Men’s Rights A**hole wants to legalize Rape. Seriously.

Yet another mamma-threw-away-the-child-and-raised-the-afterbirth chucklef*** demonstrates why the “Men’s Rights Activists” are all a bunch of criminally insane loserboys. One Roosh Vörek wants to make rape legal. Don’t believe it? Here are his very own “thoughts”:

I thought about this problem and am sure I have the solution: make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.

The exception for public rape is aimed at those seedy and deranged men who randomly select their rape victims on alleys and jogging trails, but not as a mechanism to prevent those rapes, since the verdict is still out if punishment stops a committed criminal mind, but to have a way to keep them off the streets. For all other rapes, however, especially if done in a dwelling or on private property, any and all rape that happens should be completely legal.

If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she’ll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied.

Here, Gentle Reader, is the paragon of masculinity from whom those “ideas” spurted:

Yeah, looks like a misogynistic a**hole, doesn’t he? No wonder he wants rape to be legal.

A counterproposal, then, for the “blogger” Roosh V: you want legal rape? How about we say women can legally cut off your wedding tackle whenever they want. Yours and that of any other rapist, sex criminal, MRA, or other mouthbreathing toilet stains who think they have a right to rape women.

Oh, you don’t like that idea, Mr. Vörek? Funny how that works.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

American “Christians”, you are NOT being oppressed. Repeat, NOT BEING OPPRESSED.

Here is the latest in a flurry of non-reality-based memes on the subject:

How wrong is it? Let us count the ways:
Number A: they are free to say grace over their meal. Nobody ever said they couldn’t. But the meme falsely implies that they are bravely taking a stand against some mythical oppressor who seeks to stop their prayer. There is, of course, no such oppressor, but that fact matters not at all to the Fundagelicals.
Letter 2: see anybody there pelting these hard-working public servants with atheistic tracts? Nope. Most Americans don’t much care who you pray to, when, how or why.
Thirdly: assuming that the promulgators of this meme consider themselves to be Christians, they should read Rebbe Yeshuah bar Joseph’s words in Matthew:6. You know, the words about not being phony and ostentatious in their prayer.

Odds are, the people depicted had nothing to do with the meme: just people saying grace before a meal. Good on them. It’s their right to do so.

The problem is with the yahoo prostletyzers who are using this ordinary picture to try and enforce their wingnut agendas on the rest of us. This writer wishes they’d spend more time reading their Constitutions and less trying to subvert it.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

You Can’t Be Partly Pregnant

Mr. Blunt and Cranky was reminded of this old saying while listening to the latest Postal Service brouhaha. For those who have not heard the noise, here is a brief recap: the Posties are broke; indeed, they are as broke as the Ten Commandments. And every time they try something to fix their problem, all Hell breaks loose.

This is because the agency is required to be “partly pregnant”: a constitutionally-mandated government agency that is simultaneously expected to run itself like a private business. That is confusing enough as it is, but wait- there’s more.

The USPS is required by law to serve everyone, anywhere in the U.S., no matter how remote, at the same price, quality and speed. Oh, and Congress can veto many actions of the USPS, and add additional mandates as it sees fit, whenever Congress takes a fancy to.

The USPS tried to cut costs by closing and consolidating under-used post offices. They got smacked down. They tried other ways to save money, and got spanked again. Notice that private concerns like FedEx did similar things to become leaner and meaner, and no one turned a hair.

So we have a government agency, regulated to a ludicrous degree, that is expected to somehow compete with lightly-regulated private-sector businesses like FedEx and UPS. That’s like expecting a duck-billed platypus to outrun a thoroughbred at Churchill Downs.

You can’t be partly pregnant. You can’t be partly private or partly public either. Demanding that the Postal Service be held to two incompatible standards is like baking a Limburger-sour-cream-chocolate-and-onion birthday cake with ketchup icing: you can make it, but no one will be happy with the results.

Mr. B & C

Yes, Government Can Create Jobs. And it Should

Mr. Blunt and Cranky will drive to work today on roads built by government-funded workers. When there, he will use the Internet, developed partly by the government. He will use water fountains that are supplied by government-funded water systems.

He will be protected by government workers from the military and police and fire departments. On and on the list goes. Taxpayer money providing jobs: that is a pretty tangible return on investment (ROI).

Government-created jobs built much of the infrastructure that we use each day: because there is not a lot of money to be made, private businesses rarely take on such projects.

Today, that infrastructure is crumbling, because much of Congress is delusional enough to think that rational business interests will lose their shirts by taking on such undertakings. They will not. No ethical private-sector organization can or should do so.

While the backbone of our economy is quickly breaking down, our legislators refuse to live in the real world; the world outside of their comfy cocoons, in which real people use the real “products” provided by those government jobs that really do exist.

During the Great Depression, our leaders were wise enough to see that paying people to build things was preferable to paying them to look for jobs in the private sector; especially when there were no effing jobs to be found there.

It is time to give the unemployed the opportunity to work again: to not only provide honest value for the taxpayer’s hard-earned (which the so-called “pro-business types should endorse), but also to provide dignity to those who would be working for their money and providing us all with a better life and the increased opportunities that come from those jobs.

The jobs that modern “Republicans” pretend don’t exist.

Mr. B & C

Queen Ann Shoots from the Lip Once Again

Ann Romney hath spoken from Her Queenly Perch O’ Entitlement, telling reporter Natalie Morales that She and Lord Willard will not hand out any more information about Their Royal Selves to the media, or we lowly citizens, for that matter. Clearly She and Her little nancy boy Husband have not grasped the difference between public and private sector employment.

Here’s the deal, Annie-me-lass: when one works in the private sector (like Mr. Blunt and Cranky, say), one can live as privately as one wishes. Where you live, how you live, how much money you have, none of that is anybody’s business at all, unless you choose to share it. Most sane people choose to live thus.

Once you decide to operate in the public sector, any expectations of privacy are gone with the wind. And you had to know that, since this ain’t your first rodeo. The law requires one whole helluva lot of disclosure, and lots of politicians (like your late father-in-law, bless him) have raised the bar higher than the law requires, just to make themselves look good avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Hey, you’re richer than Croesus: good on you, many of us aspire to that. You used the tax laws to your advantage: so do most Americans. You likely have family tragedies that you might not wish to share: same here. So why the secrecy, why the scaredy-cat fuss, why the stonewalling? Because there can’t be anything that bad in your privileged backgrounds – Hell, you’re probably waaaay cleaner than the majority of your prospective subjects fellow citizens.

 If you wanted a completely private life, you should have stayed out of national politics. A wee bit late for that now, though: no matter how Your Royal Romneyness feels, you are going to have to deal with the demands of the new career you and your lackey-boy husband have chosen. Suck it up, buttercup, and open up. And climb off your throne, you look a jackass up there.

Mr. B & C