your pronouncements so one-sided, so tunnel-visioned, and so extreme? Apparently you write for the I.Q. and the prejudices of your audience. No one with a grain of sense could possibly take you seriously. I also know that nothing will change you. It takes humility and an open mind to even consider change.
Life and death are difficult matters. Humans very probably have insufficient capacity to "decide" what's what in that discussion.
Mr. Santorum seems to believe what he says. Mr. Haspel, as well.
As Lincoln saw to protect the Union, I say we forge to protect our rights to have our opinions.
Mr. Blount, Mr. Santorum, and others are pushing a difficult agenda. Cat is out of the bag in this country for their kind of personal restriction. If they disapprove then they can preach that to their families. Mr. Haspel's odium is passion driven and colorful, as is Mr. Haspel.
Issue of abortion is tough. I'm not a woman and have no female children. Easy for me to be philosophic. In my opinion, Mr. Issa has the intellect of a large toenail. Very small, the intellect of a large toenail.
If you have no understanding of satire or hyperbole, you have no business using the term "I.Q." in your idiotic response. These right-wing assholes come on this blog screaming about "fair and balanced." Don't you get it? I'm a partisan. I have no interest in propagating the right-wing's repressive agenda, and if you disapprove, go back and turn on your Fox News. Believe what you want, just don't impose your infallible pronouncements on me.
Well Alrighty then.. all you assholes with a "swingin' dick" just line up over here. We gonna give everyone of ya'll a vasectomy, wether you need one or not.No more kids to worry about and you can fuck around all you want, of course you will never spawn another thing but for most of you that's okay. Oh and it doesn't matter what YOU want just what we, as women, want. It's good for America!! Yeah this means you Anon.2:06 pm, we all know your a guy, or maybe a repressed beat-down woman. I pity the fool!
I am in complete agreement. In fact, I say that we haven't aborted enough children. People are destroying the planet. In addition the fewer there are of them, the more free time and money the living will have at their disposal. I will go you one further. A Princeton professor has laid out a case that says that one is not fully human until the age of two. He has proposed that there should be a government extermination facility where parents can drop their children of two years or younger to be liquidated. The great thing about this proposal is that it gives parents a second chance after birth to rid themselves of the child if they decise that they are too much trouble. Another proposal that I would like to see brought to fruition is to euthanize all of the useless people, the mentally and/or physically impaired, and which includes everyone above the age of 75 or 80. They use up resources that can better be expended upon the productive. I look forward to the day when our government is sane and bold enough to implement such common sense measures. I feel sure that most of the responents on this blog would be in whole hearted agreement with me.
At least the purveyor of this tripe is man enough to admit that he is an ideologue and is not even interested in presenting truth. Bearing that in mind, let the reader beware.
I wonder if Anonymous 4:41 pm is a student of George Bernard Shaw who was a progressive of yesteryear. Shaw would endorse what he said completely. In fact, in a speech which Shaw gave he proposed that everyone should have to sit before a tribunal every five years to give a justification as to why he should be allowed to live and continue to consume resources. Shaw was a big fan of dictators and frowned on democracy and representative government. This is much like many of today's utopian progressives. Trying to get people to do what you want in a democracy is like trying to herd cats. According to those who think like Shaw, the people must be forced into compliance with the utopian vision. Come to think of it, that is reminescent of the Obama regime and modern Democrats in general. Individual freedom and private property get in the way of their march toward an egalitarian utopia. I guess that they are unaware that those who would attempt to create a heaven on earth are destined create a hell on earth instead.
Egalitarianism can only be instituted where there is no individual freedom. Individuals are not created equal in regard to intelligence, apptitude, and the motivation to develop their inborn gifts. Any of you egalitarians want to see if you can follow in Michael Jordan's footsteps...or Einstein's? When people are free this leads to a natural stratification of society which the egalitarians must continually attempt to snuff out through ever increasing regulations and confiscation and re-distribution of the unequal wealth which the natural order of things produces. In other words egalitarianism is completely unnatural. The problem with American egalitarians is that they take the words of the Declaration of Independence out of context. It says that individuals are created equal IN THAT they are all endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights which include life (the abortion crowd would disagree with that one), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (the egalitarians would take issue with the last two). Egalitarians believe that everyone is created literally equal and that if this equaity is not being made manifest then it must be due to oppression or racism. Re-read the Declaration and understand that people are created equal in regard to their inalienable rights only. Then things should clear up. Unless you want iron-fisted Communism. If that is the case, then nothing would make an egalitarian happier to live in a society where everyone wears government issue black pajamas, rides government issue bicycles, lives in a governemnt issue quonset hut, and eats three meals a day of government issue rice. Ah! Equality at last!
Arf! Arrf, arrf, arrf! Arf, arf, arrf, arff arrf! Rowf! Woof! Arrf! Arrf! Bow wow wow wow rrrrf!!!
Lad, thanks for your comment. It reflects the general intelligence and educational level of this blog's respondents...reminiscent of the island of Dr. Moreau. Only this is Sputnik's island.
Anonymous 7:22, I wonder if Anonymous 4:41's modest proposal makes him a student of Jonathan Swift rather than George Bernard Shaw.
Randy, I read an interesting article today that spoke to both your second and third paragraphs http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/.
I am not a doctor, but this article says that ultrasounds are routinely performed as part of the abortion process, and that the issue is not whether the ultrasound is to be performed, but rather whether the patient is to be required to watch/view the images as a precondition to the procedure.
I am pro choice (although, as you know, much to your right on many other issues), but I understand and respect that others disagree with my position. That makes them neither evil nor idiots, even if they are, in my opinion, wrong on this issue.
You cavalierly dismiss a developing human when you say, 'nor do you consider a non-breathing zygote (embryo is the correct term; a zygote is the one-celled fertilized egg prior to cell division) with a prehensile tail (a prehensile tail is one which is able to grasp objects...another misapplied term)as human. Do you not realize that you, your wife, your family, and all of mankind pass through the same stages of development, and that saying that an embyo or fetus is not human till some particular point of development is reached is arbitrary? Remember the Princeton professor who, in his estimation, said that one is not fully human till the age of two? Do you not have any quarrel with him? Are you not glad that your parents didn't cut you out of the womb when you were in an early stage of development, or worse, wait until you were full term and then cut your head open and suck out your brains? Think of the hole that would be left in the world if there were no Sputnik. Don't you think that the right to life should be extended to other embryos and fetuses? To abort simply because a child is inconvenient is the epitome of selfishness. I notice that in many of your commentaries you seem to view selfishness as dispicable. Do you not see the inconsisitency?
My apologies to Cousin Cliff and Alan. You are exceptions to the rule when it comes to this blog. You both are highly intelligent, well educated, and clear and balanced in what you have to say. A refreshing change from Sputnik's distortions of reality and half-baked thinking.
WTF is up with posting your names anonymously? I have always believed in a woman's right to choose and have been responsible enough to not have to make that hard decision. - Cindy T.
The Republicans will send us back to the Stone Age!
I support abortion when the life of the mother is (actually) at stake, and when the pregnancy is due to rape or incest. As it is, over 90% of abortions are done to avoid inconvenience. Most are done to avoid the consequences of irresponsible behavior. My position is that when it is a matter of inconvenience, it is more humane to not abort and to give the child up for adoption. I realize that this argument will go no where, because these days people are so used to easy solutions, rather than moral solutions. Sure, women have a right to do with their bodies as they please, but there is another body at play here, the innocent child. Our courts have decided that the unborn have no rights and can be murdered at will. I submit that this is a supreme act of selfishness. Twenty six years ago my wife's niece who was a sophomore in high school went out with an older guy, got drunk, and got pregnant on the first and last date. On her own, she made a magnanimous decision to bring the child to term. This was before the days when things became so liberalized, so she went to live with a couple in another town who had a ministry to unwed mothers. She spent her junior year at a foreign school, had the baby, and then put it up for adoption. Talk about inconvenience. But she suffered the consequences of her own choices and the child is now a 25 year old enjoying his life. And she will meet her Maker with a clear conscience. This was a case of character above convenience. I know that many feminist would strangle this girl if they could get their hands on her because her righteousness makes them look small.
There is a new movement afoot by the egalitarians. They are getting behind a growing coalition of unattractive women who are fed up with the gross inequalities produced by publications like Playboy, Penthouse, etc. who never feature unattractive women as their centerfolds. The plan is to use public pressure and even legislative force to coerce these publications to give equal exposure to unattractive women. Another facet of this movement, yet to be made pubic, is that there are plans to use the government to fine all attractive women to force them to gain weight, quit washing their hair, and to foster bad complexions in an effort to help create a level playing field for all women. Also, all men will be required to date at least one ugly woman per month or risk being fined. The leaders are getting behind one of the stalwarts of the movement named Hepzibah Scalowitz who weighs over 400 lbs., has very bad acne, crooked, yellow teeth, and perpetually greasy hair. The movement is pushing for her to be the first unattractive centerfold. They are pressuring the government to force every household in the country to buy a copy of this publication or face a fine. Liberals are hailing this as the new frontier for civil rights. Free copies of the magazines will be sent to high school libraries and sensitivity training classes in all of the schools will encourage males to use the material as a masturbation stimulus to show solidarity with the movement. A spokesman said that this is a big step forward in the march toward equality for all.
Cindy, my name is Jerry and I make an appearance about every other month to do the Dance of Shiva on this blog. It is easier to click on 'anonymous' so I usually do. Most people know my brand when they see it. What difference does it make which name I use? 'Cindy' means nothing to me. By the way, I am not a Republican. They are nearly as pernicious as the Dems. I am a staunch Independent looking for someone who is not trying to destroy America. They are very hard to find among the political class. I just try to add a different point of view to this rabidly liberal blog. I know that liberals do their best to squelch opposing points of view. They cannot stand the light of truth because they are the spawn of the Father of All Liars. I do respect Sputnik for not censoring entries with which he disagrees. That is very non-progressive of him.
Also, Cindy, I guess that you didn't notice that in one of my posts I agreed that women have a right to do with their bodies as they please. What more do you want? I just like to make a small appeal for some justice for the defenseless. Besides, after this life is over you won't be standing before me. So, go ahead and be a proponent for killing as many babies as possible. But be forewarned, word has it that the one true God is pro-life. However, I feel sure that the god of many, if not most of the fans of this blog, is natural selection. Maybe you see yourself as a disciple of this god and you are just doing its will. Aren't you glad that you weren't selected against?
Dear Mr. Black Pajama Anonymous.
You've been spewing the same bilge-water for years now, yet you have been consistently wrong. You've become an unrelenting bore. Give it a rest before I'm forced to mute your ass, yet again.
Wrong in what way if I may humbly ask? There are conflicting world views. I am just curious as to how I am wrong and on which topic according to your world view. In regard to abortion, I agree that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. That should satisfy the liberals. I could understand your being testy if I were to imperiously say that a woman doesn't have that right. I just put a word in for the rights of the unborn. Is that so bad in your view? The only thing that I can figure is that you feel that the unborn have no rights. If that is the case, I will drop the subject. Your commentary is about abortion. Are only those who share your views welcome? Is dialogue impermissible here? In a previous post I bragged on you for not being a typical, imperious, liberal censor. I may have been wrong on that one. And, why so mean-spirited? I thought that you championed tolerance, love, and peace. We are just discussing ideas and points of view. I have resisted believing that you are a typical hypocritical liberal. Just one-sided and narrow-minded. Nothing wrong with being a liberal, though. There are principled liberals who are open to dialogue that I respect.
Randy,I totally agree with you and appreciate you speaking up for the rights of women. I for one do not want male legislators deciding what I can or cannot do with my body. But, please do us all a favor and go ahead and "mute" Mr. Anonymous. He is quite a bore and needs to find somewhere else to vent. I never respect anyone who signs anything "Anonymous."
Post a Comment