Sooey Says

I just read an article on the CBC website wherein the Conference Board of Canada says we're losing ground. Which is great news as far as I'm concerned because I really don't give a rat's ass about the Conference Board of Canada and if WE'RE losing ground, IT'S losing ground, too.

Posted by Sooey at 12:59 PM | Permalink

Dr. Henry Morgenthaler is to receive the Order of Canada. Finally. And how delicious that it comes at a time when Stephen Harper and the New Conservative Government of Canada are hard at work attempting to roll back abortion rights through Bill C-484.

Posted by Sooey at 11:37 AM | Permalink

I think I've finally put my finger on why I find the political Right so alarmingly shortsighted and tediously small of brain. It's because their solution to what they see with their xtra special vision as an attempt by Muslims to Islamicize Canadian society is to batten down the Christian hatches circa the late 1800s.

Call me crazy, but, if there IS an atempt by Muslims to Islamicize Canadian society, I'd say a better heading them off at the pass is to uncompromisingly secularize everything and relegate religion to the outer fringes, all the way out to complete and irrevocable irrelevancy to all things civilized - where it belongs.

Posted by Sooey at 10:41 AM | Permalink

Well, as predicted by many defenders of the status quo with regards to the CHRC vis a vis the right to freedom of speech, the complaint against Macleans/MarkSteyn will not proceed past lots of free press for "America Alone" and money spent by Macleans, which will no doubt be recouped by Rogers in increased cable fees, and the Canadian taxpayer.

I guess that's what counts as a win for free speech rights in Canada these days. And it's not even like Macleans wasn't showcasing some pretty bigoted bullshit by its star pundit, either. It's just that, well, it wasn't really discrimination in any measurable way by a private business (that receives its fair share of government funding, of course) that should matter to an agency of the government.

And now that every drunken lesbian in the country knows about this avenue of complaint, it's probably time to disband the CHRC altogether. I mean, if it's just going to be used by citizens to shut up other citizens and put them in debt on the taxpayer's dime, it won't leave much room for complaint by citizens actually being discriminated against, anyway.

It's not that we're a grown up democracy so much as we're not that's the real problem and why the whole shebang should go the way of milk deliveries, foot x-rays and restricted beaches - if you ask this Feminist.

Posted by Sooey at 10:56 AM | Permalink

Isn't the word for people who would deny the terminally ill access to legal euthanasia, simply because they believe there is value and/or virtue in the suffering of others - SADISTS?!

Posted by Sooey at 09:21 AM | Permalink

Another study, another attempt by scientists to prove what decent society already knows - homosexuality is biological, it's not a choice.

Which brings me to today's two questions: What and why the hell should it matter whether homosexuality is biological or not? Are we not living in a free, democratic and educated country here? Are we a people who care about justice and civilization or are we forever destined to measure our morality in regards to human rights against the corrupt Christian construct of the political Right?

ARE WE NOT MEN?!

I mean, how much money, time and effort are we willing to spend attempting to appease adherents TO THE FRIGGIN' BIBLE, ferchrissakes?! GAWDAMMIT! Can we please elect intelligent people to government next go 'round?

Please. I don't ask for much. Just a little brain activity from our legislators, who, at present, seem to be from the lowest life form available on the planet.

Perhaps we should have a minimum standard required to put your name on a ballot - "Biped".

Posted by Sooey at 08:50 AM | Permalink

Except in Canadian media, it seems. So I'd like to know why our media caters to the idea that there's any such thing as "honour killings" (as in, it's different if Muslim men do it). We don't use outdated terms to describe the murder of women in other cultures, so I'm not sure why it's acceptable to do it to Muslim women.

The media claims, through its Rightwing Pundits, that Muslims demand a special exemption from Canadian laws, but clearly it's the media that is on the slippery slope to excusing behaviour that is criminal by granting it a culturally sensitive name.

Indeed, as a woman, I have to ask - culturally sensitive to whom? Certainly not to murdered Muslim women who are referred to in their own country's media - the Canadian media - our media - as honour killings. Enough already.

Homicide is homicide. And it's not up the the media to imply the degree by giving the murder an assumed cultural motive in its newspapers and television newscasts. A pre-meditated murder of another person is not a crime of passion, even. It's murder in the first degree and I can't for the life of me understand why the media would imply it isn't by calling it an "honour killing". Can no one in the media recognize how wrong that is, how it demeans the victim and excuses the perpetrator?

I get the impression our local Islamophobes would like nothing more than that the Canadian lady in peril scenario would come true so that they can be seen riding to our rescue (or not - not being more likely since most of them probably can't squeeze out of their armchairs) and say "we told you so" - except that the only reason we'd be in peril is because of the mindless catering to the lowest level of misogyny in new cultures by our media...

Posted by Sooey at 12:24 PM | Permalink

You know what would be a really good idea for someone in politics to do? Tally up all the New Conservative Government of Canada cutbacks to organizations here, and compare them to what Afghanistan is getting by way of Canadian tax dollars. Then run the numbers everyday in the House. Over and over and over. Until Canadians comprehend the economic quagmire this government has created for us in Afghanistan.

For instance, apparently, Stephen Harper et al are planning to spend $4 million (and let's face it - add a zero to everything these days, eh?) to rebuild a prison - that's right, a prison - in Kandahar. So if you lost $4 million in funding because of Stephen Harper's ideology, for instance, make some noise about it. C'mon people. Follow YOUR money.

Posted by Sooey at 08:16 AM | Permalink

Say, did you hear the one about the two drunken lesbians who walk into a comedy club from a patio (where the manager of the bar indignantly accuses them of having been drinking from 5:00 - 12:00) and start heckling the onstage comedian? Well, the B.C. Human Rights Commission sure will. But seriously, c'mon, lesbians - even heterosexuals know that making out in front of the stage during a comedy routine is like running out into the backyard naked to poke a skunk with a stick.

You don't do it unless you're really really stupid.

Posted by Sooey at 11:18 AM | Permalink

Here's a question: How can citizens do what the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do and punish Exxon for the oil spill of 1989? Is there a way to bring justice to the corporate world or have our governments managed to make it possible for this to happen without consequence:

TheLegendOfTheExxonValdez

Posted by Sooey at 07:36 AM | Permalink

My mother used to say (and probably still does) to people opposed to abortion, "So don't have an abortion". And that was really all there was to say, as far as she was concerned. As I get older I realize that's pretty much all there is to say to anti-choice people, too. I mean, why argue with people who think it's okay to restrict the rights of others just because they don't agree they should have them.

But there's no point in arguing with anybody about anything to do with human rights, I've discovered (thank you, Internet). If you don't understand that the rights of others are your rights, too, then you're not worth the oxygen it would take for an argument. And if you're on the political Right and asking for government intervention to restrict the expansion of civil rights to others, then you don't even make sense to yourself, do you.

Posted by Sooey at 08:02 PM | Permalink

The fact that women, given a choice, will choose not to have children, should tell society something about how wrong it really is on womenifest destiny - that all women want to have children, are destined to have children, feel a biological imperative to have children, eh?

I just spent an afternoon with four old friends from University, all of us desirable (to each other, anyway) company with only two of the five of us having had children and only one of the five of us being (still) married. Interestingly, she is also the one in the best economic condition of we five - by far - (I'm in the worst - by far) and said quite plainly that since a relationship is not and never has been her priority in life, she remained more or less happily married to preserve her very comfortable and otherwise, beyond marriage, satisfying lifestyle.

Which led her to comment on how inexplicable she found my choice of lifestyle. And she wasn't being judgmental, either (which I've often assumed people are being when in fact they're probably just bewildered, too). She could not for the life of her comprehend extricating herself from her marriage (if only for financial reasons) and she couldn't understand why anyone who didn't absolutely have to for reasons of do or die would bother - simply because, in her considered opinion, it wasn't just too much for her to consider giving up a comfortable lifestyle - it was too much for her to consider giving up anything.

She just didn't care that much about her marriage, to put it exactly as she did.

I'm pretty sure her eyes would have rolled right out of her head if I had offered up that, when you have kids, even ending a marriage only ensures it will remain much as it was when it wasn't at that terrible time before it's over. As anyone who has done it knows, marriage with kids is never over, it just morphs into a tune you can't get out of your head.

Anyway, if you read Antonia Zerbisias' blog (and who doesn't?!) you'll notice a comment by a blogger-in-arms, Sheena, who asks the following childbearing question, which my little get together with my barren friends (as my ex used to refer to them - which is probably why I think it's hard to combine marriage and friends) put me in mind of:

So how come nobody really asks the question - why do fewer women want children these days? Why is it simply not interesting?

Why don't they care about the next generation? Anyone wonder if maybe the female intuitive intelligence has clued in on something? I do.

Well, Sheena, I wanted children because I wanted to get something out of being married. Yes, indeed. I had three kids to make marriage seem worth it - which they did. Now, that may sound harsh on marriage, but I think it's as close to the truth as I can get without stepping over the truth and into a dare.

If I'd never married, I wouldn't have kids. I'd have great friends (marriage makes it hard to keep up the kind of friendships most single women enjoy - see ex re above), a fabulous career (marriage makes it hard to keep up in the workplace with all the afterhours of fun and frolic that make work something you want to do as opposed to something that pays the mortgage, which you have if you're married because who wants to be married and live in an apartment - and if you have kids forget having any fun at all after work hours), a cool pad (marriage makes it hard to have the kind of place you'd REALLY like to have because men and women have different aesthetics - VERY different aesthetics - like fussy cats vs drooling dogs), do lots of travel (marriage makes it hard to have the kind of travel life of your heart's desire because instead of running off to have wild and crazy sex with the waiter at the marina bar, you're stuck nursing the old ball & chain through Montezuma's Revenge), and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc.

I guess. Except, without meaning to, I've always preferred a relationship to friends, I lack career ambition, my housing desires are pedestrian, I find travel complicated because I'M the one with Montezuma's Revenge (which is why I don't even have a passport), and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc. So I got married and when I realized what marriage was, I insisted on kids - at least.

Welcome to the new millennium womenifest destiny.

Posted by Sooey at 02:22 PM | Permalink

We were driving back from a visit to my beau's homestead, talking about Americans, Fox News, Obama vs McCain, etc. and I commented that, at least Americans value the right to be happy - to the degree that "the pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in their Constitution. And that's something, isn't it? I mean, we have no such grandiose obsession north of the border, do we. Happiness isn't something we particularly value, I don't think. And the individual right to pursue it definitely falls short of our list of admirable duties in life. Let's face it, we value what's good for Canadian society overall and your personal happiness be damned.

To put it all very simply, of course. Nevertheless, it's something I find inspiring and vicariously thrilling about Americans, that they value happiness to the degree that they do, while it's just another something I begrudgingly admire about us, but sometimes wonder why I do, that we don't.

Then, quite unbidden, I swear, came the expression, "ignorance is bliss".

It explains a lot, when you really stop and think about it, doesn't it - especially if you put "ignorance is bliss" before the "right to the pursuit of happiness". I know, I am SO Canadian. It really is quite depressing for me sometimes.

Posted by Sooey at 10:41 AM | Permalink

There's a news story making the rounds of the blogosphere today about the CAS being notified by a school principal about a child sexual abuse tip which came from an education assistant (i.e. teacher's helper) - based on a psychic reading (which must have included some awfully leading answers to some bizarrely irrelevant questions to have come up with "a youngster whose name started with "V" was being sexually abused by a man between 23 and 26 years old.") The parent of the child was actually called in to the principal's office and informed that, indeed, based on a psychic's... what's the word, even... psypothesizing? psybrication? psyginationizing? the school had no choice but to inform the CAS of the allegation.

What's even more bizarre is that the school and its board are sticking to their guns on having followed proper protocol in informing CAS of the psychic's... psycusation.

No word on what the psychic has to say now. I wonder what it would cost to find out?

Posted by Sooey at 01:28 PM | Permalink

Finally, the Senate (of all things!) has caught up to that time honoured excuse for bad parenting - spanking - and declared it no longer worthy of special protection in law. Because what's spanking by any other name? That's right, it's hitting. And hitting is wrong. Parents do not have the right to hit their kids by virtue of a special relationship (i.e. they can) - anymore.

Consistency at last. Now say "thank you" to the nice Senators, kids, and ignore all those family values nuts who will continue to argue for a return to the bad old days when father knew best so hard his hand hurt.

Rule of thumb? That comes from the legal thickness of a stick with which a man could beat his wife back in the old millennium.

It'll take a while yet, but some day people will look back on spanking to exclaim, "Parents who hit their children had special protection under Canadian law to do it?!"

Posted by Sooey at 12:38 PM | Permalink

So, Larry O'Brien, an incredibly incompetent mayor, an absolute buffoon, a ridiculous waste of taxpayers' time and money, wants to eliminate 500 city employees, people who actually work for a living, who do their jobs, who keep it all going IN SPITE OF politicians like Larry O'Brien.

If you voted for Larry O'Brien and you're reading this, kick yourself in the ass, please.

Posted by Sooey at 10:35 AM | Permalink

What kind of New Conservative family values politician crusades against reproductive choice for women while having unprotected sex with a House of Commons page?

VicToews,ComeOnDown,Lower,Lower,Lower

Posted by Sooey at 08:18 PM | Permalink

Well, I'd say for starters that people who torture and murder other people for fun, as opposed to having some sort of cause, are marginally worse than Terrorists. Oh, and people who believe they're morally superior to Terrorists because they let their governments do the torturing and murdering for them. Child rapists are worse, in my opinion, than Terrorists. Oh, and of course, people who make it an official policy for other people to IGNORE child rapists in the course of child raping. That's pretty bad. Worse than being a Terrorist, I'd say. Yes? No? Maybe? How about people who don't do anything about the official policy to ignore child raping as it is happening AFTER they know there's an official policy by their military to ignore child raping? How bad is that on the "What's Worse Than A Terrorist?" scale, do you think?

Posted by Sooey at 03:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Why are Americans reacting as if Obama the Terrorist! President would be a bad thing? I mean, wouldn't it confuse the other Terrorists! if the President of the United States was one, too? They'd be all, like, "What the...???" And then, "Yay! America's The Great Allah now!" and turn their attention toward China. Which is, well, I mean, c'mon - crazy with infidels, isn't it? NOT that there's anything wrong with infidels, I'm juss sayin' - funny the Terrorists! haven't noticed that everything infidel is made in China...

Posted by Sooey at 01:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

WorsePrecedents,Anyone?Anyone?Bueller?

But you'd think the Tribunal would be fining itself for "deleterious incompetence" after this double whammy from the winning complainant:

'This has ruined my ambitions. Wearing a headscarf is essential to my beliefs.'

So? It's not essential to Islamic beliefs. Which makes it hard for me to understand how Bushra Noah was successful in her complaint against Sarah Desrosiers. Furthermore, how can Sarah Desrosiers be held responsible for "ruining" Bushra Noah's ambitions when she had at least 25 previous unsuccessful job interviews prior to even meeting Sarah Desrosiers? Not to mention the clear and present fact that she DIDN'T ruin her ambitions, since Bushra Noah is currently "studying travel and tourism at Hammersmith and West London College while working part-time in a shop".

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but is Bushra Noah not wearing make-up in the photograph accompanying the story - which it certainly could be argued - although it, too, is open to interpretation - DOES go against an assumed modesty theme of Islam? I mean, surely there's a difference between "can't" remove a head covering and "won't" - because it's a helluva lot easier to just take someone before a Tribunal and win their money so you can enrol in travel and tourism school than it would be to continue looking for a job.

Meanwhile, her (Sarah Desrosiers) lawyers are advising her on whether or not she can appeal. Really? Wow. Good lawyering. Where were you during the Tribunal? But, my first order of business, if I was her lawyer, would be to tell Sarah Desrosiers to make an offer to hire Bushra Noah. And if she turned down the offer, I'd take Bushra Noah back to the Tribunal - at her expense - and sue her for several thousand dollars - for hurt feelings. If she accepted the offer, she'd be assigned to cut the hair of the first transvestite to walk through the door of the salon. And if she refused, I'd take Bushra Noah back to the Tribunal - at her expense - and sue her for several thousand dollars - for discrimination. And if she did cut his hair, I'd take Bushra Noah back to the Tribunal - at her expense - and sue her for several thousand dollars - for insulting my interpretation of her Islamic beliefs. Either way, I'd make sure Bushra Noah was taken before the Tribunal that fucked me over, to fuck her over. Afterall, it's not costing me anything. And it's costing her plenty.

Then I'd spend the rest of my life making life more difficult than it obviously is for the members of the Tribunal. I mean, if the government is going to have these halfassed judicial keystone cop outfits, they should at least be made to pay their own price of justice by the people they've fucked over with their "deleterious incompetence".

Posted by Sooey at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Who here is more disturbed that John McCain called his wife a "trollop" than that he called her a "cunt"? Seriously. Trollop is mean. And Cindy McCain obviously puts some care into her make-up application, so to accuse her of "plastering" it on is really a low blow in my opinion.

Posted by Sooey at 03:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Speaking of "arrested". But where do mobs go when they aren't standing outside court houses jeering and taunting the presumed guilty? Home to watch Judge Judy? I mean, do these people get time off work to head down to the court house to jeer and taunt? Or are they all mothers-at-home or hopelessly unemployed or retired town criers. Gawd. I'd kill for the time to... Oops. I've said too much. Nevermind.

AndSheOwesUsMoney,Too!

Posted by Sooey at 01:51 PM | Permalink

Like I say here: PoliticalMen it's not the politics and the media what's sexist - it's the political men who run both who are sexist. Don't believe me? Watch and learn how the left AND the right attack Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama during this campaign - for being bitches and hos because they're married to the wrong men. Every season is open season on women, I guess, even when you're not running for anything.

Posted by Sooey at 01:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Maybe Mark Steyn's being persecuted by FEMINISTS for being a white guy, did you ever think of that? Eh? Well? Didja? Hunh? Wow. Men...

CBCWhiteGuyWeighsInOnFreeSpeechTravailsOfMacleansWhiteGuy

But I love Ol' Neil's well-chosen examples of, well, who's not a good white guy on free speech, whether he's interpreting Steyn pulling stuff out of his ass about Feminists - to include our moral relativism:

Steyn, like many social conservatives, practically seethes with contempt for certain Islamic laws and customs. He mocks Western leftists who, out of a sense of moral relativism, defend them.

"Non-Muslim females in heavily Muslim neighbourhoods in France now wear headscarves while out on the streets," he writes, demanding to know why feminists don't speak out more.

Or just pulling stuff out of his ass about Feminists himself:

What's more, Canadians love turning to governments to protect us from speech or expression that offends. Though we are sometimes unhappy when we get what we ask for. (Ask the feminist groups that pushed for a restriction on pornography, only to find the new law used by Canada Customs to block gay and lesbian fiction, as well as straight erotica.)

You know what, MacDonald? Here's some Feminist free speech for you: "Go fuck yourself really long and hard with a 2 by 4, 'kay?"

Posted by Sooey at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Where has all the honesty gone? When I was a girl we knew that virginity was something to leave behind, for better or worse, when the time was right or not, which it never was because chances were, we lost it to another virgin, neither virgin considering each other's virginity a virtue of any kind whatsoever. Certainly we didn't consider our own virginity a virtue. It was just there like a big dork until it wasn't and we could feel a modicum of cool for having done the deed. In fact, I bet we cared less about losing ours than boys cared about losing theirs since they at least had orgasms. We were just orgasmed upon, as it were.

Really, the information to be imparted to girls is, don't expect much re sex until you're 40. Then, expect a lot. In between, practice birth control and safe sex. And always always always - do what YOU want. That's how to empower girls sexually - or is this virginity craze just another attempt by society to make girls and women feel guilty for enjoying themselves instead of saddling themselves with marriage and a house in the 'burbs like they're supposed to for the good of the "community".

Posted by Sooey at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

AfghanistanBeyondTheThumbsUpPropaganda

Posted by Sooey at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm really enjoying the idea now of John McCain winning the election, becoming President and bringing in an all-inclusive draft so that ALL Americans will be able to go abroad and fight for their country. I think it would be instructive to everybody if the Mexican maids left behind ran the country for a while. Also, think of the geography that would be learned that really isn't covered in school as well as it could be.

Anyway, this sentiment comes on the heels of reading an Ann Coulter piece in praise of George W. Bush, Best President, Like, Everrr! I agree in a way. He's taught us a lot about Americans, stuff we really needed to know, like how ass-kicking and awesome they are. I didn't get the sense from her column that even she believed her own press anymore, but that was instructive, too, because I have a ridiculous failing in that I take pundits seriously. No more. The column reads like blooper out-takes from famous ideological flip-flopper, Christopher Hitchens', columns in defence of The War, and particularly, the Best President, Like, Everrr! - George W. Bush. And if there's anything I truly despise in this life, it's an ideological flip-flopper. Although I got a good laugh out of his teary, "But Enough About Me, What Do You Think Of Me?" piece on the young man who was killed in Iraq after reading one too many Hitchens' pieces and signing up for active duty. Who knew a pundit could be so self-serving in his shameless defence of the indefensible?

Well, duh, dead guy. While you were overseas, fighting for your country, Hitchens wrote a whole book called: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - even though George W. Bush, Best President, Like, Everrr! admits, that's who he mostly consulted with in his awesome decision to go to war in Iraq - God. Anyway, if you can read this from heaven, you should probably know that George W. Bush, Best President, Like, Everrr! is planning to convert to Catholicism, because it turns out the Pope is awesome and a witch and can cast spells on British PMs and Best Presidents, Like, Ever! so that they want, more than anything, to be Catholic when they grow up. Maybe you'll meet him in heav... uh... nevermind. You're not Catholic, are you. Sorry, eh.

But enough about you, here is Ann on GWB: BPE!: CrazyLikeAFox

Posted by Sooey at 07:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I realize I might be getting a bit of a reputation as a ball buster and as everyone knows, there's nothing a woman fears more'n getting a reputation as a ball buster. I tease. I love having a reputation at all. Good. Bad. I don't give a shit. Bring me your balls - I'll bust 'em. But anyway, here's my inside scoop for men who need a ball busting break - women judge each other much more harshly than any man could ever dream of doing. And I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that they do. Afterall, SOMEBODY needs to tell all those fashion disasters out there they aren't going to get away with it. Not now. Not ever, honey.

For instance, when was the last time you heard a man say, "Gawd. I was afraid her breasts were going to smother me from across the room in that way too skimpy number she was wearing."

Posted by Sooey at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's something you don't hear very often from the honest moms of today: I put absolutely no thought into having kids. None. When I turned 30, I decided I wanted kids more than anything. So I had one, two, three. I would have had four, but our '83 Toyota Tercel could only handle three car seats and the father-to-be-again made an executive decision. I don't know what I was thinking to get a mid-sized dog. It's not like he fit in the backseat any better than another car seat would have done. But he's a good boy. Kind of crazy and hard to train, but he goes to sleep at nine o'clock on the dot every night and you can always tell by his tail when we're going to get a thunder storm.

Posted by Sooey at 09:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There's a reason why I don't belong to a political party: Men.

As I've mentioned before, when I worked at the NDP at Queen's Park, women in other Parties were routinely targeted in Question Period for being women, the reason being, of course (there's always a reason, even when there isn't) that women should be New Democrats. Therefore, women who weren't, made themselves targets of men in the NDP by choosing the wrong politics.

Women at the NDP didn't much care for this attitude, of course, but, being women in politics, they deferred to the judgment of the male powers that be and looked the other way. Yes Virginia, women on the left, like women on the right (and the middle left and right) are welcome but really only so's your party looks less sexist than the other guy's party. It looks good to have a woman sitting down front while the leader of the Party - a man, of course - talks about women's rights and all his Party plans to do for women. Win/win? Except that politics is a male playground because political women care about doing the job and political men care about doing the politics of the job - which is what politics is really all about. It's not about making the world a better place for women, it's about winning. And then winning again.

This sentiment is shared by the Liberal and Conservatives Parties, too, although there's less targeting of women across the floor in the NDP because men in the Liberal and Conservative Parties have to pretend - harder - that they're all about power for the benefit of women's rights - not just to have power - because they actually have power and it would be unseemly to attack women in a Party that never will. This is all because men in politics believe they know what's best for women. Sincerely. They don't know what's best for women, of course - or they'd leave politics to women and stay home and look after their kids. But they really and truly believe that they do as long as their lips are moving and they're speaking about women's rights.

Anyway, I make it a policy to leave off gender when I disagree with the politics of other women because men don't - and I'm a woman. Men of all politics attack political women for being women because they simply can't believe that a woman doesn't trust him to know what's best for her. And because it's fun and easy to do and women set themselves up as great targets by taking politics seriously.

Oh, and by being cows, harridans, hags, skanks, fat, skinny, ugly...

Posted by Sooey at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As someone who thinks it's ridiculously selfish to have kids and not the ticket to sainthood some parents would prefer to believe it is, here's my take on the decision by Manitoba Child Services to remove her children from the home of a mother whose husband scrawled a swastika on their daugher's arm and sent her to school.

Your kids are not yours. Not technically, not any other way, they are your responsibility. Kids are people, citizens, members of society entitled to the same protection in law that you are and it is the duty, by law, of other adults in society to report, on their behalf, abuse or suspicions of, to relevant authorities.

That's something we've got right in our society, in spite of what rightwingers claim about familty values and father knows best and nanny states and all of the nonsensical claptrap they trot out whenever they are reminded that parenthood isn't a right, it's a privilege.

Yup. Sorry, American and Candian Right. Parents don't have rights simply by virtue of being parents - anymore, especially since any moron (see above) can be a parent. The mother in this case? Sure, she doesn't deserve to have her kids taken away just because her political views are offensive - she deserves to have her kids taken away because she neglected to report the abuse by her husband of her daughter.

Posted by Sooey at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a question: Why hasn't Macleans done a cover story on the alarming, expanding, and very undemocratic influence of the American Christian Right on the New Conservative Government of Canada?

Posted by Sooey at 01:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After I blogged about Pierre Poilievre's anti-apology to Native Canadians: GoodCop/BadCop where he begrudges the billions of $$$s spent by our government on Canadians of the Native persuasion, I got to wondering why it is that New Conservatives are happy to spend billions of $$$s in Afghanistan, to no one's real benefit here (or there, for that matter), but so bitter about spending it here - on Native Canadians, particularly. And when did it become okay for the Government of Canada to express its born again racism in the media?

Posted by Sooey at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think I know what Rightwing Pundits and New Conservatives and other assorted Left Behinds are so frothing mad about when it comes to Feminists and why they're so desperate for an Intelligent Design comeback: Feminists enjoy a higher degree of evolution.

Posted by Sooey at 07:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My goodness. Now Kady O'Mallay uncovers the other freedom of speech fight as RevRend Charles McVety, Stephen Harper's very unelected and very American Christian Policy Advisor, invites our MPs to his screening of "Expelled". The things that go on while Stephen Harper apologizes...

McVetyOpines:"TheTheoryOfEvolutionMakesMeLookFat!"

"This is a movie about freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry and the way that academic elites are trying to muzzle those that dare question the Darwinian orthodoxy. EXPELLED exposes these self appointed gate keepers and calls upon all Canadians to stand up and say enough is enough," said Ruloff.

Okay. ENOUGH!

Posted by Sooey at 06:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

KadyReports:WhiteManSpeakWithForkedTongue

It's amazing to me that we can't actually smell Pierre Poilievre from the radio. In any case, I guess the New Conservative strategy here is: while Stephen Harper apologized to Native Canadians out of one side of his mouth, evil henchman Pierre Poilievre heil hitlered from hate radio to the New Conservative grassroots out of the other. Well done, white man. Faggots with dirt under their fingernails, anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

Posted by Sooey at 08:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ProblemGamblersSueGovernment

Good for them, but isn't our government the REAL problem gambler?

Posted by Sooey at 02:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

TheStraightSkinnyOnTheBanalityOfWar

Posted by Sooey at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What possible use could an interview with Paul Bernardo be with regard to the murder of Elizabeth Bain? Didn't he deny murdering Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, too?

Good Gawd. Remind me - do we still have police investigations into crime or are they all out stumping for New Conservative/Old Reform politicians and tough on crime bills to save the unborn...

Posted by Sooey at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hubba hubba! Whoa, eh! Zowee! Vrrrrrrrrp! Yah, baby! Mmmmm! Slurp!

Posted by Sooey at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Can we all stop pretending now that Stephen Harper is smart? His slip has been showing long enough. The guy has the judgment of a newt.

Posted by Sooey at 09:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Okay. I'm not really over my bitterness that the men of the Democratic Party stayed true to form and didn't elect a woman to lead their party into the Presidential election against John McCain, but I've come up with a campaign slogan (ditch the "change" theme, guys - McCain's already bastardized it) to show everybody up:

"Now that you can't elect a woman (thanks to us) - America, tear down that wall and elect a man of colour as President of the United States, at least!"

I like the "at least" at the end best. It says so much about the politics of men, these days. Because lip service aside, take a look at who still runs everything everywhere - and who doesn't but, boyo, yeah. Someday. Uh hunh. Yup. Someday, the just right woman will come along. You betcha. But she's gotta have it all, you know, like men who get elected President do. None of this special treatment for the little woman. Or Hillary Clinton.

She's got to be a solid Democract with experience. A Feminist, but not TOO Feminist. A bit of age, but not old. Charismatic, but not, you know, so over the top she can't step back and be gracious in defeat. Tough in the campaign, but fair in office.

A woman. Just not... Hillary Clinton.

Like I say, I'm not really over my bitterness, yet. Gawd, I'm so sick of the unmeetable standards men set for women. So now I don't care what all else your politics are - if you're sexist, consider yourself boycotted by Sooey. No more links - I'm not even going to read your offensive drivel - even when it's free - how bitter is that, eh?

Tear down that wall, indeed. I'm just going to go around it.

Posted by Sooey at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Who the hell associates hockey with Canada anymore, anyway? Cripes, enough already. It's an international sport now and good for us, I guess. Meanwhile, we need to get technical and reclaim lacrosse as our national sport. And it'll stay our sport because Americans won't even know lacrosse is a word because it's in French, so they'll never take it over and make it popular and therefore unCanadian.

Posted by Sooey at 01:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was noting to an unsuspecting passerby today how Capitalism is thriving in Communist China - which put me in mind of that doomsday scenario where only cockroaches survive a nuclear holocaust. I don't know what it put him in mind of - probably that he'd need to find a new route to work. His loss. I'll have a new thought tomorrow.

Posted by Sooey at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Steyn Today
Monday, 09 June 2008
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
"Against the argument that you cannot cry fire in a crowded theatre: Oh yes you can - you must, if in your considered view there is a fire. In that case there is a duty to cry fire."
- Julian Porter, QC, speaking at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on Friday.

Posted by Sooey at 06:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hm. Call me a paranoid conspircy theorist, but I think John Thompson of the Mackenzie Institute knows a little too much about the author's motivation to be COMPLETELY in the dark as to who he might be:

AnAnonymousArabMuslimWritesToTheMackenzieInstitute

Posted by Sooey at 04:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What's stopping criminals in the United States from using legally purchased Tasers to incapacitate people in the course of commiting their crimes, thereby making the crimes easier to commit and their punishments less severe if caught, assuming they get caught and don't just use their Tasers to incapacitate arresting officers?

Posted by Sooey at 03:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Because you still have all the money, all the top jobs, all the inherited rights and privileges of being born white and male and NOW you even get to act out the Big Old Whiny Girl stereotype - IN THE MEDIA - that you accuse US (i.e. everybody else) of being:

IAmMan,HearMeYaddaYaddaBlahBlah

Gawd, I swear, in our relationship, David Warren is SO the girl.

Posted by Sooey at 01:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apparenty, John McCain had a first cunt "who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965" (I'm quoting from an article in the Daily Mail). But while he was staying at the "Hanoi Hilton", she was in a tragic car accident, leaving her "disfigured".

Anyway, the implication in the article is that when he saw how wrecked up his cunt was, not-so-loyal John McCain ditched Carol and married a deserving beer heiress - Cindy, aka "The Cunt".

Now, some people are calling this article: TheCuntMadeMeLookFat - a smear job. But I ask: Is it really, technically, a smear job if it's true? Besides, maybe Carol didn't want him back, either. Afterall, he's the one who seems crazier'n a bag of hammers. Not Carol. So, my question is: Why does the media insist, always, still, on the assumption that cunts are the ones who benefit from marriage?

Posted by Sooey at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Subtitled: Why Social Conservatism Threatens Our Freedom

I read a piece by Lorne Gunter posted over on Mark "BuyMyBuk" Steyn's blog about why people are supposedly so unhappy and unfree. Apparently, it's because we have too much choice.

Except, I'm happy and free because I just can't have too much choice. Gimme choice now or gimme more choice later because I'm not going back to less choice ever. So who's really got the problem? Me? Or Lorne Gunter, who would quite happily reduce my choices in life to his choices in life - for me - and take us all back to a simpler time.

Like when the earth was flat.

Would I go to war against Lorne Gunter if it actually looked to me like he was going to have his way backwards and reduce the choices available to me and my children in our lives? You bet your sweet ass I would, sister. And I may have to because he's got the Canadian government of his wildest wet dreams in power right now, led by Stephen Harper and his New Conservatives/Old Reformers, and the Opposition, i.e. the men who run the Liberal Party - IS OKAY WITH THAT, THANKS!

Anyway, here's the piece - "GunterHearsAWho" - a contradictory mishmash of scary nonsense that shines a big old light on the goals of Social Conservatism and why we need to slap these Regressives down.

They are in power, absolutely, and although we have the courts for now, they're busily stacking them, too. It's time for a civil war, sisters.

Posted by Sooey at 08:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I ran into my sister the other day on our street (yes, we live on the same street, just like you and your sister do) and while we were standing on the corner outside her building, talking about whether or not I should spend the summer learning MORE French ("yes, I should, no you shouldn't, should too, should not, you're stupid, YOU'RE stupid, shut up, YOU shut up, don't tell mom but gas to the Sault didn't really cost $2,000 last fall, I'm telling mom, okay - it cost $3,000, did not, did too") we noticed a woman tottering by in ridiculous high heels that she really couldn't walk in - not in a sexy way, anyway. Unless you go for the lumbering lummox look in a dame.

So we made fun of her to each other. Then another one tottered by, but in a simpy tip toeing girly girl kind of way like she was walking on eggs, and we made fun of her. Then another one, who had kind of a cowboy penguin thing goin' on clomped by and we made fun of her. Eventually, we got bored with our conversation and just made fun of women walking by in ridiculously high heels. It didn't feel sexist at all, either. It felt like fair play - for a while. Then it just felt like winning blogging awards or teasing kittens or poking holes in Mark Steyn's or David Warren's arguments so I said, "Well, time to go home and make a pizza from scratch for the kids". There are about 10 really good pizza joints within spitting distance of my apartment, but I like to make it from scratch because I'm THAT competitive.

Posted by Sooey at 06:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apparently, on Mike Gallagher's radio show, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and current idiot Republican facing charges of money laundering and conspiracy to launder money, double-dared Obama to say he isn't a Marxist: "I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist," DeLay declared.

To which Obama will hopefully respond, "Oh yah? Well you're a Republican!"

Posted by Sooey at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

EzraOfIrony

I regret that Elmasry and Habib and Awan have exposed moderate Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt, for their un-Canadian antics.

So... you're saying they make Macleans look... like... The Muslim Times? Or... hockey? Maple syrup? Canada's Best Blog "Small Dead Animals"?

But I am deeply grateful to those anti-Semitic CIC bastards for waking up the nation to the threat of radical Islam, and calling upon a somnolent press corps to rediscover and rededicate themselves to our ancient value of free speech.

Right on. Maybe they can do something about Quebec's language laws now. Or the Press Gallery's non-access to the New Conservative Government of Canada. Or save the Hockey Night in Canada theme!

Posted by Sooey at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ohferchrissakes. I say it's time for that weird Hockey Night in Canada theme: "Da de de de de daw DAHHHHH" to be replaced by Stompin' Tom's "Hockey on a Saturday Night", anyway. Grow a set, people!

Posted by Sooey at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Now there's a job you never see advertised, eh? "Dream Analyst Wanted" And yet what could be more useful? I waste hours of my working day trying to figure out the "wft?" of whatever I dreamed during my fitful, but surprisingly rewarding, sleeps.

Anyway, last night, I had a dream - just like Obama's, except its context was back in Martin Luther King's day mixed up with now. I was parked in my mom's old Impala in front of our house in Sault Ste. Marie. My kids were in the car (ever since my separation, in my dreams, my kids have been growing up in my family home, not their family home - it's sad, too, because none of us belong there and my mom is always irritated that I'm underfoot and then I remember she doesn't live there anymore, either, and I try to find her senior's residence but the streets are like a maze and by the time I get there some lady I don't know tells me "Oh, she died years ago" - uh, don't tell her that, please and thank you - she hates it when I dream she's dead) and I was trying to "get the show on the road", which is an expression my mom always used when we were going on one of our holidays which inevitable started off badly when my mom would head in the wrong direction and refuse to ask anyone for help, when the dog jumped out of the car. Except the dog wasn't my real life dog, he was Ashton Krutchner.

I am NOT making this up. And I never think about Ashton Krutchner except on occasion to feel sorry for him because I think he's too young to be stuck with a 1000-year-old bad actress like Demi Moore. But now that I have dreamed about him as my dog, you'd be amazed if you met my dog how much he's like Ashton Krutchner. And I swear to Gawd on my mother's grave (oops, did it again, don't tell her, please and thank you) that the odd time he's watched "Punked" with the kids, he's barked - even though there wasn't a dog on the screen at the time and he only ever barks at the tv when there's a dog guest star (with the exception of Demi Moore). Anyway, I have everybody tucked in the car and we're ready to go when Ashton opens the door and jumps out and starts running around in the street with his paws up in front, panting, and looking all spiral-eyed - JUST LIKE MY REAL LIFE DOG (except he keeps his paws on the ground). Well, I'm so afraid he's going to get hit by a car (the traffic on my childhood street is what has irrevocably changed the past, I'm afraid - we used to be able to play baseball on our street, yelling "car!" every ten minutes or so on a bad day - now you'd be killed before the first pitch, so it's a good thing kids have video games or they never get any exercise at all) that I pull him by his hair because it's all I can grab hold of since his clothes are - get this - part of his body. Just like my dog's fur is part of his body except when it's spring/summer/fall/winter and he's shedding it all over my apartment.

Then, and this is where it gets weird, Ashton Krutchner vomited on me and I woke up. And Dude, I am TOTALLY vomit-phobic.

Dream analysts, please.

Posted by Sooey at 08:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just, you know, for the record, I think there's something about the Democrats that everybody, but especially Feminists, should take note of: When they had the best chance ever to send a woman to the highest office in the United States, they didn't take it.

I'm juss sayin'.

Posted by Sooey at 09:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If Obama doesn't pick Hillary as his running mate, I think he should really test that liberal white Democrat vote and pick Jesse Jackson.

Posted by Sooey at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Andrew Coyne thinks maybe Mark Steyn should have left this out of his Macleans article-on-pre-trial-at-the-trial-of-the-Canadian-millenium:

Time for the obligatory "of courses": of course, not all Muslims are terrorists - though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists - though enough of them share their basic objectives (the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America) to function wittingly or otherwise as the "good cop" end of an Islamic good cop/bad cop routine.

It's funny. Coyne faults the "of course" and the other "of course" as problematic for The Greatest Living Journalist, whereas I'd say the "of course" qualifiers are the problem: "not all Muslims are terrorists - though enough are hot for jihad" and "not all Muslims support terrorists - though enough of them share their basic objectives".

I mean, "WTF"? I think I'll become The Greatest Living Journalist after Steyn's hanging. I have lots of crazy theories based on opinions.

Posted by Sooey at 07:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you look at all those American flags waving from porches across the USA from a different angle, it can seem less like patriotism and more like Americans unwittingly braying, "Owned by the State".

It's weird, the spin a different interpretation can take, eh? But when you think back to the Americans planting the flag on the moon, it was clearly to say, "Owned by the State of America", and not, "Patriots R Us".

Which brings me to today's question, "What the hell are Americans always fighting for, anyway?" Is there some master plan to plant the flag everywhere so the entire world can be "Owned by the State"?

I mean, seriously, if you take a look at the United States from a different angle, it can seem alarmingly Statist.

Posted by Sooey at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know people, some of them long time friends, who are opposed to any reproductive choice for women that includes abortion. They are religious people who belong to either a Catholic or Evangelical Christian Church (to be specific, although I'm sure all Churches have members who feel the same way) and they believe that abortion is murder and that by opposing it they are doing Gawd's work here on Earth.

A couple of these people are friends of mine who otherwise think very much like me, politically - so - we don't talk about abortion.

But, it occurs to me that so much of our side's fight to secure, maintain, enhance reproductive choice for women is focussed on these people because they're the ones who are the foot soldiers for this particular mission - when the focus should be on their Churches, you know, those institutions that enjoy a tax-free status because they aren't supposed to be political movements out campaigning against female human rights.

Unless they enjoy tax-free status BECAUSE they are political movements out campaigning against female human rights. Hm... Chicken/egg, chicken/egg, chicken/egg...

So, why are we so reluctant, on our side, to take on organized religion when it is "The Church" that is so clearly funding and politicizing what should be, quite simply, a medical matter? I mean, really, the gloves have to come off, I think, or we're just yelling in the wind - or worse - at our friends who are mere foot soldiers. There's nothing sacrosanct about any church in our society - I've been to a couple - and yet we still treat churches as if they are holy places of worship and not hotbeds of misogyny, off-limits to a good hammering in the media light of day.

"The Church" is just a freeloader, livin' large off the fat of my land while it tries, using a shitload of political influence and money and power, to make me a second class citizen. In my opinion, what we need is a good ol' Heny VIII to come along and swat them ALL back into place. "The Church" stands in the way of female human rights and I'm not sure why we aren't shouting that out from rooftops, and, more importantly, the media - in this country, where we can.

Or can we?

Posted by Sooey at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Only a fool wouldn't make Hillary Clinton his running mate. But I notice the media is saying Obama shouldn't. Too funny. An Obama/Hillary ticket would wipe the floor with the Republicans and only the media would pretend it was any kind of mistake for her to keep the campaign going in her speech last night.

What a solid block of old fashioned white male finger wagging the media appears to be in these changing times, eh?

Posted by Sooey at 07:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You know, I always thought the United States administration dropped the ball on Iraq with regard to its non-existent weapons of mass destruction. I mean, if you're going to play "boss of the world" and you need Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction to justify invading it, make sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction - by putting them there yourself. Honestly, think of the press conferences we'd all have been spared if someone, and I'm not naming names "American intelligence", had thought ahead to "Oh, check in the Bagdad Cafe because we're pretty sure Iraq DOES have weapons of mass destruction".

Same goes for Iran. The United States administration clearly wants to invade Iran, but its own intelligence is telling it that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons. Which really makes you wonder about American intelligence, doesn't it. I mean, hello? The administration doesn't care that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons, American intelligence - it wants to invade Iran. Now what it needs from you is for Iran to be developing nuclear weapons, not "But Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons" . Capiche?

Good grief, it's not rocket science, American intelligence.

Posted by Sooey at 07:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Don't blink now because the trial (sort of, but not really) of the millenium (the Canadian millenium) is going on as I type this entry.

Yes indeed Macleans vs a complaint made to the B.C. Human Rights Commission concerning a certain bias in its coverage of the Islamic Menace is now in session - complete with live blogging and corporate media lawyers and outraged indignation galore.

Well, here's hoping it fizzles. I mean, Macleans could use the attention, and certainly its star pundit, Mark Steyn (formerly of the NatPost, which was also driven into the ground - journalistic-reputation-wise - by the current editor of Macleans, Ken Whyte) has taken advantage of the publicity to boost sales of his book, "America Alone", reviewed here:

"America Alone reeks of rightwing punditry projectilely vomited atop a dung heap of bigoted assumptions."

Still, a person's a person no matter how stupid and since there's not reasonable cause here for a trial, there's no reasonable cause for any of this, in my opinion. To be hauled up before a Canadian Human Rights Commission to defend yourself against a speech complaint, the weight of the state lined up against you and behind the complainant is wrong, wrong, wrong and has no place in a grown up democracy.

But I sure as hell don't blame the complainants for availing themselves of a perfectly legal avenue of redress, either. It's exactly what I would do in their shoes, as would many Canadians.

Which is, in a nutshell, why it is time for Section 13 to go. It's that Catch-22 of social progress - if you're savvy enough to use the system, you don't need it anymore.

Posted by Sooey at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apparently, the Vatican issued a new decree last week against the ordination of women, saying that the women AND the bishops who try to ordain them will be automatically excommunicated.

So, how come the Vatican can issue more misogynistic decrees to back up what Jesus would supposedly do, but not less misogynistic decrees?

Not that it's any of my business, since I'm not Catholic. It just seems that if the Vatican can make a stronger decree backwards, it could just as easily make a stronger decree forwards. Another thing that occurs to me - no one ever checks to see if the Vatican is fucked up on acid.

See, I can joke about Catholicism because I'm not Catholic. If I was Catholic, I'd go straight to hell, right past Paedophile Priest Corner and Zealot Nun Square to Ordained Women and Enabling Bishops hell.

Posted by Sooey at 06:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Okay. There's a shitstorm in the blogomediasphere about who's being sexist about Julie Couillard and who isn't. Well, here's a hint: talking about her at all is sexist because what's to talk about except her rack?

So, is it a spectacular rack or does she just have big breasts with an okay face on top? Because to me, a gal who falls in the A-Plus/B-Minor range, it's not the size that counts, it's how you use 'em.

Of course, I would say that, wouldn't I - I've got a great face on top.

But there's another sexist side to this story that I've noticed no one wants to tackle and it's this: Did the mindless thugs in Julie Couillard's old life, before she met Maxime Bernier, only date her because of her rack? I mean, I can't help but notice two things: a) I've never been attracted to mindless thugs, and; b) mindless thugs have never been attracted to me - and I've got a great face on top.

So, now I'm wondering if it's all because of my little rack and not just my Feminism. Because if it is, that's sexist. Ergo, bikers are SEXIST mindless thugs, not just mindless thugs. And if Julie Couillard and I were at a biker party, would she ditch me because of my little rack and not just because of my Feminism? I bet she would. Which makes Julie Couillard pretty sexist, too, if you really stop and think about it.

Which no one ever does, I've noticed.

Oh, and sexist side number three (afterall, we do say "from coast to coast to coast", too) - is it sexist to REAL "bad boys" to call bikers "bad boys"? Afterall, bikers are actually just mindless thugs - aren't they? "Bad boys", I think, should be reserved for those who go against the established order, you know, lone wolf style and pay the price by living OUTSIDE the system, not so entrenched in it that their girlfriends go straight from the clubhouse to Cabinet when they go straight.

So. Yeah. Is anybody else sick of biker chicks boohooing in the press about the press and the press boohooing back about biker chicks?

And if I get in trouble with a mindless thug OR a Cabinet Minister (it's always raining men wherever there's trouble, I've noticed) because of this entry, blame the sexist blogomediasphere for me - please.

Posted by Sooey at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)