The Westboro Baptist Church, proud owner of godhatesfags.com, is hitting up the Equality March in Washington D.C. this weekend, Joe My God reports. If the church’s nonsensical picket schedule can be believed, Fred Phelps and friends will be hitting up three D.C. locations in one big anti-gay tour: The D.C. Jewish Community Center, the Annual HRC National Dinner, and the National Equality March. See what Phelps and the gang have planned for their protests, after the jump. Spoiler alert: Antichrist Obama is gonna be there!

Protest: Queer Simchat Torah Celebration

Date: Saturday, October 10, 5:30 to 6 p.m.

Location: D.C. Jewish Community Center, 1529 16th Street NW

Commentary: “Jews Killed Jesus, and love fags, go figure,” the schedule reads. “Antichrist Obama, who loves fags way more than you Jewish dummies, is going to be in DC. He is speaking at the fag event, but not for you Jews. Get the message?!”

—

Protest: HRC National Dinner

Date: Saturday, October 10, 6:15 to 7 p.m.

Location: Washington Convention Center, 809 Mt. Vernon Place NW

Commentary: “Obama Hates You dumb fags,” the schedule reads. “He is going to use your money and your resources and then when he shows himself for what he is, he will merely destroy you along with the rest of this nation of self-loathing hypocrites. . . . But more to the point, God has done this thing. You have so enraged Him that he has sent you this creature to be your ruler.”

—

Protest: National Equality March

Date: Sunday, October 11, 10 to 11 a.m.

Location: Between 15th and I Street and the Capitol Building.

Commentary: “You are not equal with God, Silly,” the schedule reads. “What, oh WHAT are you going to do when Obama has completely destroyed this nation’s economy by the hand of a Sovereign God? You know what kind of money it takes to keep up those various facades! That is going to be some funny, scary stuff.”

Photo by k763

I’m totally with you on the child rapist excuses, Gainor. I’m a little bit less with you on the Late Night womanizer excuses. Remember: just because a man’s legal relationships with consenting adults happen to be aired the same week that a notorious child rapist was arrested does not mean that the two incidents are related. And I’m really not with you on the mainstream media’s Olympics “excuses,” which amount to Katie Couric announcing, “Despite a high-powered, star-studded U.S. appeal from Oprah to the Obamas, the Olympics are awarded to Rio.”

Which is worse: Hollywood filmmakers excusing child rape, or Katie Couric alliterating on “Oprah,” “Obama,” and “Olympics”? To Gainor, it’s pretty much a draw!

“Turn on any network last week and you saw famous people making excuses. It didn’t matter if it was Hollywood morons defending a rapist, David Letterman pretending he was a victim for treating his staff like a harem, or Barack Obama denying responsibility for the failed Olympic bid,” writes Gainor. “It looked like some nightmarish recast of an awful ‘Family Circus’ cartoon with all of the major characters shouting ‘not me’ with their hands fully in the cookie jar.”

Nope, my bad! According to Gainor, it “doesn’t matter” whether these people are excusing heinous sex crimes against minors, or simply refraining from speculating as to the Olympic committee’s reasoning for granting the games to Rio.

Gainor’s logic linking defenders of Polanski, Letterman, and Obama boils down to this: the media is failing to treat Roman Polanski like he committed a crime. The media is also failing to treat David Letterman and Barack Obama like they committed crimes. Because they didn’t. I’m just going to assume that my own failure to ignore this crucial distinction designates me as a member of the liberal media. Hey, got anybody who didn’t do anything wrong that requires an excuse from the mainstream media? Hit me up!

Bonus FOX News fail: “awful ‘Family Circus’ cartoon” is redundant. Every Family Circus cartoon is awful.

What if Bill Clinton had openly announced, as he later did to his biographer, that Al Gore was “blowing” the 2000 election by refusing to allow Clinton to campaign for him? Maybe George W. Bush would never be president!

What if Bush had openly announced, as he did privately to his speech-writer, that his “heart was never into” banning gay marriage? Maybe gay people could be married!

And what if Richard Nixon had openly announced, as he did to his Oval Office tapes, that he thought abortion was okay “when you have a black and a white”? Maybe . . . Barack Obama’s mom would have aborted him, and “the world’s most famous mixed-race man” would never have even existed!

Wait, what?

It sure is fun to “wonder.” But pretending to pinpoint the precise political conditions that would have convinced a dead woman to have aborted her pregnancy 48 years ago instead of carry it to term is both dishonest and offensive.

Even if Nixon had announced that interracial couples would be free to abort their fetuses with impunity, why would that have convinced a white woman in a relationship with a black man to do such a thing? Why would anyone have cared what Richard Nixon thought, anyway? When Barack Obama was in the womb, Richard Nixon was already a lame-duck Vice President. And Nixon didn’t record his thoughts on interracial abortions until 1973, when Barack Obama was 12 years old. What is Egan even talking about?

The larger question is: why are commentators so quick to assume that Obama’s mother would have been interested in having an abortion at all, under any circumstances, ever?

Egan isn’t the first to jump down the rabbit-hole of Obama’s non-abortion history. In July, Republican Kansas Rep. Todd Tiahrt suggested that if Barack Obama’s mother had been offered “financial incentives” to have an abortion, then Obama may have been aborted and we would never have had a president who supported abortion. Wrap your mind around that one, liberals!

The speculation over Obama’s mother’s what-if-abortion is not a fun exercise in how even the smallest actions decisions can affect human history. It is, however, obviously racist (in his anti-abortion screed, Tiahrt also wondered aloud whether Clarence Thomas would have been aborted), and patently anti-choice.

Obama’s mother isn’t around to say, “I never would have had an abortion,” or, “I would have had an abortion if I could have afforded it,” or, “I would have had an abortion if Richard Nixon had been president over a decade before he was actually president, and had broadcast his racist Oval Office tapes over the radio in my first trimester.” This doesn’t seem to matter to the “What if” abortion set. When these commentators claim to know whether a dead lady they’ve never met would have had an abortion half a century ago, and why, they are saying that the mother’s opinion is unimportant to the discussion of abortion. They are robbing her of her ability to choose. In this case, commentators are posthumously robbing Obama’s mother of her ability to choose an abortion she never had, which just goes to show how seriously they take the whole “choice” thing.

To Izrael, there are four kinds of black men: the “Sugar Daddy,” the married dude women have sex with for money; the “Pierre Delacroix,” the educated black man who is probably gay; the “Bar-Napkin Poet,” the open-mic night poser who will get you pregnant; and the “Bartleby,” the poor slacker. Black men, in other words, are not marriage material.

There are only three kinds of black women, however: “Dr. Donhavamon,” the PhD who “doesn’t know what a dustpan is for”; the “Poetess,” the open-mic poser who won’t give you head; and “Goldbrick,” the girl without a degree who is “jealous of anything you may have going on.” All black women aren’t marriage material, either but for a different reason: not because they cheat on their spouses, or don’t use condoms, or are secretly gay. Black women aren’t marriage material because she, in Dr. Donhavamon’s case, went to college and was really fucking good at it; in the Poetess’s case, went to college and thinks it’s important; or in Goldbrick’s case, simply wants to go to college. Of course, the one black man who succeeded in college, “Pierre Delacroix,” doesn’t get off either—Izrael even argues this guy doesn’t count as “black” anymore.

Apparently, black men and women are just not supposed to go to college. Make sense? Of course not. It makes no fucking sense. Perhaps, you think, Izrael is simply engaging in an ironic exercise in order to remind singles men and ladies that no one is perfect, and stereotyping the opposite sex can be damaging to everyone? Nope: He’s pretty much arguing that while the stereotypes of no-good black men are bunk, the stereotypes of overachieving black women have got a grain of truth to them. The argument, in a nutshell: everyone still sucks, but all these sucky people could, at least, suck together, within the context of marriage, as long as one set of sucky people—specifically, educated black women—take one for the team, quit their jobs, and lower their standards. Also, Michelle Obama something something:

There are a lot of women, but not a lot of GOOD women to choose from, educated or not. For some reason, every woman with a college degree now presumes herself to be a Michelle Obama looking for her Barack, when few of them have any of the other qualities that made Michelle a good catch: patience, vision and a sense of purpose and priority.  She wanted a career, but she wanted to be a wife and a mother more, so she figured out what was important to her and made the necessary sacrifices. She didn’t just have a child baby-mama or turkey-baster-style—she wanted a husband and a family. You see? Love came first, it was the first consideration beyond her career. (What kind of lawyer-on-the-rise shackles herself to a broke community organizer driving a hoopty?) And her decisions paid off.

Love was first: that was her choice.

I don’t disagree that Michelle Obama is a pretty great lady who looks happy with the life she has. But I don’t know—maybe it’s because she lives in the White House, is married to the President of the United States, and has found that, for the time being, she can accomplish her professional goals through her national leadership role and enormous celebrity? No, to Izrael, the only incredible thing about Michelle Obama is that she’s the only successful black woman willing to get married and have kids. Nevermind that the dude she married was a highly successful, Ivy-educated black man that Izrael would probably razz as overly white and overly gay if he didn’t happen to be necessary to his Michelle Obama myth.

It gets better:

I love me some black women—all the most important people in my life are black women. My daughter will be a black woman one day. The truth? Many “successful” black women have simply made choices they can’t reconcile. They have skewed measures of success. Because if you are the other of 35 with an advanced degree, a high-level career but no man or family to share it with, you have successfully isolated yourself, but I don’t know that we could call your life a success story by any measure.

That may not be what you want to hear and I know it’s hard … but it’s fair.

Yeah. After all of the rambling over the failures of both black men and women, the story circles back to the same sexist classic.  At least black men are responsible enough to reconcile their choices. Women, of course, don’t know how to choose for themselves. They don’t know what they want. They certainly can’t multitask well enough to hold down a job while simultaneously fostering personal relationships. They’re so stupid, they don’t even understand that their masters diplomas don’t magically poop out a baby after a couple of years! If they say they’re happy, they’re lying. And no matter how successful her choices have made her, no one respects her. Because she wasn’t smart enough to let some relationship writer make those choices for her.

Steven Anderson, the gay-hating pastor who preaches that Barney Frank is a paedophile and that Barack Obama deserves to die, operates out of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Ariz. That means that Anderson’s religious sermons declaring that gays are rapists, child molesters, “animals meant to be taken and destroyed,” and also secretly bisexual (?), are all being created and disseminated like fifteen minutes away from the house I grew up in! Wow. I knew there was something else I didn’t miss about home.

Brown frames the piece—how else?—by a Middle-Eastern take on the “stuck in the kitchen” analogy:

The lede: “It’s time for Barack Obama to let Hillary Clinton take off her burqa.”

Followed by: A bunch of valid points from Tina Brown Brown about Clinton’s lack of visibility in the first six months of the Obama administration, and ending with:

The kicker: “You could say that Obama is lucky to have such a great foreign-policy wife. Those who voted for Hillary wonder how long she’ll be content with an office wifehood of the Saudi variety.”

While I appreciate Brown sticking up for HRC, I do wish her rhetorical stylings were a bit less offensive, and a lot less confusing. Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. But more importantly, she is a woman! And thus her place in the Obama administration must be framed as some sort of polyamorous domestic dispute that recalls the traditional subjugation of Islamic women. Wait, what were Tina Brown’s great points again? I got distracted by all the mixed race and gender metaphors.

In a private Papal conference today, Pope Benedict met with President Barack Obama for about 40 minutes, then gifted him “a booklet explaining Vatican opposition to practices such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research” and informed Obama he would pray for him:

The pope gave Obama, who last March lifted restrictions of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, a copy of a recent Vatican document on bio-ethics in which the Holy See explains it opposition to such practices.

. . . He also gave the president a copy of his latest encyclical, “Charity in Truth,” which called for a “world political authority” to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.

. . . Obama, who was going to the airport from the Vatican, joked to the pope when he gave him the two documents: “I’ll have something to read on the plane.”

In other news, my grandmother has recently been elected Pope. If my adolescence is any indication, Obama has plenty more goodies in store for him, including a half-dozen hand-copied Bible verses urging him to repent, a couple bookmarks depicting the heavens openeth-ing, and culminating in a four-part VHS miniseries on the life of Jesus Christ on his graduation from high school. I’m pretty sure she has that gold shawl, too.

Photo by Beyond Forgetting

As you can see, Begala schooled, punished, crucified and murdered McCain in some sort of live televised pornographic snuff film! Given the creepy terminology the media’s been throwing around here, I’m surprised no one has referred to the exchange as a “spanking” yet. Oh wait, yeah, somebody did.

The Huffington Post invokes the school-girl theme more subtly in its characterization of the interaction, writing that Begala “schools” her and that McCain was “taken to task” by him:

But McCain also pointed a finger at the Obama administration in Bush’s defense, saying she felt that the Obama administration “has to stop completely blaming everything on its predecessor.” When Maher asked McCain if she really thought this is what Obama is doing, McCain said “I do to a degree.” A clearly annoyed Begala immediately shook his head and said “not to enough of a degree, I’m sorry not nearly enough.” He then began to explain how President Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter for years, to which McCain responded blithely “you know I wasn’t born yet so I wouldn’t know.” Going in for the kill, Begala fired back “I wasn’t born during the French Revolution but I know about it.” And it only got more embarrassing for McCain from there.

McCain is clearly no match for a televised debate with Paul Begala—few people are. Begala made a living ridiculing Republicans on CNN until 2005 on Crossfire (and that credit alone makes him calling Fox News a “comedy show” kind of hilarious). I don’t disagree that the appearance was probably a bit embarrassing for McCain, but the popular reaction to this two-minute exchange has been uncomfortably gleeful. Somehow, watching a 48-year-old analyst verbally beat up on a 24-year-old blogger doesn’t excite me as much as media reports have indicated it should. The whole clip makes me a bit ill, actually: the insane shrieking from the audience;Maher moving to physically shield McCain, as if she needs the host’s protection from Paul fucking Begala; and later, the characterization of Begala as McCain’s “teacher” who schools, punishes, spanks, and, uh, yeah, murders her for her comments.

If we can sift through the bloodbath for a second, I think the point should be made that nobody—even the seasoned political analyst—manages to say anything substantive in this video clip. McCain thinks Obama is blaming Bush for his problems—a pretty easy argument for anyone to knock down. Instead, Begala invokes Ronald Reagan’s blaming of Jimmy Carter for no apparent reason. McCain’s response—”I wasn’t born yet so I wouldn’t know”—doesn’t work the way it should. But I see what she was trying to do with it: She was attempting a self-deprecating acknowledgment of her inexperience while making a fair point—Ronald Reagan is dead, has been out of office for 20 years, and is irrelevant to this discussion. Begala swipes the point aside—you know, what the fuck Ronald Regan has to do with this—by declaring that he knows about a bunch of things that happened before he was born. Cue the shrieks: She got ZINGED.

Of course, shows like Maher’s are more about the zings than the issues, and McCain could probably use some more practice in both. Casting her as Paul Begala’s school-girl, however, gets a little bit too close to political nerd erotica for my personal taste.

It’s no secret that The Huffington Post fancies itself a left-leaning Web rag. Wikipedia describes Arianna Huffington’s aggregatorial monster as “an American liberal news website.” Conservapedia’s definition, however, might be more helpful: “The site is an extreme mouthpiece for liberals,” it reads. “The Huffington Post calls itself an internet newspaper of blogs, news and video but often is referred to as a hate site where its one-sided news cannot be trusted.”

But even HuffPo’s liberal readership gets tired of hating on conservatives sometimes, guys. Sometimes, they just want to sit back, relax, and look at accidentally bare nipples—just like the rest of America. This one-sided liberal hate site has one fatal weakness—boobs. Let’s check out some recent stories from the Huffington Post’s entertainment section:

* Here are some photos of Natalie Portman’s nipple.

* Here are some photos of Beyonce’s nipple, complete with HuffPo-provided “NSFW zoom.”

* Here are some photos of Pamela Anderson’s nipple (hardly news, but a boob’s a boob).

* Here is an entire page devoted to recently naked women (and Barack Obama).

* Here is a collection of zoomed-in photos of 23 celebrities’ breasts, made into a fun game called “Guess the Celebrity Breast Implants?”

Pretty standard entertainment-section blog fare here—though HuffPo does go above and beyond with the “NSFW zoom.” You don’t see a Beyonce nipple that close just anywhere.

So, what do nipple slips and boob jobs have to do with liberal politics?

The obvious answer, of course, would be nothing. People—even progressive, conservative-hating, liberal-minded people—will click on nipple slip slideshows and boob jobs guessing games, and that’s a big part of the Huffington Post’s model.

But look past the nipples, if you can, and you will find a clear liberal bent in HuffPo’s non-boob Entertainment stories. Yesterday, the top three links on the Entertainment page could be considered GLBT interest stories: “Adam Lambert Confirms Rolling Stone To Address His Sexuality“; “WATCH: Neil Patrick Harris’ FANTASTIC Tonys Closing Song“; “Gordon Ramsay Shocks Audience With ‘Lesbian’ Rant About Journalist.” Also on the page yesterday was blogger Jackson Katz’s post directly addressing the objectification of women in entertainment, titled “Eminem, Misogyny and the Sounds of Silence.” Even “Guess the Celebrity Breast Implants” was inspired by a progressive premise: the Carrie Prejean controversy, which the Huffington Post began following as a homophobia-shaming story, before turning around and covering it as a topless-photograph-shaming story.

Here’s the lib logic on that one: How dare this professional spokesmodel both hate gay people and take revealing modeling photographs? Our only choice is to shame her by posting them on our Web site. It is the only thing that will finally reveal her hypocrisy (and reel in the pageviews)!

This same Prejean logic is used by the Huffington Post to justify its other women-as-object pieces, as well. Though Senior Features editor Katherine Thomson didn’t immediately return my request for comment yesterday, HuffPo has, in the past, addressed stray nipples directly. Cenk Uygur, host of “The Young Turks,” took this position on the Janet Jackson flap:

CBS was fined $550,000 for showing Janet Jackson’s right nipple on live television. Coal mines that endanger the lives of their workers are commonly fined $60 per violation. . . . How do you like those priorities?

Uygur has a point—who cares? It’s just a nipple! Only a religious conservative would bother to make a stink out of a body part which most men, women, and children have in sets of two. It’s almost enough to make fetishizing nipples on your Web site sound like a liberal position. If it pisses off the religious conservatives, that means it’s a good thing, right? After all, this is just “entertainment,” anyway—who cares if it’s progressive or not when we’re all just staring at nipples and having a good time? As Harry Shearer points out on HuffPo, everybody’s doing it!

The problem is that people really do care about nipples. They care so much about nipples that the Huffington Post devotes pages and pages of photographs to them when women accidentally (or, you know, against their will) reveal them to the public. In that way, there’s no difference between the religious conservative who is scandalized by a bare breast popping up in the middle of his football game and a liberal Web site which devotes its resources to naked chicks. A woman’s body part is a priority. Real women’s issues, not so much.

The Prejean logic, while tenuous, is at least accompanied by her blatant homophobia; how items like “Rihanna’s Battered Face (PHOTO)” and “Valerie Bertinelli Gets Back In Her Bikini” key into HuffPo’s liberal identity remains a mystery to me. But I’m confident that any item that reaps a lot of pageviews can some way, somehow, be justified as “liberal.”

Why? Because Gibbons J. Cooney has cracked the secret gay code. He knows what “pride” really means: It means naked cocks on the street, that’s what it means. Not that Gibbons J. Cooney goes out looking for that gay shit, but he totally has photographic evidence:

Shame on you, Barack Obama.

After Gibbons J. Cooney rolls out all the evidence—LGBT stands for Naked Cocks on the Street; making some unintelligible point about AIDS; revealing Barack Obama as a “crackpot”—he goes in for the kill: Asking why only the LGBT community revels in the “pride” of naked cocks on the street. He writes:

Can one imagine this expression of “pride” at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, or on Martin Luther King Day, or at the Chinese New Year’s parade, or on Columbus Day?

I can imagine that, Gibbons J. Cooney, and I’m with you on this one. I rarely see anyone celebrating Columbus Day at all, much less with naked cock pride. Why aren’t we all spending our free Monday off the way it was meant to be spent—by displaying our naked colonizing cocks openly on the street? Two can play this game, Crackpot President Barack Obama. It’s not just gayswho get to be proud of their genitals anymore.

In preparation for President Obama’s controversial commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, where he will no doubt speak at length about the virtues of killing newborns, anti-abortion protesters have converged on the University of Notre Dame campus. Some of them are simply rolling around vacant strollers (representing the never-born) or crafting signs reading “I Regret My Abortion”—bush league.

Only one dude is shaming our abortionist president the right way: with a small plane that tows “a banner depicting the remains of an aborted fetus and the words ‘10 Week Abortion.’”

Pwned.

Catholic Universities: respecting the lives of women since probably never.

Photo by Fated to Pretend

“There was never a nipple portrait of Lincoln, I’m sorry.”

“I tell my kids: If two cars pull up, and one of them has a stranger, and the other one has Dick Cheney, you get in the one with the stranger.”

Abortion, after all, is settled law, and Obama is the duly elected president. Clearly, the American people have moved on.

Or have they? And should we? Is there really ever a time when we should be comfortable with the ratification of abortion? It has always seemed to me that the truest form of feminism, as in the earliest days of suffrage, would be to hold abhorrent the state-sanctioned destruction of women’s unique life-bearing gifts. Out of material expedience, we’ve somehow managed to convince ourselves that life is a mistake. [Emphasis all mine].

Oh yeah, the “truest form of feminism” must be wherever feminism was ONE HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS AGO. Now that women have the vote, what more do they want—the capacity to murder babies at will?

I, too, wish we could go back to the good ‘ol days of feminism, when women were forced to provide their “unique life-bearing gifts” on demand instead of, you know, if and when they chose to give the fucking gift. I WANT ALL GIFTS ALL THE TIME! MORE GIFTS! MORE MORE MORE!

[via Pukeimmediately].

The cover of Washingtonian’s “26 Reasons to Love Living Here” edition features a shirtless Barack Obama as “Reason #2: Our New Neighbor Is Hot.” Wow, #1 must be at least barely endurable to beat out file photos of Barack Obama’s muscles. Really makes you wonder what the other 25 Reasons to Tolerate This Place And Also Pick Up This Magazine could be? Only subscribers know for sure.

In the Daily Beast this week, McCain calls gay rights “one of the [causes] closest to my heart,” and insists that “if the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric.” Later this week, McCain is slated to address the Log Cabin Republicans at their annual convention, and she works hard on the Beast to build up the the gay conservative group’s inclusiveness as a part of its “core Republican values,” while dissing the Democrats for being the party that’s really anti-gay.

“President Obama, for instance, is also against gay marriage—a dirty little secret many of my gay friends were shocked to discover during the presidential campaign,” McCain writes. “But you’d never know it because he always ’sounds’ so inclusive.”

Actually, Obama’s position on gay marriage is a “dirty little secret” only to the most willfully ignorant of armchair political analysts. Actually, Barack Obama made clear his opposition to gay marriage throughout the campaign. Why? Because the only fucking reason Democrats still adopt that position is so they can stand a chance in the general election, where they’re facing off against the Republicans—you know, the party that actually doesn’t want gay people to get married.

The Washington Blade has more bullshit to call on McCain’s new number one issue. Blade editor Kevin Naff calls the Log Cabin Republicans “a rudderless group right now, bereft of leadership following the resignation of its executive director . . . and the departure of other key staffers.” But “there are other problems with Meghan’s take on gay issues and the role of Log Cabin in fighting for them,” Naff writes. “Chief among her shortcomings is timing.”

Here’s a dirty little secret for you: Barack Obama is not the only major presidential candidate to have opposed gay marriage in the primary! The point is not lost on Naff, who is miffed that McCain decided to wait until her father lost the presidency to reveal her whole-hearted support for gay rights. “It’s easy to adopt these ‘progressive’ stances when the campaign is over and you’re looking for a provocative gimmick to get yourself booked on Larry King and ‘The View,’” writes Naff. “But when Meghan’s pro-gay views might have mattered, she was silent.”

Then, it gets personal. “In fact, the Blade reached out to Meghan several times during the campaign for comment. We sensed that she was a new kind of Republican, one who doesn’t subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh-enforced code that the GOP remain beholden to the most out-of-touch Christian conservatives on the far right,” Naff writes. “She declined all interview requests, while her father supported Proposition 8 in California and a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Arizona.”

Let the record show that I have also found my attempts to contact Meghan McCain rebuffed. Meghan, if you’re listening: I don’t care that you’re late to the party. I know you’ll be in D.C. this weekend. The offer to down shots in Adams Morgan still stands, girlfriend.

PALIN RESPONDS to Barry Obama’s quip that he bowls like he belongs in the Special Olympics.

“This was a degrading remark about our world’s most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world,” said Palin, whose son Trig has Down syndrome. “These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will.”

Kolan McConiughey, a 35-year-old Special Olympics bowler “who has bowled five perfect games since 2005,” was more forgiving: “He’s a cool guy. He’s an awesome President and he has a very nice wife.”

MORE ON SARAH VS. BARACK: Palin calls the stimulus money offered to Alaska “a bribe” and turns down 45 percent of the funds, some of which would go toward special education in the state. (Huh?)

Asks Alaska Dispatch: “What does that make stimulus money she took, and all the other federal money woven into the state?  What does it make the energy relief money Alaskans received last year? How does this name calling make federal leaders more likely to help Alaska in the future? In these unusually trying circumstances, the governor was wrong not to accept the stimulus money, and she compounded her mistake by injecting divisive inflammatory rhetoric into the discussion.”

OTHER ALASKANS would prefer to keep the cash: They staged a rally in Anchorage over the weekend.

COMPETITION FOR SARAH? “Conservatives size up Sanford for 2012.”

ARE THE PALINS KEEPING BRISTOL AND LEVI APART? Who cares, but maybe, writes Immortal Majority: “I have confirmation that Todd Palin and Levi Johnston had a HUGE argument in Wasilla after Bristol snuck out of the house to see Levi after being told not to. This directly contradicts everything the Palins said about Bristol and Levi’s relationship.”

MORE ON WOLVES: Todd Palmer and Rob Pringle at Huffington Post write long, boring, only tangentially Palin-related defense of wolves. HuffPo tags it “Sarah Palin Killing Wolves.” Spicy!

Photo by aka Kath

Let’s unpack this very uniter-not-divider decision on Obama’s part:

Feminist: Under the provision, “states no longer would be required to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services—including contraceptives—under Medicaid, the health program for the low-income.”

Centrist: “The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.”

Thanks, Obama, for lobbying against the waste incurred by ensuring that all Americans have equal access to medical care regardless of gender or class, especially in these tough economic times. Just another example of what it looks like to finally have a mainstream feminist President.

Photo by blmurch

My WordPress software, as if in a loyal attempt to protect me from cogent, well-delivered criticism of my work, quarantined Emily’s comment in my spam folder until this morning. Here’s what she had to say on The Feminist Mystique: How Election 2008 Killed a Notorious Word:

Feminism is not supposed to be controversial. It is commonsensical, so by virtue we would be fighting against the odds to make it naughty. The goals the movement seeks to achieve “voting rights, contraception access, pay equity” are not evermore scandalous, they are rudimentary. It’s pitiful that they must be achieved slowly, one step at time involving arduous processes of convincing those in power that women deserve the same freedoms as men. I would absolutely NOT agree that tagging our president as a feminist hurts the movement. Instead I think it’s a slap in the face to those that mock feminism as something that only hot-tempered, irrational women spout off about because they hate men or love women too much or whatever.

These people (men and women) generally never bother to learn what feminism is actually about. Now, when an educated, thoughtful, truly concerned man dedicated to the cause of spreading justice becomes the most popular person in the country (world?) and he can get on board, it’s as Katherine Spillar explained: It’s a wake-up call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesUwiwB2iY). Many of the same issues we have been dealing with for decades remain on the table. Equal pay, for example, is so basic it’s outrageous we still have to rely on a “bad word” to muster up any hope of even getting the general public to recognize why it’s problematic that women don’t make the same amount of money for the same job a man does. The same job. Ay. Feminism isn’t an elite club. There is not a limited supply of “This is what a feminist looks like” t-shirts. Anyone can wear one. Shit, everyone should.

Also, the idea that a man, or a popular person, or both at once cannot be a feminist without dampening the cause is preposterous and totally archaic.

Nice comment from Frisky:

“The only people making a mockery of feminism are the feminists who get their knickers in a bunch over EVERYTHING. It’s shameful and it’s embarrassing. The world is not black and white and it’s certainly not men vs. women. Women can align with (and vote for!!) men without turning their backs on their gender, and a man can stand up for women’s rights without being some superhero who’s rescuing feminism. The man was raised by two strong women, is married to a strong woman, has a strong mother-in-law, and is raising two little girls. Why WOULDN’T he be a feminist?”

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-ms-magazine-obama/

Pretty much.

Photo by buddhakiwi

George Bush instated the rule a little over eight years ago, on the 2001 anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Before him, Bill Clinton had reversed the rule that, before him, Ronald Reagan had thought up for the very first time. The Guardian calls it “the most contentious move of [Obama's] young administration,” which isn’t saying so much, and really, what could have been more predictable?

This 67-year-old pro-life activist at today’s March for Life, who didn’t want her name published—”I’m very well known, and I don’t want people to know I’ve had an abortion,” she says—lists three things to like about our new President.

1. “He’s married, even though it’s to that angry, hateful Michelle, who last year delivered a pro-abortion speech, a pro-abortion speech at a Planned Parenthood abortuary.”

2. “He has two children, who will be shocked to learn later that he said he would be willing to kill their child.”

3. “He’s educated. But I have five degrees, and they mean nothing to me, just a bunch of dust piled upon nothing alongside the abortion I have to live with every day of my life.”

The activist wears a child’s lipstick toy around her neck, a sign of solidarity to another politician—Sarah Palin, who has stronger presidential credentials, she says: “She showed such bravery to carry a Downs Syndrome child to term at the age of 42.”

“It’s a Vietnam for women,” says the activist of the anti-abortion fight. She counts May 6, 1974, as the day she lost everything in the war. “I aborted—killed—dismembered—my own child,” she says. “I never would have done it if it were illegal. They made it seem so easy, cheap, legal, and moral. It’s not.”

The activist hasn’t recovered from the abortion she had 34 years ago. But she’s been healed by the grace of God. She was one of the lucky ones, she says: “Women who have abortions, they either kill themselves or become Christians.”

The death of the word “feminist” was broadcast on the evening news. In September 2008, at the height of the presidential campaign, Katie Couric boarded John McCain’s airplane, took a seat with vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and lobbed the first in a series of softballs: Did Palin consider herself a feminist? Palin’s response:

I do. A feminist who believes in equal rights, and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed, and to try to do it all, anyway. And I’m very, very thankful that I’ve been brought up in a family where gender hasn’t been an issue. You know, I’ve been expected to do everything growing up that the boys were doing. We were out chopping wood and we were out hunting and fishing and filling our freezer with good wild Alaskan game to feed our family.

“Feminist” isn’t the only English-language word that suffered from Palin’s candidacy, of course (see “maverick,” “terrorist”). But while other terms employed by the Alaska governor withered from twisted meanings, “feminist” experienced a more symbolic death. Palin killed “feminist” not by altering the meaning of the word—its meaning has never remained consistent in a century of use—but by eliminating its taboo.

Whatever “feminist” meant, it was a strong, scary term, one often prefaced with “man-hating” and followed by “bitch” and/or “Nazi.” Its power as insult was matched only by its usefulness as a community-shaping litmus test. If you would self-identify as a feminist, with all its negative connotations, you proved your commitment to the women’s movement; if not, you were part of the problem. In some respects, feminism was justified by its vile reputation: If the very name of the movement scared people, it meant that it was still relevant.

“Feminist” was not always the dirtiest term. Self-proclaimed “feminist” author Amy Richards writes that “women’s liberationist was actually the preferred term” in the 1960s and ’70s. Then, it “started to get a bad name, so it was abandoned for feminism. Now, that has a bad name.”

Palin’s nonthreatening version of feminism, gender-neutral aerial wolf-hunting aside, is in many ways a product of the feminist’s reviled reputation. Take a close look at how Palin phrases her feminist self-identity. She calls herself a “feminist who believes in equal rights.” That’s spin most feminists are accustomed to unloading on when they’re branded “Feminazis” or “man-hating lesbians.” “Feminism is just about equal rights with men,” they reply. “This is a mainstream position that any reasonable person would support.”

In truth, feminists don’t want “feminist” to be accepted as a mainstream position supported by any reasonable person—and they certainly don’t want it to be accepted by a rogue conservative who does not support abortion rights or contraceptive access for rape victims. Feminists were misguided when they criticized Palin for professing to align with a movement she so clearly did not support. They should have been shaking their heads that the word “feminist” had become so safe that even a Republican vice presidential candidate is comfortable invoking it in a televised interview. The term “feminist” has resisted a lasting definition in order to maintain its radical attitude. That way, when feminist agenda items are accomplished—voting rights, contraception access, pay equity—they can be deposited into the mainstream as feminists move on to newer, more controversial issues. The threatening connotation of “feminist” works to keep the movement relevant and box out the traditionalists.

Now, Palin has made it acceptable for anyone who’s simply dipped into the movement’s archives to identify as “feminist.” Thanks to her, “feminist” may now refer to those who believe the women’s movement has already accomplished its goals—or worse, that feminism was stronger in the distant past. Even as Palin’s presence has faded from the national scene—and with it, her gosh-darn brand of feminism—a deeper threat to “feminist” remains.

When Michelle Obama refused in 2007 to identify as a “feminist” in an interview with the Washington Post, the dirty-word status was alive and well. “You know, I’m not that into labels,” Obama said. “So probably, if you laid out a feminist agenda, I would probably agree with a large portion of it.…I wouldn’t identify as a feminist just like I probably wouldn’t identify as a liberal or a progressive.”

But later in the campaign that would kill “feminist,” her husband privately self-identified as feminist to Ms. publisher Eleanor Smeal. This month, Smeal had Obama’s feminism illustrated on the cover of her magazine; in a bodice-ripping superhero shot, Obama pulls away his button-down to reveal a T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase, this is what a feminist looks like. The cover set off a firestorm of debate among self-identified feminists—does Obama have true feminist credentials, or doesn’t he? Whatever: Once the most popular guy in the world identifies with your movement, you are swimming in the mainstream. Sarah Palin, at least, was scary.

Now, instead of a conservative feminist vice president, we have a moderate liberal feminist president. Could this perhaps be worse—not for feminism, of course, but for “feminist”? It’s no longer a bad word, and that’s a bad thing for feminism.

Photo by buddhakiwi

The line outside Ben’s Chili Bowl still stretched around the block this afternoon to accommodate tourists interested in consuming a half-smoke in the establishment where President Barack Obama famously consumed a half-smoke just days earlier. Also, keeping in the grand tradition of celebrating things by making things out of other things, there’s a sweet ice sculpture outside dedicated to out new neighbor. Can somebody tell me what this is supposed to make out? O-B-A-M-A? Whatever, I can’t make any sense of it.

The Huffington Post points us to this video of members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas protesting Obama’s inauguration yesterday on Pennsylvania Ave. From HuffPo:

NomadsLand provides a nice video of the Westboro clan getting worked over by the more well-adjusted crowd and giving their typical bizarre answers to everything. I especially love the part where one church member explains the crypto-zoology behind the size of various mythical beasts’ horns.

My favorite is when they all chant “Anti-Christ! Anti-Christ!”

For this week’s special inauguration issue, I profiled three locals whose hopes and dreams were nearly shattered even as audacious hope enthusiast Barack Obama prepared to assume the presidency. Read all about it—The housing bubble that would not burst fast enough! The Irish Obama novelty song the bridge closers didn’t want you to hear! The birthday girl whose day was overshadowed by that other guy!

Photo of Irish American Democrats ball organizer Patrick Lewis, by Darrow Montgomery.

Check out this baby: the Barack Obama shaped dildo you never knew you didn’t want! This “Official Obama Pleasure Toy,” dubbed the “Head O State,” stands 7.5 inches tall, measures two inches in diameter, weighs 14 ounces, and a bunch of other specifications I do not wish to know how the manufacturers decided upon. I didn’t think that anyone could make Obama so unsexy, but it turns out anything is possible.

“It is time that we take back the term ‘feminism’ and restore its dignity and honor . . . maybe Ms. and the former national women’s movement will return in the sequel as Superwomen once again,” wrote one complainer. “This seems designed to mock people who supported Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary,” wrote another.

When did “feminist” become code word for Hillary Clinton? Is it possible that these people simply never want to have a feminist president? Don’t we want all of our presidents to identify as feminists (except Sarah Palin, who will never be president and does not understand the meaning of words)?

I want a female president, too. But there’s a difference between a female president and a feminist president. We’ve got one. It doesn’t mean we’re going to stop working for the other one.

“[T]he easy to please feminists over at Ms. Magazine put Barack Obama on the cover and gush like teeny-boppers that Obama is some Feminist Super Man who will, presumably, save us little wimin,” wrote the Tennessee Guerilla Women.

“[O]h, the irony of picturing a feminist as a superMAN,” wrote a poster on Hillary’s Village.

“This seems designed to mock people who supported Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary. Why does Ms. want to do that now?” writes Feminist Law Professors.

I’m not offended by the cover’s assertion that Barack Obama looks like a feminist, but I am disappointed that his Vice Presidential pick and fellow feminist Joe Biden hasn’t received the same ridiculous superhero photoshop treatment. I implore you, Ms.: release a Biden version! Check out my blinged-out Biden entry, after the jump:

Glitter Graphics

You’re welcome!

Super hard, the Associated Press reports. Though the line-up for this Sunday’s Obama inaugural concert at the Lincoln Memorial includes some of the nation’s hottest performers, the notoriously lame “American spirit” promises to dampen each mammoth recording artist’s luster. According to the AP, “artists won’t be performing their big hits, but will be asked to perform material appropriate to the occasion.”

Beyonce! U2! Bruce Springsteen! John Mellencamp! Usher! Stevie Wonder! Shakira! Sheryl Crow! Josh Groban! James Taylor! All stars whose performances will be rendered lame by the American “standards” they will all be forced to perform in honor of Barack Obama. Only John Mellencamp, Sheryl Crow, and Josh Groban will be spared, by virtue of being already pretty lame.*

“The list of stars is impressive,” said executive producer George Stevens Jr., who is nevertheless bent on ruining all of them. “[T]his is not a show biz, glitzy occasion. It’s going to be rooted in history, remembering the great president (Lincoln) who led us through difficult times.”

Ugh, just tell it like it is: No “Single Ladies.”

*possibly also James Taylor.

Housing Complex blogger Ruth Samuelson notes the baby-dropping potential of this frightening political trend. “Normally when someone allows you to hold their baby, they’re like, ‘Are you ready? Okay, now sit her on your lap. And cradle her head. And here’s her blankie…’ And then people practically toss their babies over crowds whenever a politician’s around,” Samuelson confided in me today over e-mail.

Fast forward about 25 seconds into the Obama-does-Ben’s video, and you see it—that baby flies into Obama’s arms. Where are the parents? Who cares! If they don’t fling that baby in Obama’s general direction immediately upon sighting him, some secret service agent might very well intercept that baby, and it will never be blessed by the greatest American president in time between him entering a hot dog joint and him occupying his mouth with actually eating a hot dog. I know we’re entrusting Barack Obama with saving the entire world’s economy and everything, but can we all agree to pass those babies a little slower?

* Finally! Spring chicken seeks date for inaugural ball. This 21-year-old man (boy, really!) will be in-town for the inauguration, and seeks “a girl around my age to go with.”

* This inauguration ticket-seeker is offering up something a little more interesting than fine conversation and nice legs: Superbowl tickets. If you want to score two tickets to the Superbowl, prepare to cough up “4 seated tickets to the swearing-in ceremony, 8 preferred standing tickets to the swearing in (NW/SW/West/North or South only), 12 bleacher seats to the parade, 4 tickets to any of the PIC Balls held at the DC Convention Center.” And this poster ain’t playin’. “We are not interested in Mall Standing tickets,” he writes.

* Easy “Beach Ball” joke! This 31-year-old “San Diego California” resident seeks a woman who “would love to show a beach kid around town.” Oh, and he has tickets to two balls.

* This 42-year-old Floridian has a list of demands for women interested in accompanying him to history. “I have been invited to The Inauguration of Barack Obama in Washington DC on Jan. 20 and a staff party on Jan. 21,” he writes. “This person must: Hopefully knows the Washington DC area, or knows/has a place to stay during the Inaugural week. Is a democrat/liberal and believes in the causes of Obama. . . . Need responses in the next 2 days.

* This 45-year-old local claims to have a “good head attached at the shoulders, just not visible in this picture.” (The photo, from the neck down, recalls a Rufus Humphrey type). The District resident’s interests are similarly benign: “drinks after work, interesting ethnic restairants, showing someone the tourist sights, and just hanging out over coffee.”

Photo by Paul Keleher.

Archie Battles, 24, was just getting started on the 18th Street strip at 2:30 a.m., well after Adams Morgan bars had dried up. “I get off late, and I like to go out at a fashionable time,” says Battles. With last call called, he and two friends stand in position on the sidewalk, respectfully hollering at women who pass by.

Come inauguration week, those women-along with other drunken decisions concerning District sex lives-will be lubricated by two extra hours of bar time. To mark the occasion of Barack Obama’s ascension to the presidency, the D.C. Council passed emergency legislation allowing bars to sell liquor until 4 a.m. from Jan. 17 to Jan. 21 (although some still have to adhere to their neighborhood voluntary agreements). You and an estimated 2 million to 4 million of your closest fellow Americans can now share in this historic event by becoming monumentally inebriated and attempting fumbling, ill-advised sex with each other. And if 4 a.m. rolls around and you have yet to zero-in on any promising prospects, never fear. Bars are free to stay open 24 hours for food sales during this magical time-meaning that you don’t have to go home, and you can stay here.

So, how will D.C.’s single men spend their two extra hours with legal booze? That’s an easy question for Battles, who aims to consume “more drinks,” facilitating his pursuit of “partying like a rock star,” a lifestyle that inevitably leads Battles and his buddies to “hit on women.”

“Oh, I’ll still be here,” says Robert Thomason, a Washington Post news researcher who was nursing a pint and feeding the jukebox after Angles’ last call on Saturday. Thomason predicts that with “crush level” crowds hitting Washington, area bars will be filled to capacity, and drunken hook-ups will follow. “We’re talking the density of animals,” says Thomason. “Any time you put that many animals together, they’re going to get in each other’s way.” But the idea of being sidled up to several hundred drunken strangers won’t deter him from hitting his favorite Adams Morgan bar-which is more than he can say for the U Street corridor. “It’s better than being stabbed,” he says.

Marc Engels, a 23-year-old UDC student who, at 2 a.m. on Saturday, was busy offering his girlfriend half-hearted Las Vegas wedding proposals, predicts that he’ll spend the additional two hours “drinking more,” he says. Engels, who hails from Germany, is more prepared for the inaugural bar hours than most. “Two a.m.? That’s cute. In Germany, you can stay out until 7 a.m.,” he says. Even a two-hour extension would be nothing more than a quaint attempt at a reasonable drinking policy by German standards. “In America, you say, ‘Oh, we’re drunk. Let’s go to IHOP.’” In Germany, “it’s not about getting really drunk,” he says. “It’s about looking to score.”

One late-night Adams Morgan reveler, who identified himself as a secret service agent, was logging some off-duty sidewalk hours outside a Jumbo Slice (his friend was inside). Come inauguration, the 4 a.m. cutoff will allow him to “continue to drink, some more. Continue to get plowed.” Although he says he will be busy on the job during inaugural daytime hours, he hopes the after-hours drinking will lead to extended hook-up opportunities. “I’m trying to hook one up tonight, shit,” he says, before testing out a pickup line. “Feel my back pocket. Feel it,” he says. “That’s called a badge.”

Though some bar-goers are hoping that extended drinking hours will aid them in inaugurating some new sex partners, the city’s bartenders-those sober watchmen of the nightlife scene-aren’t convinced more drinking will help their chances. Becca Schmidt, a bartender at Columbia Heights’ Wonderland, says there are always those drinkers seeking late-night couplings who will exhaust their options. Some singles “hang out and hang out and hang out until our doorman kicks them out, finally, and they try somehow to get back in,” she says. “When the bar clears out and it’s just the people working there, it can be kind of intimidating [to try] to hit on the bartender. You’re suddenly way outnumbered.” But there’s always the chance that late-night sex-seekers will find equally desperate hangers-on come last call. “There were a few nights when there were girls lined up along one side, boys on another…just like seventh grade,” says Schmidt.

But though the booze will flow until 4 a.m., no emergency legislation will guarantee that the girls will follow. “I think it will actually be harder,” says Roosh Valizadeh, local blogger and pickup expert. “With more time to drink, packs of guys are going to hit on girls with such bad drunk game that by 4 a.m., most girls are going to be completely unreceptive.”

Photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Photo via the Centaur Motorcycle Club.

* This 22-year-old Midwestern woman [posting has been flagged for removal] enjoys the finer things in life—do you have them? “I’m a very outgoing intelligent, educated, attractive women who would enjoy a fun historic moment with someone,” she writes. “I would like to go to places where that are high end and classy (different than what I’m used to) so someone who is well of financially would be appropriate.” Those who can offer her a refined inaugural experience won’t be disappointed. “I’m not trying to brag but I’m sure you’ll find me very appealing,” she writes. But this Midwesterner isn’t looking for just any well-off, high-end, classy guy. “Note that it is extremely important that I’m attracted to you; otherwise there is not point,” she writes.

* A 48-year-old San Francisco woman promises to be “the mysterious beautiful woman who will meet you at the Inauguration,” teasing: “I’ll be there, will you? Yes? Then we shall dance.” Post-inauguration plans include an extravagant bi-coastal romance. “Will you join me in San Francisco for more?” she asks.

* This 34-year-old lady wisely disguises her inauguration ticket-digging by first waxing political about her blue-state ideals. “Interested in making new friends, going on a date, or talking about the events of our nation together,” she writes, slyly adding: ” Maybe we could go to an inaugural ball, if I can find something to wear!” She then asks three questions of her potential date:

Have you worked on the campaign trail in the past?
Are you excited about Obama and where we are headed?
Are you looking for a date for any event during the inauguration?

Wonder which one is most important?

* This 32-year-old man is flexible in his request for “inauguration fun”: he’ll take either “a nice lady or female couple.” But it’s not all fun and games, he writes; He’s looking for “serious inquiries only.”

Photo by Kingfox.

The nation’s liberal elite won’t be the only group celebrating in Washington on inauguration week. Mid-January, the District will also play host to the Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend’s 25th anniversary bash, Page One Q reports. The weekend, organized by the Centaur Motorcycle Club, an organization that claims an “enthusiastic interest in motorcycles, leather, and other men,” will take place from Friday, Jan. 16 to Sunday, Jan. 18, just two days prior to Barack Obama’s swearing in. Despite the proximity of the two events, an Obama spokesperson says that the president-elect won’t be spending his last weekend as a civilian in patent leather bondage gear, dancing the night away at Apex after the conclusion of the the Mr. MAL pageant. Via Page One Q:

Obama will probably not be able to attend any of the Leather Weekend festivities. “Let’s just say it’s likely the president-elect will be occupied with many other activities,” spokeswoman Linda Douglass told ABC News.

Image via the Centaur Motorcycle Club.

Want to get into an inaugural ball, but not interested in this guy? Or this guy? How about these guys? No? That special lady looking to feast on inaugural spoils without playing arm candy to male unknowns can instead use her thinky parts to pen an essay “of any length” about “what the inauguration means to you.” Awww!

Ten lucky winners will receive “[f]ree plane tickets for you and a guest, free hotel, plus tickets to the swearing-in ceremony for Barack Obama, the parade and one of the official balls,” reports Michael E. Ruane for the Washington Post’s “Inauguration Watch” blog.

Winners can, in turn, advertise their inaugural ball tickets on Craigslist in the hopes of securing a random stranger to invite along on the fanciest awkward social situation of the year!

Photo by by and by.

You’re Likable Enough, Gay People

The title is a nod to Obama’s primary season declaration that “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” But next to Rich’s smug head shot, it looks more like this.

As the inauguration nears, Craigslist has been a-flutter with the romantic overtures of dudes looking for inauguration ball arm-candy and other dudes looking for inauguration week couch-surfing-with-benefits. Your best bets:

* This man-seeking-man inauguration ticket offerer has a range of interests, including “hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, snowboarding, reading, writing, cooking, dining out, watching movies, dancing, exploring the city and good conversation.” Could you be his other interest? “I tend to like younger, or at least youthful, intelligent, energetic, interesting, skinny/lean guys who look at the world differently,” he writes. Interested parties could get more than just a dance: “I’m also well-endowed and pretty damn good in bed.”

* A recent widow based in Old Town Alexandria is hungry for French cuisine—and historic dancing. “I’m thinking about meeting at the nice French Restaurant La Gaulois in Old Towne, one of my favorite places. Wine, dinner, dessert on me,” he writes. “I also have passes to inaugural balls—we can talk about—if that is something you would be interested in accompanying me to.” For those with discerning dinner date standards, this Virginian comes highly recommended. He is a “very nice man, no children, upscale professional, nice house in Old Towne, former military leadership position, great job with job security, 6′3”, well cultured and well traveled.”

* This inauguration invite is strictly local—this ticket-holder seeks “an attractive woman who would like to go with me to the ball and maybe even the inauguration itself”—as long as she keeps it in the neighborhood. “Please live in DC near GW (like FB, Dupont, Georgetown, Logan, etc),” he writes. “I have heard that traffic is going to be horrible and don’t feel like getting stood up because some bridge is closed.”

* This 48-year-old inauguration week visitor seeks three days of “clean and bug free” housing for “sleeping and rejuvenating for the next day.” Interested renters net $150—and perhaps “a little fun.”

“One of my goals will be to pass out business cards foldable but I am trying to create. www.stopthemurders.org your picture gets mine,” he writes, adding: “I am 420 friendly but cannot participate.”

* This 56-year-old unemployed Philadelphian “will pay $25.00 to you, for the privilege of sleeping on your sofa for one night, Inauguration Eve.” The remainder of the post bears repeating:

I will provide my own food, probably take out.

All I require is a sofa, some blankets, and a sink for shaving, brushing teeth, and washing up.

I am quiet, will not disturb your routine. I will read or watch tv with you.

I will be gone first thing in the morning and will not need to return to your home after that.

Having said that, I am not crazy about long distance relationships. but I can return the favor if you travel to Philly and perhaps a friendship could develop.

Any race, any age, any religion.

If required, I can provide a photo ID (uploaded to email) in advance of completing the arrangement.

Thanks.

Photo by soundfromwayout.

Well folks, it’s that time of the year again when I retire to my secret, undisclosed holiday-time punpkin’-pie sunshine bunker* for the remainder of the year. Things should get back on a regular schedule on December 29th, followed closely by another brief hiatus to allow for my first hangover of 2009. Until then, let’s reflect.

I started this blog this fall, after jumping ship from the City Paper’s arts beat to cover a subject a little closer to my area of interest—women (am one). Since then, I’ve written on contraception access, coy Internet sex fiends, and that sexy dunce ice queen who would become the Vice President of our hearts. Let’s see what subjects ya’ll found most interesting this year: in a list!

1. SEX/OBAMA: Electoral Dysfunction: In Search of Election Night Sex
2. SARAH PALIN: The Sexist’s Vice-Presidential Debate Drinking Game
3. SEX/FIRE: The Good Guys Trial
4. OBAMA: Is This Man Your Ticket to the Inauguration?
5. SEX: Nude Coworkers: Disturbing?
6. SEX/SARAH PALIN: Star in the Sarah Palin Adult Film
7. SARAH PALIN: Now: Live-Blogging the Vice-Presidential Debate
8. GAY ENDURANCE CONTESTS: High Heel Race Seeks Volunteers
9. BOOBS: Breast Cancer Awareness Cake: Fail
10. WOMEN’S HEALTH: Yes, We Have No Birth Control

Thanks very much for reading. And let me know what sexy fire boob contests you’d like to see covered in 2009!

* Phoenix.

Photo via trialsanderrors.

Out of the responses that have included photographic evidence, Harris says he’s narrowed his choice down to 10 possible dates. “[Four] of them are flying in to meet with me from out of the area,” he writes. “The 6 remaining happen to be within a radius of the DC metro area give a take of 100 miles.” One submission in particular, though, has caught Harris’ eye. “I must await the return of what I think is a special person to return from Italy on the 30th,” he writes. “An Italian TV station wants to document the whole thing.”

The Italian beauty notwithstanding, women in search of Harris’ spare ticket still have a chance to get on his dance card, but he reiterates they must include a photo of themselves. “some young ladies write a 2 and 3 page thesis on themselves,” writes Harris. “However, they forgot to attach a photo.”

Typically, an ad like this would disappear into the Internet ether of m4w personals, several hundred of which are posted in the Washington, D.C., metro area each day. But Harris, CEO of Harris Consulting Group, an information technology government consulting firm, holds this year’s personals trump card: He’s got two tickets to the inauguration, and an all-access pass to the night’s balls and off-shoot parties. Packages like that are being auctioned on eBay for upward of $7,000. A date with Harris is free—and hard to come by.

One week after posting the ad, Harris had received messages from 720 willing women. He’s yet to find one worthy of a response. Interested parties may contact Harris at harrisgroup2009@aol.com. Below, how to draft an e-mail that might catch Harris’ eye.

COVER THE BASICS. Interested inauguration dates must include a method of contact, be between the ages of 25 and 39, and be comfortable in ball gowns. Race is unimportant, but applicants must have “weight in proportion to height.”

INCLUDE A PHOTO. Forty-five percent of respondents to Harris’ ad haven’t included a photo. “That’s the first criteria,” says Harris, who adds that the requirement is more than simple vanity. With all the high profile parties to attend on Inauguration Day, Harris’ date “needs to be someone who doesn’t mind being photographed,” he says—”or being in the company of celebrities.” An additional 40 percent of respondents committed a similar gaffe: stating they didn’t even know how to attach a photograph to an e-mail. “Given the high volume of responses, I do not have time to teach someone how to do that, in this day and age,” says Harris.

BE MORE THAN THAT PHOTO. “Naturally, we’re all looking for someone that looks nice,” admits Harris. “But I was raised in a manner where beauty is only skin deep.” So while some with tickets to the Jan. 20 festivities are looking only for inaugural arm candy, Harris says he wants a date who will stay interesting “beyond the inauguration.” That means presenting yourself as “honest, caring, respectful, intelligent, fashionable, and a good conversationalist.” Harris also needs a woman who will be comfortable slipping out of that ball gown and donning “sweat socks and sweatshirt and jeans so we can just relax and cuddle around the fire.” Having nice legs doesn’t hurt, either. “Every man has one weakness,” says Harris. “Legs are my Achilles heel.”

PICK A TEAM NAME. ANY TEAM NAME. If you make it to the post-e-mail selection round—a cup of coffee—here are some tips to get the conversation rolling. Harris enjoys international travel, current events, and sports. All of them. “When it comes down to sitting down and watching them, I love all sports,” says Harris. “I can’t say I really have a favorite team,” he says—though an old allegiance to the Giants may still hold some weight.

DON’T ASK FOR TOO MUCH. Of the 15 percent of respondents who passed the photo hurdle, Harris says he’s heard from many suitable dates that meet his criteria. So far, those women don’t live in the area—and are expecting Harris to pay for transport. He won’t.

NO HATERS. Obama’s will be the first inauguration to which Harris will have the chance to invite a date, but he says the tickets came to him by “being in the right place at the right time,” not politics. Harris keeps his own views “close to the vest”—accordingly, potential dates need not have voted for the president-elect to get on Harris’ ticket. “But naturally, I would not want to be with a person who is a ‘hater’ of the person we’re celebrating,” he adds. “That would prove to be very uncomfortable.”

DROP SOME PORTUGUESE. Harris is currently studying the language to help maximize his annual trips to Brazil’s Carnival. Harris says he holds a penthouse apartment on Copacabana beach, which he makes use of during the festivities each February. Harris says that willing inaugural dates may soon become Brazilian penthouse guests. “I’m going alone to Brazil,” he says. “I would love to have this date, if the friendship matures to that level, accompany me on my travels.”

BE SENSITIVE. Harris is mending a broken heart—his ex-girlfriend recently broke up with him, three weeks before Thanksgiving and two months before the inauguration. “I wish I could take a pill to make the pain go away,” says Harris, who says the new flood of interested women is a big shift from his last missive with his ex. “She broke up with me via e-mail,” he says.

In the piece, Ross quotes from a pro-life op-ed published in the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader penned by Allen Unruh, husband of Vote Yes for Life campaign leader Leslee Unruh. Writes Ross:

Despite their back-to-back defeats at the polls, the anti-abortion activists driving the abortion bans have vowed to charge forward. On election night 2008, Leslee Unruh, head of the Vote Yes for Life campaign, stood before TV cameras repeating her refrain from 2006 to “never concede” defeat as volunteers packed up chairs and swept floors behind her. In an op-ed piece for the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, her husband, Allen Unruh, compared the fight to end abortion to the fights to end slavery and racial segregation. “When we look back on history, our country now feels that public sentiment not only was reprehensible, but we have elected our first black president of the U.S.,” he wrote. “This is not the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning.”

Don’t you see? If these pro-life activists throw in the towel, America may never see its first fetus president. And that’s not an America I want to have been living in since conception.

* Tim Dickinson for Rolling Stone on why Prop 8 failed. (Hint: It wasn’t Mormon or black voters, but it might have been you).

* The Gay Recluse reports on the shielded statues in Union Station (photo above), indicates that behind the shield are uncircumcised Roman penises, calls it “the biggest scandal in the history of hot gay statues!”

* WaPo says Barry and Hills need to work on their “rapport,” but noted this cute press conference tidbit: “Leaving the news conference in Chicago yesterday where he introduced his national security team, President-elect Barack Obama strolled out of the room arm in arm with his choice for secretary of state and onetime rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Oooooooh!

* Mark your calendars: Forum on gay marriage in D.C. slated for Dec. 11.

* Barrack buys Michelle First Bling!

I have known Hillary Clinton as a friend, a colleague, a source of counsel, and as a campaign opponent. She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic. I am proud that she will be our next Secretary of State. She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence; who knows many of the world’s leaders; who will command respect in every capitol; and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world.

Hillary’s appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances. There is much to do – from preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea, to seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, to strengthening international institutions. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department, and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda.

Obama appointed two other women to his national security team: My home state of Arizona’s Governor Janet Napolitano will be Secretary of Homeland Security, and Susan Rice will serve as UN Ambassador.

Obviously, this is no good. But after Long faults the group of men, the unsympathetic bartender, and the cops, she turns to an unsuspecting target of blame for violence against women: Barack Obama. Long details why Obama may be to blame for her friend’s battered face:

I think we cannot dismiss the election’s place in all this. The world watched as Hillary Clinton and Sara Palin were eviscerated by the main stream media. Calling women C**** was tolerated. Demeaning and disrespecting women was deemed OK. A young potent male was victorious over an older women. It was a symbolic victory on many deep psychological levels. I am afraid last night was just the beginning and that there will be more crimes against women. Times have changed and not for the better. I can smell it in the air.

Another blogger chimed in, calling the post-election U.S. “Open Season on Women” and tapping her post on the incident with a “Thanks Barack”:

[Obama] has used misogyny to stir up hatred of women in the media and on the blogs that supported him. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, it won’t soon be put back. We are going to be dealing with this for a long time to come.

Hey, I want a lady to be president as much as anybody. But I’ll take a real victory for women over a symbolic one any day. I’ve yet to see the evidence of whatever misogynist genie Barack Obama and Joe Biden have conjured up in their campaign, but I’m willing to bet it will satisfy more lady wishes than a ticket that opposed abortion, forced women to pay for their own rape kits, put women’s health in sarcastic finger quotes and, you know, actually called somebody a cunt. Thanks a lot, Barack Obama. Thanks a lot.

Yesterday, the Washington Post published a story by Monica Hesse on election night hookups as pursued through Craigslist personals ads. But soft! Was it not mere hours before yesterday that I reported on election night hookups as pursued through Craigslist personal ads?

I smell blog item!

Hesse’s name is very similar to mine, which is Hess. But look further, and you will discover several subtle differences between Hesse’s piece and my own.

First, Hesse relies on the more romantic end of the Craigslist hook-up spectrum (”Missed Connections”), while mine (Hess’s) focuses on the Web site’s tawdrier offerings (”Casual Encounters”). This is no accident. Hesse’s choice belies her newspaper of record’s standards of decency, standards which are not shared by my alternative news-weekly. So while Hesse’s piece employs expressions of sexuality suitable for the reader of delicate sensibilities (”Awwww yeah”), my piece instead chooses to call a “clusterfuck” a “clusterfuck.” (”Clusterfuck” being a term that Washington Post standards prevent Monica Hesse from printing without repercussion).

But though Hesse’s piece adheres to Washington Post standards of decency, it does endeavor to break free of her newspaper’s more traditional standards of style. Hesse employs italics in order to convey the thoughts of election night participants (”Never felt that kind of euphoria . . . Out of body . . .”), ALL CAPS and irregular punctuation to express surprise (”They were drinking, chatting, hanging out, when suddenly she spotted . . . CORDUROY JACKET!!”), and italics coupled with repetition in order to build suspense (”For Obama! For Obama!”). My piece, on the other hand, has been vigorously edited to purge it of non-standard formatting, save for several carefully placed sarcastic asides.

In conclusion, people will make any excuse to convince other humans to have sex with them, then speak candidly about it to local newspapers.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery