william.scherk

Adam, I do not know why, but the first word that came to mind was "Schweet ..." I have little time for any blog-reading beyond Syria, sad to say, but Feministing is still on my bloglist. It is interesting that you have antenna out all over the place. That makes me feel good. Maybe it is spring. Maybe I realize that I do not have to use contraception when I get all slutty. Do you ever watch Rachel Maddow? I admit to being utterly charmed by her. I would love to get a chance to yak at her at a party or something. Speaking of which, do you have plans to read Thus Spake Zarathutsra with Carol and I? And the more important question ... will you bring a date? I have one friend, one single friend who understands my interest in Objectivish matters: her 'unknown to friends' online activity consists of monitoring Scientology. She is Canadian-Hungarian by descent, Jewish by maternal descent, but non-observant atheist otherwise, black hair, black clothes, wicked songwriter and singer, and all-around skeddy ladee, favourite activities include helping the oppressed gypsies of Transylvania and singing her guts out on tour. I hope to be together with her, a drink or too (one Belgian beer at 12.5%, one Hungarian beer at 10% alc/vol) while Election 2012 proceeds, Wifi blazing. Even if it is only me, you and Carol (and Elizabeth) and the hockey team (and Xray), it will be fun to pretend to be a pundit and/or commentator in such company. For the occasion I will definitely code up another one-time-only Live Chat ...

MSK -- I should update you on the number of 'libertarian Muslims' I have come across on Twitter. One is an American, a real libertarian and a real, life-long Muslim. His address on Twitter is https://twitter.com/#!/abuhatem -- I have to remind myself to let our LM know about Abu Hatem - and more about the crowds of folks he could find discussion and understanding with. Update on the Freedom and Justice Party "businessmen" who are as much Republican as they are Ikhwan (MB), according to a report that got some scorn from you. I dug a bit deeper, and sure enough, many of the prominent new FJP MPs in the Egyptian parliament are an amalgam of pro-business, pro-economy, get-the-gov-out-of-business-free-market+, devout Muslims. There is whole class of older gents who were barracked or exiled by Mubarak. When not in prison they generally did two things; joined and worked as volunteers for the social services (charity hospitals, etcetera) that MB members paid for in the communities across Egypt; got busy in business. Many doctors in those ranks, many entrepreneurs. Socially conservative, determined to make money, against the army being in business, demanding de-regulation and an Islamic banking alternative to be allowed. Often as vile towards Israel as Bob is towards the Arab nation. I know it sounds odd, and these groups within are nowhere near pervasive (the Nour party of course has the Hardcore -- a weird version of righteous legislators. Kind of reminds me of the Virginia legislature with a rump of Hardcore Transvaginal Express Christian overlords-in-training) ... but it is real. Odd but true. And, surprise surprise, Americans are talking to the MB/FJP, because I guess, they will be the Government of Egypt once the supreme military council steps aside later in the transition.

Progressives like Margret Sanger were the founders of eugenics and racial genocide. Imagine that. Genocide originating with the Pinko Stinko Leftie Liberals. I am trying to imagine that. Connect Margret Sanger to founding racial genocide and I will invite you to the Election night party ... Of course, Margaret Sanger did have some interesting things to say. She was no Hitler, but still ... this is from the website "The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans" -- by Tanya L. Green, posted at Concerned Women of America. She does sound a little bit like Perigo. Nice to see you at the help desk, Adam! Sanger sounds even a bit Randian here: The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents.

Progressives like Margret Sanger were the founders of eugenics and racial genocide. Imagine that. Genocide originating with the Pinko Stinko Leftie Liberals. I am trying to imagine that. Connect Margret Sanger to founding racial genocide and I will invite you to the Election night party ...

ɾɐuǝʇ' ʍıll ʎon qǝ ɯʎ pɐʇǝ ou ɥɐlloʍǝ,ǝu¿ ı ɐɯ ƃoıuƃ ɐs uǝʍ ƃıuƃɹıɔɥ' dɹǝsıpǝuʇ' ɐup ı ʍɐuʇ ʎon ʇo dlɐʎ ʇɥǝ ʍıɟǝ' ɔɐllısʇɐ' ʍɥo ɐlso ǝuɾoʎs dolıʇıɔs' qloupǝsʇ ɥɐıɹ' ɐup ɥɐıɹ ɟıxɐʇıʌǝs˙

I will be a while before dessert, but I am jumping straight to my favourites: XVI. NEIGHBOUR-LOVE. XVII. THE WAY OF THE CREATING ONE. XVIII. OLD AND YOUNG WOMEN. XIX. THE BITE OF THE ADDER. XX. CHILD AND MARRIAGE. XXI. VOLUNTARY DEATH. And: XXV. THE PITIFUL. XXVI. THE PRIESTS. XXVII. THE VIRTUOUS. XXVIII. THE RABBLE. And at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/8190/pg8190.html ... MY BATTLE WITH DRINK I could tell my story in two words—the two words "I drank." But I was not always a drinker. This is the story of my downfall—and of my rise—for through the influence of a good woman, I have, thank Heaven, risen from the depths. ... A PLEA FOR INDOOR GOLF Indoor golf is that which is played in the home. Whether you live in a palace or a hovel, an indoor golf-course, be it only of nine holes, is well within your reach. A house offers greater facilities than an apartment, and I have found my game greatly improved since I went to live in the country. I can, perhaps, scarcely do better than give a brief description of the sporting nine-hole course which I have recently laid out in my present residence. All authorities agree that the first hole on every links should be moderately easy, in order to give the nervous player a temporary and fictitious confidence. At Wodehouse Manor, therefore, we drive off from the front door—in order to get the benefit of the door-mat—down an entry fairway, carpeted with rugs and without traps. The hole—a loving-cup—is just under the stairs; and a good player ought to have no difficulty in doing it in two. ... JEEVES TAKES CHARGE Now, touching this business of old Jeeves—my man, you know—how do we stand? Lots of people think I'm much too dependent on him. My Aunt Agatha, in fact, has even gone so far as to call him my keeper. Well, what I say is: Why not? The man's a genius. From the collar upward he stands alone. I gave up trying to run my own affairs within a week of his coming to me. That was about half a dozen years ago, directly after the rather rummy business of Florence Craye, my Uncle Willoughby's book, and Edwin, the Boy Scout. ...

US News blogger Laura Chapin has a few sharp observations and reminder of earlier observations. in Rush Limbaugh Leads Republicans Right Into Social Issues Trap: See also Poll : Gender gap in attitudes toward Obama birth control rule

I will simplify my point to indicate where I am coming from. Yes, Fluke got national play via her testimony (oh, and oops, via Rush), but she was not and is not running for office. Palin, O'Donnell, Bachman, Clinton -- all were running for national office. That is the difference. All were victims of sexist language at the very least. Fluke was a (drive-by, perhaps) non-office-holder, non-public-figure, victim of nationally-broadcast verbal abuse for three days by the gentleman in question. Michael, as far as I can see we are looking at the same principles and only differing in our perceptions or interpretation of where they must intersect. I do not mean to pick a fight, just sharpen my and your arguments. I don't understand what I sense as hostility. What am I doing wrong here to raise your ire if my words or argument so do? I have learned a lot in this thread, all about American presidential party politics. It is full of money and sleaze and it takes a long long time without an incumbent heading for a second election. I think I learned this, too -- that another blunder like the Rush pratfall that plays into the hands of the Democratic machine will lead to disaster in November for those who oppose Obama. If I am wrong, good for the opponents, but I would like to know how Rush helped this week, seriously. Why can't the Republican candidates move more women to their side contra the Democrats this cycle? Are they not playing that game? If I am asking for too much realistic appraisal, just say so, and I will go all Pöllyanna on Newt, Mitt, Ron and Rick's likely November triumph over the current officeholder. Look, this thread has turned me into a Republican political news junkie. Satisfied, you sluts? Added, as a very sharp and very effective piece of communication. The dogpile continues. Even the Economist has weighed in, skirts atwitching.

Ask our friend Phil to bootleg you a copy in English. As for a date, I am going to tell you a secret from my Mexican vacation. I am fairly sure that it transfers to Dundas and Yonge or Ste Catherine and St Laurent. Take your computer to a bar terrace with Wifi. Get to election results. Shout at the screen. Read OL. Wear glasses. Look like you are having fun. Suddenly there will be six people at your table. They are your date. This may not work if your computer weighs sixty pounds and has mice and no Wifi. Even then, a front porch, a lantern, a pricey singly malt, a benign widow-lady smile on your face, an intern nearby to fill the nuts and bolts bowl. Even from your front porch you can get a date -- if you use Full Canadian Charm. Or book the library resource room for a whiskey tasting and invite the hockey team and someone with a laptop/Wifi. The best part about the party will be the planning, the promotion and the arguments over planning and promotion. I think I will invest in a new webcam so I can smear vaseline over its lens no matter what happens. I am expecting you to upgrade to Dialup, Toronto Party HQ. I wonder if Janet might show. We could have a dedicated live chat ...

Thus Spake Zarathustra! I read this and relished it way back when. I ate up Nietzsche like I ate up Hardy Boys. Same adventurousness, but Franklin W Dixon never approached the robust style and effervescent language of Nietzsche. Spake reminded me of the Big Lotta comic books, which I also ate up at a certain age -- the slightly-repulsive but breathtaking arrogance, the insults, the LOUD passages. Lotta was loud at times. I am going to read Spake again. Readers Club! Picnic! Beer, golf, trophies, tea ... E pluribus and all that. I think we should give our book reports in light of our party. I think the party should be election night. I know we will all be here, and whoever is in rehab now will surely be a responsible drinker by then. Me, I do not drink, but I am going to select several pricey beers, and borrow the neighbours nine-iron. I may even have a date with me, goading me on. Carol, I expect you to bring a date to the party, too. Now, which exact day in November should we all circleÉ

I do not consider myself qualified to grant this or that to anyone with your money. Not even through a surrogate. I know that principle seems difficult for you to accept as a principle, but it is one of the operating principles in my thinking.. Michael, a couple of caveats on your remarks addressed to me (and some that seem to target my observations obliquely): When I said that the specifics were worth mentioning, I referenced Adam's earlier comment where he told us how he would act as an employer. When my comment is truncated [...] it impedes mutual understanding, by altering the context of response. It was a note on principles in action. I was curious and careful in asking Adam. The principle behind opposition to APACA is not difficult for me to accept as a principle, I have stated clearly three times in this thread that I fully understand that opposition. I spend enough time among the Objectivish to grasp the principle. Adam's insurance answer added to my understanding the edges where principles meet principles. He would, in his private capacity as employer (or in a fiduciary relationship), choose to offer his employees a co-operative purchase of (presumably) their choice from the menu (I guess within agreed-upon cost limits). He would not impose his own personal Blunt sex amendment on anyone's policy. Of course he would be dealing with the world as it is right now, at the same time as holding fast to the contining principle of limited government as principle. The law that you both oppose strongly (AAPCA) currently requires that no religious objection will be allowed in offering policies to employees or staff or folks in a fiduciary relationship (as with a student required to purchase insurance in an educational institution). The bad law containing this proviso was to be 'improved' by the pandering Blunt sex amendment -- it would give carte blanche to employers (in this instance) or fiduciaries to use 'conscience' to decide, line by line, that contraception, sex/reproductive health services, etcetera would never be part of a package offered to staff students or faculty ... The presumed liar, operator, propagandist and all-round political thug and powermonger Fluuuuuck, well, she did take advantage, invited her self to the hearings in Congress, sought to be a witness, was rejected, then spoke from prepared remarks at Democrat-cobbled showboat the exact same speech she had meant to deliver after the men witnesses had finished testifying. So, one can see in the speech a laundry list of totalitarian health proposals, even if served alongside the seeming injustice at Georgetown (unjust only if you are a late-blooming radical activist law student seeking to overturn tradition at a Jesuit university). Sure, one can say she is pretty close to evul, but at the same time we can have an opinion on the things she was talking (or lying) about. For example the Virginia Transvaginal Express, shortly to be Law, We can also have an opinion on the probity of a Jesuit university offering professors and janitors contraception in their policies yet disallowing for women students like the operative Flucck. We can say this hypocrisy and tutelage is not personally appealing, but that Jesuits have that right. We can say that if you do not like it, spend your own fucking money on a court suit against them. As for Flucck's noted whiny women 'friends' -- well, what else would you expect a lying, cunning powerhummer like Fluuuuucckkk to talk about? Their whines about fertility problems, bureaucratic error and delay ... this could always be seen as feminazi bitching. That is what they do, especially if they are but pawns in a larger totalitarian movement. To bring up that point you raised, Michael, I accept you do not consider yourself qualified to grant employee or fiduciary benefits via insurance plans to employees or wards ... but in the example above, it would not be my money. It is their money (with a co-op pay, by choice). And there is no surrogate unless you choose one to delegate deciding such benefit questions. Michael, bear in mind that I do not keep asking what women as a class should do -- I did ask of you, however, to let us know (as did Adam) what the women in your life have to say. The point being it is an issue of relative interest to women, and they can be consulted. If you do not literally think about what the women in your life think on issues of the day, great. I am sure they do not mind, because in your behaviour, you are a man in all the ways women may need a man: protection, mutual-support. love, child-rearing ... gutters and spiders. As for the notion of a class action/warfare epistemology, Groucho, I am with you. I hate communists and rat-haired radicals with no clue. Re KABOOM, I would like to know what this means, but I can wait for the proper time and the proper words. Now, Ayn Rand indeed might not resonate with any of this government involvement in abortion 'stuff.' I can see that. She would have no opinion on Blunt, or if she had an opinion, it might be that the core evil is the AACPA regulations. Who knows? I suspect she would be appalled at Republican pandering to anti-abortion rhetoric and policy emerging from the Christian evangelical right, but I definitely could be wrong. Getting rid of Obama might have made her willing to get into bed with Rick or Mitt if necessary. I mean, her intellectual heir switched to Democrat to battle the Christian evangelical right in one election. She was quite a woman, who would no doubt have taken advantage of the Pill had it been congenial or convenient when she was most fertile -- and considering she remaining active sexually well into her sixties, she may have hoped for a policy that was straightforward: I am a woman, give me a woman's insurance policy. Give me options, hormones for menopause, a senior's discount. It is MY money and my body. If she ever had occasion to offer medical insurance as co-op payer or as employee benefit, I simply cannot imagine her insisting that her girls in the office buy their own damn recreational sex avoidance regimes, hormonal or not. I do agree that class warfare folks are total wastes of time in a real emergency. Every time I have been in an administrative emergency with actual Communists, they were bossy and shouty and incompetent. When a woman had a problem in camp, however, it was lefty soft-hearts who hustled touchy Romeo to the bus stop. Nothing and no one in our leftist summer wonderland of back-breaking labour was allowed to abuse woman. And it was, sadly, in at least a half-dozen cases, the half-formed 'conservative' fellow who got Greyhound and fired for his pains. In one case, it was me who marched the dumb fuck to the boat. Occupy your own fucking sleeping bag, jerk off. Carol, as MSK points out, these people, those people, the bad guys and gals, they are pretty awful, all of them. The them folk. They don't give a damn. They want power. They want to hit their targets. They are all fucked. It might even be that Fluccck is the worst "Women's Causes' advocate because she is simplyfraudulent or at least devoted mainly to Obama and totalitarian health-care: I mean, who looks at her specialty (slavery, trafficking) in law and does not think she BSes -- she gives a damn about slavery and human trafficking? Everybody was indeed thinking of Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a twat and a cunt on TV. Fluccck may have said on The View that Maher was bad, but fuck nuance ... she can still be harshly criticized as a liar and a political hustler. He bores me at his press conferences, rarely says anything new or awkward or surprising. Like it or not, Haymaking is underway -- as you note, we will have to wait to see who makes the most of the contretemps. The blunder by Rush has ramifications now but they may dwindle away in a day or two. Maher, I have never liked his schtick, because he is never modest, never acknowledges he has been uninformed, and turns aggressive and a domineering in a minute when challenged. His anti-vaccination bulshit turned my stomach even more, compounded by some sleazy personal accusations and signs of unwarranted arrogance. Although I was not particularly happy when Maher lost employment over his 9/11 coward comments, I do not think he got enough heat for his sleaze in re Palin. Palin had to put up with shit (as did Clinton) that should not have occurred had she not been raised from relative obscurity. I thought it was right that Schultz got a week off without pay for his shitty comments. There were some really gross stories (one was an 'I fucked Christine O'Donnell and she doesn't trim her pubes) put up by such as Gawker and other sleaze sites. I hated that. She was a loon, but the attention paid to her gender got ugly in a few places. However. If Palin had been in the same position as Fluke (Political showpiece 'activist' reporting to Congress) and she had got the same shit as did Fluke, yes, I would want media hell to rain down on that person. If it was Maher, all the better. He is nasty. But recall, Fluke was not running for VP, nor was she a Presidential candidate like Bachman. Nor was she a serious candidate like O'Donnell, nor was she the wife of a Presidential candidate. Nor was she the chairman of anything other than her hokey human slavery and contraceptive 'rights' organizations ... The whole issue hinges -- for many, I believe, rightly or wrongly, on making a relative unknown a symbol for Rush's sex notions -- allowing Democrats to sleaze all Republican opinion-makers and candidates for Prez as sex-hatin' wingnuts. Strong and compelling stands on issues of importance to women will either be reclaimed by Republicans or they will not. Hay will be available from now until November. I cannot promise not to return to this issue, though I must seem like a nag and a whore for realism.

Rush news roundup, from the shark-infested waters of American media: MSNBC: Stephen Colbert: Rush Limbaugh is a prostitute Stephen Colbert went on a rant on “The Colbert Report,” completely tearing Limbaugh (or, as Colbert put it, the "poster boy for contraception") apart. Limbaugh absolutely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the importance of medicated sex, Colbert said, "because every time he’s slept with a woman, he’s had to slip her a pill first." Next, Colbert showed clips of the GOP presidential candidates giving less-than-outraged reactions to their fellow conservative’s choice of words. Rick Santorum brushed the whole ordeal off saying an "entertainer" like Limbaugh can “be absurd," while Mitt Romney said merely that Limbaugh's use of "slut" and "prostitute" to describe Fluke “weren’t the words he would have used." Popwatch: Jon Stewart slams Rush Limbaugh, Fox News over birth control issue “What is even going through Rush Limbaugh’s fevered mind to go from a young woman trying to get private institutions to cover contraception to prostitution slut having constant sexy sex on my dime?” joked Stewart. “You’ve got to misunderstand so many things. One, he seems to believe that anyone using contraception is automatically having a ton of sex. And that contraception is something a woman has to pay for every time she has sex. And that the woman is nevertheless benefiting financially from having all that dirty contraceptive-fueled sex.” Stewart, decked out in full bio-suit gear as his own personal “prophylactic measure” against Limbaugh, added: “Personally, I don’t get too worked up about the things Rush Limbaugh says, because he is and has been for many years a terrible person… So it’s Rush Limbaugh. Is it particularly vile Rush Limbaugh? Of course. That’s like saying this is a particularly pungent bucket of raw sewage mixed with rotting cow guts and typhoid.”

The real scandal here is that "this woman gave testimony about how much promiscuous sex she and classmates are having." The real scandal is "secular fundamentalists ... pursuing their own caliphate in America, with secular fundamentalism enshrined as their version of Shariah law."

The Blunt-Rubio amendment, full-text. I expect that any Objectivish person would be opposed to the act that Blunt-Rubio attempt to override -- the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'

Transvaginal Express podcast with WSS, 9th, and Peikoff ... via audioboo http://audioboo.fm/boos/698387-transvaginal-express-with-peikoff-wss-and-9th. <object data="http://abfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/swf/fullsize_player.swf" height="129" id="boo_embed_698387" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://abfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/swf/fullsize_player.swf" /><param name="scale" value="noscale" /><param name="salign" value="lt" /><param name="bgColor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="window" /><param name="FlashVars" value="mp3=http%3A%2F%2Faudioboo.fm%2Fboos%2F698387-transvaginal-express-with-peikoff-wss-and-9th.mp3%3Fkeyed%3Dtrue%26source%3Dembed&mp3Title=Transvaginal+Express%2C+with+Peikoff%2C+WSS%2C+and+9th&mp3Time=07.42pm+05+Mar+2012&mp3LinkURL=http%3A%2F%2Faudioboo.fm%2Fboos%2F698387-transvaginal-express-with-peikoff-wss-and-9th&mp3Author=williamsscherk&rootID=boo_embed_698387" /><a href="http://audioboo.fm/boos/698387-transvaginal-express-with-peikoff-wss-and-9th.mp3?keyed=true&source=embed">Transvaginal Express, with Peikoff, WSS, and 9th (mp3)</a></object>

Rush is in the corner now, vulnerable. AOL pulled from his show today. The media will not let this go right now, whatever their motivations. It could be that Rush will continue to lose advertisers who feel they must dissociate from his "choice of words" ... the seriousness of his errors are apparent so far in their damage to Republican message control. The message out there now is that Republicans are pandering and some like Rush go haywire on sex/genitals/women parts/contraception/abortion. I say it serves the Republicans right for pandering. Now they must somehow separate themselves from the perception that they are the uptight freakshow Peikoffs in the ring for November. That could make for an Obama cakewalk. If Democrats can win a propaganda war on so-called Women's Issues, 50.1 percent of voters are more likely to be swayed their way. This is a wedge issue now firmly lodged up the manly Republican butt, in my estimation. It does not matter who tars and who is the fiend, the perception war is at the moment lost for Rush. The taint is on. Kaboom. Duped in this game. Upset looking at one thing. Other stuff. Diversionary tactic. Kaboom. Kaboom. I don't know what this means. [Transvaginal Virginia Express Abortion Law] I thought so. I thought so, and I expect this comes down to 'lady wants to abort, either find insurance that covers it, or pay it out of pocket, and go where the prices are cheapest' ... Hmmm. Kaboom. Gobbledygook. Technicalities. The specifics are worth comment, I think. I cannot quite get whether or not you would grant to everyone, like Adam, as an employer or fiduciary (as with students) whatever health care packages you feel are necessary, if any. Like Adam, you may at the same time offer to your fiduciary (say a daughter on your health-care plan) or an employee (as say, your Institute staff and faculty) a non-discriminatory policy should you choose a co-op option with these folks. That is what I am interested in on genital issues, Michael, the grain of principles and decisions. I just cannot quite grasp your point. I still want to know how you rank women's concerns in importance, and how you evaluate and judge the probity of particular positions and activism. Women's reproductive organs primarily concern the holders, as with the Peikoff rape whoopup. I am only asking for a closer look at some of the ethical barbs and thorns, Michael. I do not expect you to love anything leftish or collectivish or state-mandated. I am sure glad to hear you oppose such things as transvaginal express, and still wonder what Blunt means to you. But I will give way and agree to disagree with you on cheering Rush and dealing with the real-world political aftermath of his blunder.

At this point he begins to talk about Dartmouth. The material immediately preceding has him advising that in the case of a married couple, where there’s too many ‘no’s’ in bed, that the person being refused ought to get out of the marriage. I think the quoted material contains enough context to analyze on it’s own. This is pretty messy, but I think I’m on firm footing when I say he’s still wrong, and it’s particularly the phrase “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid” that tips the scales. Wow. Thanks for the transcription and cutting to the bone. As with his first blunder, Peikoff does not appreciate the woman's point of view, and he has certainly never trained himself to put his own notions to severe empirical test. On the face of it, an assault occurs when the woman says "get off me" and the man does not, but continues to jam his penis in and out of the woman. Distinctions come after, findings of law come after. Peikoff has leapt to the conclusion and reasoned backwards. Sexual assault is basic, not difficult to understand or instantiate as principle. Lay your hands on my body with my permission, enter my mont of venus and penetrate my portal of paradise with my permission, and when I tell you to pull out your throbbing manhood and get off me, get off me, okay? It seems to me that it has been a long long time since the good doctor P last had full-contact sex, and he is in no particular position to have his opinions sealed as correct. In a nutshell, Peikoff cannot imagine the situation that calls for the man to withdraw and stop what he is doing once he is "In" ... and since Peikoff cannot imagine it, has not sought just such a situation to test his conclusions, he is self-blinding himself, and refusing to calculate the perceptions of the subject most at issue: the woman. His disempathic responses indicate Manswers: Lord Penis to me. It is just so disappointing that he cannot cross the bubble line of Self to consult the Other. Damn shame that Objective-ish people have to deal with a nutty old uncle who retains the throne and scepter and royal jewels of Rand. In his earlier uninformed answers on sexual reassignment surgery he fell victim to the same self-limiting confirmatory deception, avoided challenge to his assumptions: missed consideration of borderline conditions where plastic surgery is performed to help settle a gender identity on folks with ambiguous genitals; failed to note difficult conditions like adrenal hyperplasia or XXY women/other ambiguities that concern parents, patients, and ethicists in surgical medicine. Peikoff not only failed to include these in his moral calculus but appears to be unaware and thus ignorant). Here he fails to include in his rational calculations a live female, a person like his wives and daughter, like his mother, with a vagina ostensibly under her control. Again his moral calculus is incomplete. In a situation that Peikoff cannot imagine, himself as the penetrated, he feels discomfort, disquiet, a hint of repulsion, disgust, a smidge of fear, a slackening of desire, and a persistent and unpleasant grinding and bumping tending to painful scraping ... his partner plunging away aggressively has forgotten the supine Leonard's pleasure and so cannot recognize his groans and shrieks and whimpers and banging on the headboard. Someone says, get off me, Nathan, but Nathan does not stop. Not until Nathan is fully satisfied. Sometimes get off me means keep going, Leonard my sweet ... Pound pound pound, shriek shriek shriek

No. I am not asking you to opine about which kind of dung is better. I cannot properly respond to that analogy. I had, however, hoped you might discuss specifics of the failed Blunt amendment or/and the Virginia bill. Here is a New York Times story that caps off a long process: Virginia Senate Passes Ultrasound Bill as Other States Take Notice Yes, but do you understand how the bill speaks to women, and why they are opposed to it? This is not a medical procedure, but a political procedure. Before a woman may have an abortion in Virginia, doctors are mandated by state law to carry out a vaginal ultrasound on her and in her. The point that I want to stress is that this is not standard medical practice in any hospital or clinic in cases of abortion, anywhere. There is no medical necessity for this, and all the medical associations have decried this part of the bill. It is seen by critics as punitive, designed to prevent or make more difficult the decision to abort. Please have a look at the Virginia bill and its history. I think you will oppose it specifically, without making equalizing comparisons to other legislative attempts to curb women's management of their own sex organs. I think your argument does contain opposition to the Virginia bill (though you do not make a distinction between it and any other dung-filled instrument). I am glad for that. It occurs to me, Michael, that you like to identify first, evaluate second, judge last. I suggest that you might have made a short-cut in commentary on items of concern to women (not just sluts like Fluke).

I tried to get excited over this current manufactured tempest in a teapot about political propaganda. I swear I did. But I couldn't Er, hmmmm. So, we contrast and compare rape, a true despicable crime wherever it occurs, with um, uh, hmmmm. I recall you cheering Rush's teapot whistle, cheer him on. That was not excitement, I guess, at his ugly sentiments, but bemusement, soft demurral, chiding or silent disapproval. It would be good to engage on the Virginia issue, Michael. It seems odd to my Canadian eyes to see this weird law mandating transvaginal ultrasound ... I expect you accept that these issues redound on the Republicans and defeat the purpose of opposing Obama's reelection. In Virginia, I mean, this pending law influences the presidential race -- the governor pushing the law is Republican, but as the Marist poll I cited showed in its snapshot, Obama would crush any of the four primary candidates in Virginia. My point is essentially that when Republicans gather to their skirts the hard-right religious nutjobs and their churchy exclusions to secular laws they do not favour, the contrast with the mainline Democratic position becomes by default more centrist and thus more attractive on the ballot. On this particular issue, you will find that US opinion (even and especially among the Catholic, as are Gingrich and Santorum) is much more liberal than today's Republican likelies. I will restate it and move on: Rush overboard on contraception offers the Democrats lots of hay-making, because Republicans are out of step with reality. They now risk being tainted with crotch-sniffing and trash talk and persistent attempts to control women's bits by the nutters. On this issue, Michael, to my ears, Rush sounds crazy and Obama sounds like nice uncle Fred. It's too bad for those who want Obama out.

Adam, further good stuff in the slut's written remarks, if true: If this is true, it shows a kind of petty administrative/bureaucratic proceduralism has infected provision of timely medical attention, because of religious fuckhead-ism -- on the same damn campuses where everyone else, from tea lady to Ms Dean TightLips escapes this no-doubt expensive administrative control layer between them and common-sense doctoring. Is this hypocrisy or double-standard or disequity or pointless proceduralism even worth talking about in detail? Help me out with your take on this disparity. In a perfect world, maybe, this would be settled rationally, by rational actors, if there were such things in that perfect world as Jesuit universities and such things as employer-provided medical insurance, not to mention such things a sluts with law degrees. Michael, curious me, the plenitude of real OWS rape is topical to my concerns and questions and observations? Er ... it sounds a wee bit like ...

What do people think about the underlying issues raised, in the context of Georgetown, Virginia's vaginal whoopee bill, calling women whores, the Blunt amendment? I mean, what do the women think? Are you finding agreement with the women in your lives on these interrelated issues?I have a lot of close independent feminist friends who cover the entire political range. More than half of them were not comfortable with her on a number of levels. We shall see where they finally settle on this one. I conclude, in my manic socialist loopiness, that the Rush/Fluke imbroglio comes off with damage to the anti-Obama campaign. As you say, where they (not merely your feminist friends) finally settle ... Still, my conclusions aside since predictions may fail in the eight months to come, what are your personal opinions about the Blunt amendment attempt to give employers a means to skirt the contraception issue by amending the Obamacare mandate to insurers ...? I mean, it is very real at Georgetown, an odd situation likely mirrored at a number (though a minority) of colleges or universities, where the Jesuit demands for chastity of the student body (even a thirty-year-old slut body like that of the late-blooming sorority whore Fluke) are lifted for the more important porters, librarians, janitoresses, power plant receptionists, clerks, professors and deans ... What do you think of that, Adam, if it is possible to remove it from the current stew of events that coincide? And what do you think of the end-run around the religious objectors by extending his "this is basic health care, no deductibles, no co-pays on this, you fuckers" command to the insurers? I know you will likely abhor the Stalinism of this kind of command, but could you as a manager make this kind of decision inside your business: would you bother as an employer to pick which 'lady bits' medicine and procedures you would allow to be insured by your workers? Maybe that questions deserves a straight-up libertarian answer in favour of every and all private employers or quasi-public employers (state-aided or regulated educational institutes) -- to offer whatever they want, even nothing, to their employers, and to refuse to pay for contraception for sluts. In the other instance, Adam, what do you think of the looming transvaginal ultrasound mandate for women in Virginia? Nobody yet has commented on that. And the Blunt amendment, which would claw back not entire provisions but just this one women-only medical mandate, what do you think?

Thanks for digging that up, Adam: I think she sounds like a boon for the world, with a future fighting trafficking of women and lingering slavery issues. I can get behind that. I accept that she was a plant in the sense of a well-chosen or fully-partisan spokesperson for women's concerns (and not necessarily narrow 'feminist' concerns ), planted by the Democrats to show up Republican menfolk. She is articulate and informed for a slut and prostitute. As a propagandist, she is certainly measured and effective. She gained more sympathy and sympathetic hearing on the Blunt amendment she opposed than did Rush, unless you count the OL cheerleading for his personal insults as sympathy. I just do not buy his tone and message of hate and anger and discrimination. Sadly, I know too much about his personal life to have much respect for his personal moral character. Him slobbering on about sex and women is particularly unappealing. Thanks for these two bits especially: That's kind of a good one. Faculty and staff have somehow negotiated a way around moral/religious restrictions on their employer-supplied insurance, a less-discriminatory blend, a package of benefits that does not insist on Jesuit rectitude as it does with the student body. Well, the best word to describe my reaction is that happy word meh. In this instance, spending three days calling an activist against trafficking in humans a prostitute just did not offer me any value. The fight seemed mad, ugly and unbalanced, not a great show of intelligence or class. Crude stereotypes, demeaning insults, this is worth little to me in the scheme of things. Anyone who attacks the person and not the argument, or who casually knocks out this kind of uninformed viciousness -- as if Fluke was some filth deserving of vituperation -- gets my scorn for their protestations of higher morality than their targets. Like Gingrich squawking about Clinton's blowjobs while he was doing the MyWifeIsAway hokey-pokey with the intern in his office. Morally clean Rush versus dirty dirty dirty slut Fluke and the monsters of the Democratic apocalypse? The hypocrisy -- as with no moral/religious run-around for GT staff and GT faculty -- the hypocrisy seems to lie with the religious themselves, not with Fluke and perhaps not with Rush. Rush went overboard and the sharks are at him. None of his erstwhile Republican pals wants to follow him in the water. It's too bad his side that he botched his attempt to deflect a Democratic political gambit. That was one of my observations, which no one is tangling with ... What do people think about the underlying issues raised, in the context of Georgetown, Virginia's vaginal whoopee bill, calling women whores, the Blunt amendment? Moreover, what do the women think? Are you finding agreement with the women in your lives on these interrelated issues, oh ye wise men of OL?

Michael, I feel I must have some fun with your "you" above, and play with the implication that I do all these things 'one' does in your scenario. I wish you would have considered some of my fact statements, if not agree that Rush harmed anti-Obama efforts with this three days of radio bait against Fluke. Indeed he did go overboard, and the sharks are hungry. Maybe you can tell me why he persisted for so long, why he thought it would be effective. First, I ("you") note again the importance of the Blunt amendment, and that opposition to it is not a mental defect or sign of Babylon. I do not dig in like a mule, I do not scream rights, I do not shout bigotry and so forth to get publicity traction. I do not back off only after the other side "negotiates" and grants me a nudge in the direction I want to go. Michael, it seems you glanced past the points on political damage and the argument on instruments like Blunt. It is not a good three day outburst to my eyes in sum total, yet if I remember you cheered the rhetoric. Do you now assume Fluke is a propagandist or/and that Rush himself is to blame for the harsh critical scrutiny on his remarks? Obama noticed the remarks were hateful and unjustified and made political hay. What else would a good opponent do? Barging in with both elbows and shoving and bludgeoning like the Dickens to open the space for ... what? The space for debate? The initial House committeemen blundered with their all-male contraception list and exclusion of a Democratic witness (she was 'not qualified' to testify on religion and law said the Republican chair). So, who would that be, the barger and bludgeoner? Was it the Democratic machinery taking advantage of a Republican blunder, and making further hay with Rush's tirade? I wish you would comment on legislative instruments like Virginia's, or discuss a woman's point of view. If not the vile propagandist slut, then an imaginary American like the 98% of US women who use contraception. Discuss her expectations of the Republican attention paid to her management of her gonads ... What are the principles in play for you here, Michael?

The Brazil reference is interesting. These two references refer to new contraception measures taken in 2007.