Don’t blame me; Shakespeare asked the question. But, really, calling someone a name and then having that person start fizzing like Pop-Rocks in a bottle of Coke is the latest sport on social media.
And, if you can’t think of a good name, make one up!
Lately I’ve been finding out that if you have the misfortune to be born with a cock and balls and, to add offense to injury, when overdoing overpriced beers while watching your home team get pilloried by the scrofulous heathens who just happen to have a pitcher who can’t be hit you automatically head for the Mens Room, you are not a MAN. You are a cis-male.
I know. Don’t worry about it. It’s the eighth inning and the home team has a chance if only they can load the bases and then hit a homer. Twice. So let it go. I’ll remind you tomorrow, Cis-male. Get it?
If you don’t have a cock and balls and you’re heading to the mens room anyway you will just be embarrassed (unless you’re at a minor league park — especially AA or lower — in which case bon voyage!).
Who thinks he is a man who isn’t?
Well, OK. I had a friend in New Orleans who one day informed me that she was from that day onward going to be a ‘he’ and would be known as Dave instead of Delilah.
Great. From my point of view Dave was probably going to be one of those rare individuals whom you can trust and even tell something to that won’t get broadcast all over the neighborhood. In other words, a friend. Because Delilah was. Plus I thought it was an entirely salutary metamorphosis. Delilah had looked kind of like a weebil — short, squat — and with a name like that the cards were definitely stacked against her. As Dave she could be herself and fit right in because feminine wiles were never her strong suit anyway. As Dave she even started sprouting some chin whiskers which may have been from taking some kind of hormones but I think were more likely what she had been plucking out while trying to be Delilah.
Obviously I am a strong Dave / Delilah partisan. Friendship will do that to you. And the idea that Dave is cis-anything is horridly offensive. Dave is Dave. QED.
It could be that this cis stuff is just the latest iteration of the See the 6-Legged Calf or See the Bearded Lady impulse in all the nascent P.T. Barnums, whose parade ground is now not the town square but the Internet, but must they be so thoroughly icky about it?
I just learned that Hillary, in her opening campaign barrage, complained about too much of the wrong kind of money in politics.
I can’t believe that she chose to go there, but, since she has, so shall I.
Anybody remember Whitewater? I know — it’s so yesterday (and let’s talk about the dress). Well, guess what? All the dress did was prove that Bill Clinton had been lying (who knew?).
Another thing that was proved was that Billary were borrowing money for their Whitewater project that was finding its way into Bill’s campaign for Governor of Arkansas. That’s about a dozen separate, felonious crimes.
But we never heard (and never will) in the Democrat News Agency one thing about it.
So, since Hillary has decided, in spite of being dead broke, to run for President, I thought I would give you a little hint on how to read the news items coming from Hillaryland .
A Japanese man was interviewed about the news people on the home islands got and whether they could get any idea from it of what was going on.
Oh, yes, he said. It was easy. As the war progressed the Glorious Victories of the Imperial Japanese Fleet kept getting closer and closer to home.
The Obama News Agency (aka The New York Times) informs us that
Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal
Isn’t that all inclusive and tolerant of him? Allowing the Senate a say in a matter with which it is constitutionally charged with oversight? Don’t worry, Obamalots: this means no more than the other roadblocks our feckless legislature has thrown up in The Won’s path, as we see if we read down to paragraph four where the Times, entirely forgetting itself and trying to act like a news journal, tells us this:
The essence of the legislation is that Congress will have a chance to vote on whatever deal emerges with Iran — if one is reached by June 30 — but in a way that would be extremely difficult for Mr. Obama to lose …
Note: before proceeding with my deft and penetrating analysis of this deal let me hit the point that is obvious to anyone familiar with Obama’s Lucy with the football tactics: a deal must be reached by June 30 for the Senate bill to apply; what’s to keep
Lucy Obama from extending the conference period one day or one week, thereby making the Senate’s work, as Nixon used to say, inoperative?
As the article progresses we see the spoor of
Lucy Obama again in paragraph five:
But if it rejected the agreement, Mr. Obama could veto that legislation — and it would take only 34 senators to sustain the veto, meaning that Mr. Obama could lose upward of a dozen Democratic senators and still prevail.
See what he did there? 34 Senators? Obama can get 34 senators to do anything he wants just so long as it is bad for America (I stipulate this exclusion because he can’t get 34 Senators to go along with the Fast-Track trade authorization because that might be good for America and, well, you know, they’re Democrats).
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Russians have paused their invasion of Ukraine to decide to send anti-aircraft missiles to the Iranians as their comment on the future of American sanctions.
As a final note, I just wish to point out that I have provided this somewhat half-witted exegesis of the New York Times story from the latest installment of The Importance of Being (Josh) Earnest:
“We’ve gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a piece of legislation that’s undergone substantial revision such that it’s now in the form of a compromise that the president would be willing to sign,” Mr. Earnest said. “That would certainly be an improvement.”
You figure it out.