Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Oser dire

Why does it also not delight me that the extent of the allegations against him, at least on some showings, is “unwanted advances”? It might be argued, by the cynical or the naive, that all “advances” begin that way. True, a period of a matter of months is specified, but don’t I seem to recall, in President Obama’s jaunty account of his courtship, that it took him a certain amount of time to “wear down” his intended target? I dare say that many of us could say the same, while reminiscing among friends, and still hope to avoid getting too many sidelong looks. But in the present circumstances there seems to be a danger of a straight-out politicization of the sexual harassment issue, with many people deciding it in advance on the simple basis of campaign calculations, or—to put it more crudely—of whose ox is being gored. This appears to represent a general coarsening by silence, and yet another crude element in a depressing campaign.

-Hitchens
I have always suspected that Christopher Hitchens is really a child of Indianapolis or Topeka who spent a year in London while an undergraduate at the North Dakota State Technical and Agricultural Community College or some such and returned with an accent and a ubiquitous unopened umbrella so thoroughly does his Englishness come off as an affect. And, to crib from our friends across the pond, he comes off as a real tosser. "I dare say"? It's as if, sensing his own impending demise, he's angling to be played by Maggie Smith in the biopic.

Any man willing to gratuitously fondle the mother tongue as Hitch does above is obviously going to be an apologist for molestation.  If you're a liberal, then you'll find it particularly appalling that Hitch first made his conservative bones, you'll pardon the expression, not by cheering for the death of a million Iraqis, but by stroking feverishly over Monica and Kathleen Willey.  This was evidence of Clinton's despicable character, whereas here we are in grave danger of "politicizing . . . the sexual harassment issue," as if chalking it up as an issue has not by fucking default cast it into the baleful form of politics.

The thing is, I've paid enough attention to the bizarre rituals of heterosexual, um, courtship to know that Hitch is largely right: they do resemble molestation.  And you may spare me the tales of your own gender-neutral mutual-consent happytime dating; I know there are exceptions.  The interactions between men and women are creepy and do resemble molestation more often than not.  This is of course entirely the fault of men, and the only hope for our species is universally mandatory homosexuality and applied parthenogenesis.

103 comments:

Paul Alexander said...

You're kidding right? Hey, he's kidding right? Enforced homosexuality! WHOA! Let's not be hasty here. What if I promise to play nice with my girlfriend? Here baby, you wear the pants tonight.

mistah charley, ph.d. said...

Tina Arena - Tu Aurais Dû Me Dire (Oser Parler d'Amour)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvQ-347KBIg

Anonymous said...

parthenogenesis.

Gabe Ruth said...

I love when your atavistic donkey sympathies peak out, you bigot.

fish said...

If I gotta go gay, I got dibs on Tom Brady.

Leonard said...

I think your gender-neutral mutual-consent happytime dating is more common than you think -- but this is class-based. The modern mandarins, those college-educated basketweaving and English BAs like us'ns here at chez IOZ, tend towards this norm. Whereas the rubes/redstaters/Republicans and also the Democrats' ethnic votebanks tend towards the old-fashioned thang: man must advance against woman; yes means yes, maybe means yes, and no means try again later.

Thus, sexual "harassment" enforcement has the character of the overclass woman repressing the sexual norms of middle and lower class men. Conflict is always higher among diverse cultures. Poor old Herman probably thought he was pretty smooth putting the moves on all those educated white girls, because he'd had such success with so many other women using the same tactics. Hey, he got her a hotel room upgrade! Boom-chaka! The other women expected it.

IOZ said...

I didn't mean to endorse the liberal view Gabe.

george jones said...

completely right on het courtship, of course, but lemme add that I've had no few gaze come on to me in a very aggressive, creepy, molesty manner.

NutellaonToast said...

Eh, I blame women, too. My sexing times went way down when I realized this fact about coruting and stopped being an asshole. As always, the best answer is that they're both idiots!

Anonymous said...

Because there's no greater authority on heterosexual courtship than a gay man.

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

http://www.amazon.com/Regiment-Women-Novel-Thomas-Berger/dp/0316092428

And - coming soon to a bookstore near you ... the IOZ gay version ... !

Well, at least there's no procreative milking in his version ...

george jones said...

yo, doesn't take a genius to see that the way most men court is by insult and aggression. men are socialized to do it, and women are socialized to respond well to it. walk into any office, bar, etc and you will see it: ritual heterosexuality is everywhere.

and Leonard is wrong as usual: the behavior cuts across class lines. doctors and BAs molest and rape too.

Inkberrow said...

....and no greater authority on "affected" Englishness than a guy from Pittsburgh.

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

"ritual heterosexuality" ????

You'd better watch it, George ... to us straights, that's a "blood libel" ...

Anonymous said...

"yo, doesn't take a genius to see that the way most men court is by insult and aggression. men are socialized to do it, and women are socialized to respond well to it. walk into any office, bar, etc and you will see it: ritual heterosexuality is everywhere.

and Leonard is wrong as usual: the behavior cuts across class lines. doctors and BAs molest and rape too."

Agreed.

Anonymous said...

Gay yinzer averages out to affected British hetero, Inkberrow.

George Jones said...

EL, perhaps "us straights"--and by the way it's so nice you've decided to speak for all straight people, male and female--ought to be less defensive about our privilege. Everyone is an ignorant asshole sometimes.

Nice little bloggy threat there though--"you'd better watch it." I'm sure you'll hasten to tell me you were just joking.

Anonymous said...

I met my wife the old-fashioned way, in the blacklighted back room of a bar called the Womb-Man in the Meatpacking district of NYC, where after a good turn at the glory hole I saw her--then only 16, but a mature 16--strapped to a chaise longue while a burly bear slipped the first three fingers of his Vaseline-smeared examination glove into her still-tight anus and it was just, you know, love at first sight.

Hitchens wouldn't understand that, because he's gay.

demize! said...

One must obtain consent from the monkey before spanking it indeed.

Anonymous said...

IOZ UPDATE: JOE PATERNO

Alaya said...

"the way most men court is by insult and aggression. men are socialized to do it, women are socialized to respond well to it."

Are you fucking kidding me? We're socialized to tolerate it and desperately hope we won't get raped along the way in the search for some halfway decent man, who will probably still rape us when we don't feel like having sex after drinks some night a year or two later. And then we'll be socialized into thinking that that isn't "rape rape" because we've been socialized into having babies and accepting the man's control of finances and in general the entire fucking boondoggle of "ritual heterosexuality".

This natural courtship of which Leonard speaks is just men being assholes. No means no. Respect boundaries. Women are people, too. No, really. I swear. Even poor ones.

Leonard said...

George, what part of "tend towards [a] norm" suggests to you a universal behavior which disallows all exceptions? Or are you suggesting that it is normal for "doctors and BAs" to "molest and rape"?

Anonymous said...

it is normal for doctors and BA to molest and rape because most of them are assholes. why else would they be doctors and ba's?

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

GJ@1:03 ...

You weren't named after George Sand, by any chance, were you?

Now that would be a nice pair of Busby Berkeley reflected pianos!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sand

Anonymous said...

going back in time, women were doctors before there were doctors. then the witchtrials came to europe and they murdered all the women involved in medicine so that men could then be doctors.

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

to anon@2:02

you just proved that while it's human to err, it's also very Hum-ian ...

Anonymous said...

hume was a human???

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

to anon@ 2:35

Hume's on first ?

Anonymous said...

berkeley's on second?? an hume signs the check??

George jones said...

Alaya, I hesitated on that "well," and now I see there's overstatement in it. Noted. Thank you.

Eerily, my real name is Murgatroyd.

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

ooh - can't top Berkeley ... you win ...

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

Alaya - any relation to a Flavia Alaya who did an English PhD at NYU in the 60's-70's?

la Rana said...

he fixes the cable?

M Fawful said...

So much contempt for the midwest. Your trust fund is showing, bro.

Anonymous said...

Lesbians! We want lesbians!

j r said...

Is Leonard a real person or a spontaneously generating algorithm that was birthed when someone had the comment sections of Steve Sailer's, Charles Murray's and Moldbug's blogs open in different tabs of the same internet explorer window?

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

j r -

not only that, but he's a "greedy" algorithm":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_algorithm

as befits a Gekk-ite

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/

Eerily Lackadaisical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

enlightened feminist straight men are the fucking pits. belittle the courtship habits of the lower castes, pat yourself on the back for not raping, offer paternalist compliments the ONE woman who was brave enough to comment on this thread... in the end, you'll find ways to demand a blowjob, just like the jocks and the spics.

another thing: the idea that women only respond to assholes is patriarchal victim-blaming bullshit, and it usually comes from some feminist straight white guy who's just fucking baffled that his advances continue to repel those women he's so concerned with helping. i mean, how nice does a bro have to be to get his dick sucked around here?!?!

Jack Crow said...

Way to fuck you your complaint, nonny, with the casual broad stroke swipe @ "spics."

Anonymous said...

maybe i'll do like leonard and say "Democrats' ethnic votebanks" from now on

Jack Crow said...

Well, then you'd be as wrong as Leonard, nonny.

Most recently, Hispanic voters split at about 60/40 Dems/Repubs:

Boring Charts and Stuff

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

Jack Crow -

If you want to see a really rabid bunch, go here:

http://rarereaders.seablogger.com/

The "seablogger" blog was started by the (gay) poet and translator Alan Sullivan, who passed last year. Over the years he became rabidly neocon and attracted an equally rabid bunch of loyal followers. (I followed him because I was web-friendly with him and his life partner Tim Murphy regarding Neo-Formalist poetry ... they were both instrumental in making the Eratosphere web po-board a decent site.)

Then, when Alan passed, Tim and Alan's followers decided to keep the blog going without Alan, under a different name, because Alan didn't want the blog continued under its original name after his demise ...

Anyway, the funny thing is that when IOZ leftoff posting at Slate and started to concentrate here, I mentioned Alan's blog to him and for a while, he actually linked to it. But then he dropped the link ... I think because the politics over there are, as I said, so rabid.

Anonymous said...

Nice story Eerily.

Anonymous said...

Hitchens needs an editor. I can summarize his entire view of women and their pesky habit at speaking in public in two simple words: Fragile Nazis.

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

Thanks, nonny @ 5:07 ... I guess (???) I'm proud to say that I suggested the name of the post-Alan blog (Sullivan's Travellers) to Tim and the bunch over there because sailing and therefore travelling were so important to Alan. And when the name was adopted, I was kinda surprised, because the thrust of the original movie is certainly far from modern neo-con views of the sort held by Alan and his followers ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034240/

Anonymous said...

This post is gay.

Shlomo McCracken said...

The interactions between men and women are creepy and do resemble molestation more often than not. This is of course entirely the fault of men, and the only hope for our species is universally mandatory homosexuality and applied parthenogenesis.

"The plans differ; the planners are all fabulous." - F.A.G. Hayek

AngryFictionalWoman said...

Hitchens is simply speaking the truth as he and a lot of other dudes experience it. Sex and seduction and courtship are just different terms for the same kind of conquest, violent to a greater or lesser degree depending on the man's relationship to the woman or female stand-in. Hence it's natural for Hitchie to blithely refer to women as "targets" and equally obvious that the crime is not picturing oneself as a predator and women as prey but when some little hardbody fails to play the game, opens her trap and blabs. Since women don't like sex, really, but use it as a form of Power, this normally evens out quite nicely: dudes are sex-mad and women are avaricious cunts and getting fucked is the price they pay in order to live in a man's world. Luckily, dudes the world over have spokesmen to defend to the death the right of men to be coarse and vulgar and blessedly ignorant but otherwise the picture of doe-eyed innocence and to castigate women for failing in their role as gatekeeper of their own virginity, for failing to protect themselves from "getting" harassed, fondled, raped, tortured, and murdered.

Strange how feminists bear the burden of manhating when you've got dudes like Hitchens around, only too willing to paint each and every man a rapist, and rape a kind and natural thing cruelly perverted into some kind of thoughtcrime by the postmoderns and the spinsters.

Shorter Hitchens: there is no rape, only miscommunication between client and whore.

Anonymous said...

I'm guessing you are a parthogeneticist?

Leonard said...

Crow, "Hispanic" is not an ethny. It's a USG category which includes a diverse variety of ethnies, at least when it is convenient for the government. (When not so convenient, sometimes a lot of hispanics end up as "white".) But certainly there is enough diversity among Hispanics to explain why only some of them are Democratic votes, and not all Hispanics are part of any votebank. Cubans, for example, although IIRC a distinct ethny, buck the trend for obvious reasons.

Anonymous said...

crow t robot, i'm actually quite a fan of yours, but sometimes in your quest to be on the right side of all things, you can mistake the forest for the trees. at least, that's what i took from this post of yours (http://the-crows-eye.blogspot.com/2011/11/listen.html) from six days ago.

also, uh, parody is a thing

Jack Crow said...

Leonard,

Where in this:

"Way to fuck you your complaint, nonny, with the casual broad stroke swipe @ 'spics.'"

..do you see the word "ethnic"?

If you're looking to joust with the windmills, there thataway ------------->

Nonny was making a decent enough point, earnest or t-i-c. Then he punched it in the grundle with a stupid qualifier.

Anonymous said...

crow's latest french kisses Lee Harvey
hard case for 'right side of all things'

Saurs said...

Heavy is the burden of being a man in a world that almost-but-not-quite takes women seriously when they proclaim to the heavens what you did to them. And yet here's Hitch to the rescue, making sure bitches know that their esoteric little interpretation of their own experiences is the wrong 'un, yet again.

If this is his attempt at a "Dear Muslima" moment, time for a double heapin' helping of revision. Maybe it's the cancer talking.

Saurs said...

Jack Crow, who's "he"?

Kolohe said...

So Herman Cain's going to hosting the Oscars now?

Anonymous said...

Heaven forbid we cheapen the sacred notion of sexual harassment by using it describe sexual harassment. For then the roving band of gender terrorists who are totally threatening castration at every turn have truly won.

Anonymous said...

Leonard: Of course it isn't "normal" for doctors and BAs to rape. Nor should it be "normal" for lower class men to do so. Unfortunately it's "common" for both. Don't congratulate yourself for your superior class, education, and basket-weaving skills. It's awfully easy to breath a sigh of relief and tell everyone you're exempt isn't it, because you went to college and are enlightened. Regardless of how educated they are or how privileged and rich they are, most people like to overlook these nasty things. It's humbling and embarrassing to realize rape happens all the time. Must feel good though, to know that you're better.

And AngryFictionalWoman was totally right.

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

God almighty folks - why is this thread so charged with rancor and recrimination?

Please - read and then reflect on #32 from Whitman's "Song of Myself"; it really is quite a propos:

32

I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and
self-contain'd,
I stand and look at them long and long.

They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of
owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of
years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.

http://www.daypoems.net/poems/1900.html#top

Leonard said...

Jack, you're not a windmill and you aren't that way ----> ... which I do believe is to the right. I'm the only guy on this blog over there, other than Inky. Plus the occasional nony.

My comment of 5:55 was not in any way about any comment other than yours of 4:56.

I'll second Saurs on "he?". Your nony be a she, methinks.

Oh, and: "they're".

Anonymous said...

Ioz simply seeing what he wants to be true. Most underthought post I can remember (and I read him every day, and am as gay for him as for any man, ever).

Jack Crow said...

Fair catch, Saurs.

Anonymous said...

You know, I'm a het guy, but I put a dick in my mouth in third grade. I'm 48 years old and I'm still embarassed about that shit. Do you think if I tell my wife I'll, like, feel some relief? I thought Mike White wrote Chuck and Buck about me, for real.

Flying Piigs said...

When people start throwing tear gas canisters and molotov cocktails at each other in order to get laid, that's parthenonogenesis.

Anonymous said...

No, no, no, no, no, Herr IOZ, you don't get it at all. The future is desexualized overlords with no genitals, wearing skin-tight pastel jumpsuits, and lots of creamy-white walls with very uncomfortable Bauhaus furniture.

And there will not be any need for reproduction, for they will be immortal.

That should sort out the problem, not so?

Enron said...

OMG PATERNO GOT FIRED THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END

Anonymous said...

Anonymous in the early am has not been paying the strictest of attentions to AbFab series one episodes, I think.

Anyway, you're all wrong because dystopia is now: women actually have the power to scream at you in public when you catcall them, hence the end of freedom of assembly or whatever.

Eerily Lackadaisical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
puppylander said...

sadie hawkins day forever! (fun facts and fodder for moralizing at wiki.) not to mention it's november.

anon 6:02/6:45, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. that is, i don't agree with j.c.'s analysis of himself as a misogynist, but i bet "anti-authoritarianism" (read "not listening") has "worked" for him in the past (confirmation bias, etc.)

back to point... how do gays and lesbians make "the approach"?

puppylander said...

however, point to be made, in bossypants, tina fey relates her experience (shared by other women) (re: when they first realized they were women):

“Almost everyone first realized they were becoming a grown woman when some dude did something nasty to them…There were pretty much zero examples like ‘I first knew I was a woman when my mother and father took me out to dinner to celebrate my success on the debate team.’ It was mostly men yelling shit from cars. Are they a patrol sent out to let girls know they’ve crossed into puberty? If so, it’s working…I was walking home alone from school and I was wearing a dress. A dude drove by and yelled ‘Nice tits.’ Embarassed and enraged, I screamed after him ‘Suck my dick!’ Sure, it didn’t make any sense, but at least I didn’t hold in my anger.”

Anonymous said...

add telepathic psychiatrist to puppylanders resume. complements university twit.

george jones said...

ah geez, that does sound patronizing doesn't it? fuck me. sorry again.

now i'm done.

george jones said...

"fuck me." lol. hilariously inapt. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT

la Rana said...

"how nice does a bro have to be to get his dick sucked around here?"

Have we answered this yet?

puppylander said...

anon 11:46, a bit of a hypocrite, are you? i mean, the game you get to play, but that others don't. tactically more like white males crying "oppression" than anything i've posted here.

Anonymous said...

la Rana, it's a trick question. Just shove your dick in her face, with the satisfactory knowledge that there's not a fucking thing she can do about, and should she try anything tough on, she'll get arrested for committing seven types of mayhem and nobody but nobody'll suggest you secretly wanted to get your dick bit off, 'cos we all know dudes like it a little rough, amirightladiez?

la Rana said...

Place 1/2 cup agression and 2/3 cup victimhood into bowl a stir until combined. Fold in 1 1/2 cup self righteous indignation and bake at 425 until piquant. Before serving, cover with two large pinches of projection and grarnish with a profoundly confused sense of feminism.

Anonymous said...

Define unconfused, coherent, consistent feminism without mentioning equality. Also, use college-ruled, not the other stuff, and I want it on my desk by 5-ish.

Anonymous said...

Men can't have an unconfused sense of feminism because they are not women. Better they try than not though, or you get this:

La Rana blogs: "La Rana loves redheads. Redheads do not love La Rana".

Tell me, does it matter if there's anything underneath the hair or does the presence of a real human interfere with your little fetish?

demize! said...

Yes Rana, please police your language more thoroughly, and stop using time worn tropes. Cultural pendantacism is annoying, biological nationalism is unconscionable.

Anonymous said...

is pendanticism when you wear a lot of necklaces?

la Rana said...

Men can't have an unconfused sense of feminism because they are not women

That pretty much sums it up. First lets clarify that I win and you lose, then we'll race. It somehow reminds me of something...

You are like a physical comedy movie where the protagonist just can't get out of his (or her, I just can't think of any) own way. I'm curious though, what is objectionable about aesthetic preference, as a concept? I mean without the two pinches of projection you so wonderfully demonstrated.

george jones said...

yo rana, the anonymous you are addressing is not me.

Anonymous said...

Rana, aesthetic preference is objectionable when it removes the humanity from human interactions. Often, as a woman, men ignore me if I don't appeal to their aesthetic preferences. If I do fit their preferences they don't take me seriously. Women are either dismissed or objectified.

And I didn't know we were racing. I thought I was just noting that your objectification of redheads seems a bit misogynistic.

Anonymous said...

Wow, so much hatred of men and male sexuality in this thread. Sad.

demize! said...

Im sure anonymous only jerks off to images of men or women that satisfy her intellecual aesthetic. Sigh...

demize! said...

"if [I] do fit their preferences they don't take me seriously. [Women] are either dismissed or objectified."
You see what you did here? I highlighted it for you.

Anonymous said...

Yes, "I", as a female individual, used the first person to reference myself when relating to a common experience of a larger group to which I belong (women).

demize! said...

You're extrapolating your personal experience onto a whole gender.

la Rana said...

"when it removes the humanity from human interactions.”

From what we have to go on here, you are arguing that the fact that I experience women through my sensory experience deprives them full moral agency. This is an old argument, to which I say “fuck that shit.” Ignoring or degrading experience of physical attributes denies an essential component of humanity in just the same way as ignoring intellectual merit in lieu of aesthetic preferences. It is just as arbitrary and unfairly discriminatory; physical appearance is just as part of being human as being able to multiply fractions in your head. Pretending otherwise is just self-delusion for the sake of a priori judgment.

You can call an aesthetic preference for redheads objectification, but I call it aesthetic preference for redheads. Acknowledging that preference says absolutely nothing about the moral weight I assign to women or any human. I am attracted to women for all sorts of reasons: they are redheaded, they are tall, they look at me in a way that makes my stomach flutter, they are smart, they have an artistic gift, they are independent, they like me, etc. (You will notice is that these are arranged with the most superficial first. That is also the order one experiences another human.) None of these things says anything whatsoever about the moral weight I assign to that person. Your conclusions to the contrary are the result of sloppy category errors, heuristics masquerading as analysis.

I hate to be crude (thats a lie), but is your complaint that some men aren't attracted to you, or that they do not grant you equal agency? If its the latter, fuck them, we're primates for god sakes. That women are either dismissed or objectified is unfortunate, but if you really believe that this is generalizable to all men, you are either deluding yourself or you just need to get out more. If its the former, well that’s the same damn thing I said. I just noted that those with red hair are entirely contained in the set.

And honestly, you get from "I like redheads" to "I hate women?" If you want to be taken seriously around here, make a serious fucking argument. This bullshit ain't gonna cut it, even if you were a redhead.

Anonymous said...

Do the dudes realize that they're speaking to at least three different anonymeece in the latter half of this here comment thread?

Answer: does it matter, all women are the same, cunts policing me, etc...

Anonymous said...

Oh, and let us not forget, LET US NOT FORGET: you're just jellus'n'mad 'cos your ugly.

Froggy, you take so long to say so little. Just call them all crazy dykes and move on, as you're literally out of your element here, hence all the words.

demize! said...

1) How the fuck is anyone supposed to discern between anonami? 2) How do you know the gender of someone by their screen name? 3) Calm the fuck down your all hysterical and must be on the rag you just need a good man and you wouldnt be so uptight your prolly a dyke get back in the friggen kitchen. Rollseyes...

puppylander said...

it's probably fair to treat each nonny as the same person--even when they're obviously not.

la Rana said...

I accept your concession of defeat anonymi. I hope you try again.

Anonymous said...

"Yes Rana, please police your language more thoroughly, and stop using time worn tropes."

Yeah, how dare the feminists think they can define feminism.

demize! said...

Thats very involved argumentation, ho hum. But Im not a feminist as I understand the current convolution. It is a nationalism of gender. And I dont do nationalisms. If you advocate for the liberty and equality of all people, and humane treatment of animals then Im down with that. If you agitate for some sort of preference based on biology than Im not.

Anonymous said...

feminism (n) - 1. misandry; 2. (archaic) organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Eerily Lackadaisical said...

Since the Sturm und Drang in this thread has not served to resolveanything, I thought perhaps these couplets in honor of Betty Friedan might help, at least, to clarify certain salient issues:

On Betty

Despite millenia of sexist stasis,
she managed an apotheasis.
In light whereof, we pay attention
to whether nouns show their declension.

[and no, "apotheasis" is not a typo ...]

solerso said...

Sooooo Hitchens is a lying opportunistic pathological hypocrite {{{yawn}}} and this distuinguishes him from any of his colleagues in the deciet/propaganda industry how?

Anonymous said...

EL, attempts to revert the convo back to your fine self are noted and found a wee bit pitiful. And, yes, dudes what are threatened find it necessary to reduce feminism to uptight bitches be policing mah language, even in poem form. Hohum, indeed.

Anonymous said...

"If you're a liberal, then you'll find it particularly appalling that Hitch first made his conservative bones, you'll pardon the expression, not by cheering for the death of a million Iraqis, but by stroking feverishly over Monica and Kathleen Willey."

No, that would have been when he got involved in the Falklands, dearie. Sorry, sweetie.