« So what if US soldiers are so gay? The Army is still straight | Main | We ' re tired, we ' re cranky, we don ' t like the government »




"this willingness to submit to Daddy the result of living in a symbolic system that always rewards those who can act as Daddy/possess the Phallus. This Phallogocentric system makes it impossible to exercise power without being Daddy/or like Daddy."

Ummm... like... WOW. :o/

Laurie Essig

Yeah, Irigaray and the other post structural feminist sorts are pretty WOW. I just like to (mis)use them for my own political purposes.

Michael Peck

Laurie, what sexual relationships do believe the state should regulate? In Yemen, old men marry 10-year-old girls, and a 12-year-old just died in childbirth. They would consider our government banning such practices to be intrusive on their religious liberties.



This ain't Yemen.


God I love to read your rants. Brilliant. Hyperbolic. Radical. Ridiculous. Exactly on target. Encore!!


Hypocrisy happens on the left and right. Unfortunately, many are blind and unwilling to see this.

Wasn't it Al Gore that just bought a $9,000,000 home in Santa Barbara, California this past month? How is that minimizing one's carbon footprint? And, shouldn't he always be flying commercial vs. by private jet?

How many articles will the mainstream media and left write about Al Gore and his contradictions?

By the way, I find it interesting that you mock and ridicule people for their religious beliefs. It's interesting that if a right-wing person says anything about someone's race or being gay that they are instantly labeled as a "racist" or "homophobic" or a "hater." Yet, it's OK for you to attack someone because of their religious beliefs?

Rini Hara

Sex or marriage involving minors should be regulated i.e. illegal. We don't condone murder because of religious beliefs. Personally, I don't think we should give religious beliefs one bit of credence when it comes to the health and welfare of human beings... too bad for the old men in Yemen.

Rini Hara

"Does hypocrisy have a breaking point?"

Short answer....



core2010 - She is talking about hypocrisy - she is not mocking or ridiculing anyone for their religious beliefs if they actually live them - only those who CLAIM beliefs that they obviously don't actually believe because they don't live them; in fact, their behavior insults those who actually do believe and live their lives accordingly - is that beyond your ability to grasp? Try actually THINKING before you respond with the same old tired, shallow drivel.


You can ignore and spin as much as you desire. Everyone has the right to ignore reality.


I'm sure hypocrisy is pretty normalized by now in the battered collective psyche of Americans and their politicians.

Even worse, the brand-loyalty thinking that goes along with political narratives in our culture makes it similar to any faulty example (even multiple examples) of a frequently-consumed product. The breaking point would only happen if there was an enormous supersaturation of tainted amples, finally forcing the customer to choose another brand. As it is now, it's on par with the celeb gossip mags you see in supermarket check-outs in terms of volume and frequency, whether these people preach family values or not - only most of these politicians are much less-known publicly across the US than someone like Tiger Woods, whose sexual indiscretions will be hammered into the public consciousness over a period of months, not just "this week and then the scandal is washed over in history" like what's going to happen here with Souder.

Imagine individual bottles of a mega-brand soft drink. Maybe someone buys a case of cola and the first bottle out of it is flat upon opening, and oh look here's another, and another, wow that sucks, maybe I'd better take this back and get a new case... but this doesn't necessarily discourage the cola drinker from buying more cola in the future, nor even directly lamenting or dropping the company that made this bad batch.

It's unfortunate considering what's at stake, but for this crowd the rotten apple(s) don't necessarily seem to spoil the bunch at all.

I do agree that there has to be a saturation point, but damned if I know what it is. It's apparently extremely high though.

jake brodsky

Too often, arrogant people become politicians. This is true whether one is from the left or the right.

Richard Blumenthal, was recently caught by the New York Times in a very big lie, claiming he served in Vietnam, when clearly he did not. Despite his efforts to evangelize the cause of global warming, Al Gore doesn't live by his words. And yes, there are just as many on the Right who do not live by the credo they want you to live by.

I have no more tolerance for this sick behavior than you. Unfortunately, it is the nature of humanity that we often get pin-headed leaders who are arrogant enough ask you do as they say, not as they do.

So many people detest such behavior that they don't even bother to get in to politics in the first place. It takes a real slimeball to want to be in office these days. The political games they're playing don't even have anything much to do with philosophical differences. Hell, I'll bet most of these people do not even read the things they're voting on. (By the way, good luck with the Health Care bill that almost nobody was able to read before voting on it --who knows what may be in it)

I'm not afraid of honest, open debate. What scares me are the idiots who think that playing soundbite games will somehow serve this country well. What we're dealing with is a culture of professional politicians. It is wrong no matter which side of the debate you're on.

Ms. Essig, I agree with you that they do not know what they're doing. However, if you think the leadership on the left is any better than the right, I have this beautiful bridge I'd like to sell you.


Very strange piece. Well, I do my part by not supporting jerks like the people you profile. By not voting for them. By subscribing to a progressive point of view.

By not being a neocon. By not having voted for Bush. By not having voted against gay marriage. Etc.

People like myself are called liberals and/or progressives.

The people you're calling out are not in our camp. They belong to the other one.

Hope that helps clarify things.


just like you do, right?


I took a second to pause and imagine that it did, it could be reached.... it was a pleasant thought, but after a moment I went back to being vigilant and calling these folks out at every opportunity, as it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Then my thoughts went to the American public, and what percent were both informed enough and cared enough for a tipping point/breaking point to be reached, and I fought despair. Keep putting it out there!

Laurie Essig

I actually think basic civil rights should belong to everyone regardless of whether we organize our personal lives as singles, threesomes, same sex, heterogendered, etc. Obviously I think "consent" remains important (if a problematic concept). I don't see how suggesting that civil rights NOT be tied to marriage makes us like Yemen/a country where ten year old girls are married to old men. How about we become like much of the EU or Canada- where civil rights, insurance, etc. are separated from marital status?


Um, lol:



Hm. Well, maybe we'll get a Democrat in the White House and everything will change.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad