Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 920
December 17, 2015
Sheldon and Amy will finally get it on: How this “Big Bang Theory” storyline breaks new TV ground
“Star Wars” or sex? That’s the immortal question being posed by the long-running CBS sitcom “The Big Bang Theory.” In tonight’s episode, Sheldon must choose between having sex with his girlfriend Amy for the first time, and attending the opening night premiere of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” It’s a major milestone both for the show—now in its ninth seasons—and for its characters. According to actress Mayim Bialik, who plays Amy, this was not a decision the producers and writers took lightly. “It’s really special to us that we’ve had a relationship that is the longest-running nonsexual romantic relationship you’ve seen on TV,” the former child star told Entertainment Weekly. Because it’s a comedy, the pivotal moment is depicted with the prerequisite humor (Bob Newhart’s Professor Proton appears dressed as Obi-Wan Kenobi), but it’s also awkward, warm, and sweet. Since the titular couple in “Mary Kay and Johnny” became the first partners to share a bed on television back in 1947, networks have struggled with how to depict sexuality honestly. CBS wouldn’t allow “I Love Lucy” to use the word “pregnant” on air, so the program had to explain Lucille Ball’s real-life pregnancy (incorporated into the show) by saying she was “expecting.” While we’ve come a long way since then (“How to Get Away with Murder” featured gay interracial analingus this season), television—and American culture in general—still struggles with addressing the topic of virginity. Pop culture often depicts sexual intimacy in ways that are negative and implicitly shaming. In horror films, women are commonly killed after they have intercourse for the first time, and the “Final Girl” is defined by her purity, which protects her from violence. In teen dramas like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Felicity,” and “Gilmore Girls,” losing your virginity ends in misery and suffering. Buffy Sommers’ decision to have sex with Angel turns him into his doppelganger, the sinister Angelus, who then tries to kill all her friends. When Felicity Porter and Rory Gilmore experience intercourse for the first time, it’s the product of infidelity. “I didn’t raise you to be like this,” Rory’s mother, Lorelai, admonishes her. These representations speak to our larger cultural baggage around waiting, particularly America’s fetishistic fascination with virgins. Russell Wilson and Ciara were treated like a public spectacle for their pledge to do it “Jesus’ way,” as the Seattle Seahawks quarterback claimed in an interview, while those who give it up “too late” are seen as innately weird—from Coldplay frontman Chris Martin (who lost his virginity as 25) to Judd Apatow’s “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” Meanwhile, young Disney starlets make careers off their vows of chastity, as part of a brand model that sells sex while insisting that actually having it is strictly taboo. There’s no better example of this than the late-90s/early-2000s pop stars Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera, who presented a reductive duality of female sexuality as either the Madonna or the whore. “Christina was able to monetize her position as the anti-Britney: a sexy star you could actually have sex with,” the Daily Beast’s Amy Zimmerman wrote. “But by maintaining her virgin status, Britney wasn’t rising above these sexual politics—she was also playing to a male fantasy, just one that required slightly less eyeliner.” While the purity ring made a comeback in the late 2000s with celebrities like the Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, and Miley Cyrus vowing to wait, these decisions tended to fall into the same reductive rhetoric. During the 2008 VMAs, host Russell Brand joked about the Jonas Brothers’ well-publicized abstinence pledges, and “American Idol” winner Jordin Sparks came to their defense: “I just have one thing to say about promise rings. It’s not bad to wear a promise ring, because not everybody—guy or girl—wants to be a slut.” When it comes to sex, you’re clearly damned if you do and damned if you don’t. This no-win situation means that when it comes our myriad choices surrounding virginity, we still lack so much crucial information, even about our own bodies. That problem is, of course, a product of America’s pervasive abstinence-only sex ed programs, which leads to false ideas of what sex is and isn’t. In the Atlantic, Nolan Feeney explains that there’s a cultural expectation that all women bleed the first time, due to popular myths about the hymen, and that can be dangerous. “Male partners' expectations of blood in particular sometimes leads women to take drastic, unhealthy measures: In How to Lose Your Virginity, [Therese] Shechter reports on women who sewed stitches into their vaginas to make sure they bled,” Feeney writes. Less extreme options include purchasing devices that simulate vaginal bleeding (by emitting red dye), and these have been popular in China. As Feeney and others attest, our damaging views of virginity even come down to the words we use to describe it: “taking a woman’s virginity” or “giving it up.” Feeney argues, “They characterize women as passive with something to lose, and men as the aggressors with something to gain.” "Losing" virginity is portrayed as many things—a rite of passage, a life-changing moment, an act that deserves punishment, or a decision that could ruin your life—but these also define it as a form of violence. There’s little consent, affirmation, or celebration in “taking.” That’s why we should celebrate television programs who depict human sexuality in ways that are more honest and reflective of its viewers actual experiences. In “The Big Bang Theory,” it might appear “unusual” that Sheldon and Amy have waited so long (the actors who play them are both over 40), but statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show that a significant portion of the population is holding out longer than we expect. Although Americans, on average, lose their virginity around the age of 17, over a quarter of men and women between the ages of 15 and 24 have yet to engage in sexual contact of any kind. I want to see more television programs show sexuality for what it is—a fact of life, one with varied meanings for each individual. For some, having sex is a big decision and a sign of commitment, many might view intercourse as primarily for pleasure, and others might not have it at all. What we need is real education to normalize all of our experiences without stigma, but shows like “The Big Bang Theory” can help bridge the gap by depicting sex in all its beautiful, sexy, awkward intimacy.“Star Wars” or sex? That’s the immortal question being posed by the long-running CBS sitcom “The Big Bang Theory.” In tonight’s episode, Sheldon must choose between having sex with his girlfriend Amy for the first time, and attending the opening night premiere of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” It’s a major milestone both for the show—now in its ninth seasons—and for its characters. According to actress Mayim Bialik, who plays Amy, this was not a decision the producers and writers took lightly. “It’s really special to us that we’ve had a relationship that is the longest-running nonsexual romantic relationship you’ve seen on TV,” the former child star told Entertainment Weekly. Because it’s a comedy, the pivotal moment is depicted with the prerequisite humor (Bob Newhart’s Professor Proton appears dressed as Obi-Wan Kenobi), but it’s also awkward, warm, and sweet. Since the titular couple in “Mary Kay and Johnny” became the first partners to share a bed on television back in 1947, networks have struggled with how to depict sexuality honestly. CBS wouldn’t allow “I Love Lucy” to use the word “pregnant” on air, so the program had to explain Lucille Ball’s real-life pregnancy (incorporated into the show) by saying she was “expecting.” While we’ve come a long way since then (“How to Get Away with Murder” featured gay interracial analingus this season), television—and American culture in general—still struggles with addressing the topic of virginity. Pop culture often depicts sexual intimacy in ways that are negative and implicitly shaming. In horror films, women are commonly killed after they have intercourse for the first time, and the “Final Girl” is defined by her purity, which protects her from violence. In teen dramas like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Felicity,” and “Gilmore Girls,” losing your virginity ends in misery and suffering. Buffy Sommers’ decision to have sex with Angel turns him into his doppelganger, the sinister Angelus, who then tries to kill all her friends. When Felicity Porter and Rory Gilmore experience intercourse for the first time, it’s the product of infidelity. “I didn’t raise you to be like this,” Rory’s mother, Lorelai, admonishes her. These representations speak to our larger cultural baggage around waiting, particularly America’s fetishistic fascination with virgins. Russell Wilson and Ciara were treated like a public spectacle for their pledge to do it “Jesus’ way,” as the Seattle Seahawks quarterback claimed in an interview, while those who give it up “too late” are seen as innately weird—from Coldplay frontman Chris Martin (who lost his virginity as 25) to Judd Apatow’s “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” Meanwhile, young Disney starlets make careers off their vows of chastity, as part of a brand model that sells sex while insisting that actually having it is strictly taboo. There’s no better example of this than the late-90s/early-2000s pop stars Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera, who presented a reductive duality of female sexuality as either the Madonna or the whore. “Christina was able to monetize her position as the anti-Britney: a sexy star you could actually have sex with,” the Daily Beast’s Amy Zimmerman wrote. “But by maintaining her virgin status, Britney wasn’t rising above these sexual politics—she was also playing to a male fantasy, just one that required slightly less eyeliner.” While the purity ring made a comeback in the late 2000s with celebrities like the Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, and Miley Cyrus vowing to wait, these decisions tended to fall into the same reductive rhetoric. During the 2008 VMAs, host Russell Brand joked about the Jonas Brothers’ well-publicized abstinence pledges, and “American Idol” winner Jordin Sparks came to their defense: “I just have one thing to say about promise rings. It’s not bad to wear a promise ring, because not everybody—guy or girl—wants to be a slut.” When it comes to sex, you’re clearly damned if you do and damned if you don’t. This no-win situation means that when it comes our myriad choices surrounding virginity, we still lack so much crucial information, even about our own bodies. That problem is, of course, a product of America’s pervasive abstinence-only sex ed programs, which leads to false ideas of what sex is and isn’t. In the Atlantic, Nolan Feeney explains that there’s a cultural expectation that all women bleed the first time, due to popular myths about the hymen, and that can be dangerous. “Male partners' expectations of blood in particular sometimes leads women to take drastic, unhealthy measures: In How to Lose Your Virginity, [Therese] Shechter reports on women who sewed stitches into their vaginas to make sure they bled,” Feeney writes. Less extreme options include purchasing devices that simulate vaginal bleeding (by emitting red dye), and these have been popular in China. As Feeney and others attest, our damaging views of virginity even come down to the words we use to describe it: “taking a woman’s virginity” or “giving it up.” Feeney argues, “They characterize women as passive with something to lose, and men as the aggressors with something to gain.” "Losing" virginity is portrayed as many things—a rite of passage, a life-changing moment, an act that deserves punishment, or a decision that could ruin your life—but these also define it as a form of violence. There’s little consent, affirmation, or celebration in “taking.” That’s why we should celebrate television programs who depict human sexuality in ways that are more honest and reflective of its viewers actual experiences. In “The Big Bang Theory,” it might appear “unusual” that Sheldon and Amy have waited so long (the actors who play them are both over 40), but statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show that a significant portion of the population is holding out longer than we expect. Although Americans, on average, lose their virginity around the age of 17, over a quarter of men and women between the ages of 15 and 24 have yet to engage in sexual contact of any kind. I want to see more television programs show sexuality for what it is—a fact of life, one with varied meanings for each individual. For some, having sex is a big decision and a sign of commitment, many might view intercourse as primarily for pleasure, and others might not have it at all. What we need is real education to normalize all of our experiences without stigma, but shows like “The Big Bang Theory” can help bridge the gap by depicting sex in all its beautiful, sexy, awkward intimacy.
Donald Trump is the harbinger of talk-radio doom: Why his candidacy could spell disaster for Rush Limbaugh
One of the more interesting sideshows in the GOP presidential circus has been the high-wire act performed by talk radio hosts as they try to walk the party line with the heavy weight of Donald Trump hung around their necks. It's not that they don't have plenty of practice at balancing the party line and the conservative id; this year the wire is just much higher and the burden is much, much heavier. A quick survey of right wing radio and counter establishment institutions shows that in general there is a clear preference for Senator Ted Cruz. This is to be expected. Cruz is a Tea Party-style movement conservative to the core. And his aggressive confrontational style is what most of these activists and media personalities have been demanding of their representatives in government for years. Cruz is a hero on the right not just for being uncompromising, but also for keeping his commitment to do everything in his power to deliver on their agenda. They could not ask for more. But that doesn't mean they are eager to criticize Donald Trump, particularly when it comes to his hardcore stance on immigration. It's not that they truly mistrust Cruz on that issue (and certainly not to the extent that they loathe Marco Rubio for his involvement with the Gang of 8 and what they inaccurately call "amnesty.") There's no question in this crowd that Cruz's conservative bona fides are fully in order. But as much as they like Cruz, on immigration Trump has been singing their tune in the crude way that only talk radio hosts and drunken uncles tend to. Naturally they like hearing it -- they're the ones who wrote the song. While the politicians in Washington were convening "autopsies" that concluded that the party needed to reach out to Latinos, the conservative base was screaming in defiance and nobody running for office articulates their rage about this the way Trump does. But let's face facts: The media "thought leaders" may like how Trump is getting the base riled up and excited but they know he isn't really one of them. Like everyone else, they undoubtedly assumed that he was a good showman who was getting the troops excited for the campaign ahead, but would obviously flame out long before now. They may have persuaded themselves that the country is ready for a Tea Party zealot like Cruz, but Trump is something else altogether -- he has not signed on to the whole program and they know it. This was illustrated in living color this week when, after all the demented statements Trump has made over the past few months, the thing that finally evoked a rebuke from every talk show host from Ingraham to Beck to Levin to Limbaugh was his criticism of Cruz "acting like a maniac" in Congress, and insisting that you can't get things done that way. Trump clearly didn't understand that he had just spit on the conservative movement's most valued and cherished tactic, the energetic implementation of which they most admire about Ted Cruz. You can say what you want about torture and ethnic cleansing and war crimes. You can trash talk Washington politicians all night long. But you simply do not criticize conservative movement strategy. That is, by definition, RINO talk. Still, just as Trump's rivals have to be cautious about how far to go in criticizing him for fear of alienating his supporters, so too does the right wing media. All you have to do is watch the delicate pas de deux between Trump and Roger Ailes to see how challenging this can be. Just look at the strange contortions Bill O'Reilly goes through to keep some semblance of credibility without alienating Trump's supporters: 
"Donald Trump understands the anger sweeping America today, and is tapping into that anger. He's not really concerned that much much with policy right now, he is running on emotion. His campaign strategy has been brilliant, but if you take what he says literally he can be a frightening guy. I see many of his statements as over the top rhetoric, designed to get him votes, not necessarily in stone policy pronouncements."Likewise, after very mildly criticizing Trump for the Cruz comments earlier in the week, Rush Limbaugh came back yesterday, post-debate, with this:
"Trump drops the performance persona and communicates. This is an example of many; these things happen frequently in his personal appearances. I'm only illustrating this, or mentioning it, because so many people still wonder how it is that Trump doesn't get hurt by what some people think are the stupid things he says or the ignorant things he says or the mean things he says or the controversial. The things that would normally destroy others he profits from. And professional communicators are scratching their heads, professional political people are scratching their heads, it doesn't make any sense. They're still hoping that Trump will implode. He's not gonna implode, and I'm just trying to help people understand why. It's all rooted in the bond, the connection that Trump has made with the people who support him. And, by the way, that bond is rooted in substance."Contrast that with what he said about Cruz's debate performance:
"I thought Ted Cruz was outstanding last night. Ted Cruz speaks like a traditional powerful, well-versed proud -- unabashedly proud -- conservative. He is an articulate representative of conservatism and the conservative movement, and he is a happy warrior. He loves doing what he's doing. He loves mixing it up. He loves getting in there. And he is relishing this opportunity to put on display what he believes and what millions of the rest of us believe."Rush went on and on about how Trump was the first to tap into people's anger and condemn political correctness and tell it like it is. He took some oblique credit for reeling Trump back in on the Cruz "maniac" question. Then he commented on what was really important: He ran Trump's little speech in which he said he would not run as an independent. and said:
"Okay, so the performance persona is gone there, folks. That's straight from the heart. That happens frequently in his personal appearances. There was humility. All the characteristics that people think Trump doesn't have were right there in 30 seconds."Trump was a good boy and got with the program and Rush was clearly very relieved. But nobody's really kidding themselves that anything Trump says is binding. Limbaugh and the rest of the talkers are palpably nervous, as you can see by their bizarre rationalizations about the Trump phenomenon. They are all conservative-movement media figures who cater to the right wing, so they have to at least pay lip service to his appeal. But they are also political professionals who don't live completely in the bubble they have created for the rubes. They know Trump is a disaster for the party. At this point they're just trying to keep things from hurtling out of control. The question is if they have somehow managed to persuade themselves that their favorite maniac, Ted Cruz, can actually win the nomination. It's likely that they, like everyone else, had assumed that a more mainstream figure would come out on top and they would reluctantly go along. Now it's looking like there's a decent chance their guy could head the ticket. The prospect of that must make them even more nervous than Trump. After all, if Cruz wins the nomination and loses the general election, they will not be able to fall back on their perennial excuse that the nominee wasn't conservative enough. You cannot get any more conservative than Ted Cruz. If that happens it won't be a disaster for the Republican Party -- it will be a disaster for the conservative movement. But it would be very good for the country.
Conspiracy Theory Nation: Right-wingers are enabling the most insane fringe theories to thrive
It's a sign of our times that this story isn't generating more attention than it is. Florida Atlantic University assistant professor James Tracy has been given 10 days to appeal a recommendation to fire him from his job teaching in the Communication & Multimedia Studies department. While the school won't say why, odds are high that this is a reaction to the embarrassment caused by an op-ed written by parents of a Sandy Hook shooting victim who say that Tracy has been harassing them by demanding proof that their son, Noah Pozner, is actually dead. Yes, Tracy appears to be a special kind of of monster, but his behavior shouldn't be written off as the actions of one man who has gone off his rocker. Tracy is an active participant and indeed a leader in a robust movement of gun enthusiasts, dubbed the "Sandy Hook truthers," who believe the entire attack was staged, likely by the Obama administration, in an effort to justify rounding up everyone's guns. What makes the Tracy story interesting, and why it's surprising that it hasn't gotten much more than cursory coverage for curiosity seekers, is that this guy doesn't fit the stereotypical image most of us have of a conspiracy theorist. This guy isn't a basement-dweller who refuses to bathe and only gets exercise when cleaning his guns. He a university professor, someone who was able to hoodwink at least one employer into thinking he was sharp and rational enough to educate the next generation. And yet, you read his blog and it's a dizzying experience. Tracy hasn't met a conspiracy theory he doesn't immediately glom on to, it appears. Like many people caught up in the Infowars-style hyper-paranoia, Tracy's ideology seems a mishmash of right wing and left wing conspiracy theories. His passion is denying mass shootings, but he also dabbles in some leftist bits of paranoia, such as believing that the journalist Michael Hastings was murdered in a cover-up. (Hastings died in a car crash and foul play was quickly ruled out.) True conspiracy theorists tend to think everyone — right, left, center---is out to get them, but most, like Tracy, still tend to lean right at the end of the day. Conspiracy theories have always been with us, of course, but the idea that a college professor could have gotten away with this kind of odious behavior for so long should still give pause. There's been a real mainstreaming of the conspiratorial mindset in recent years. Part of that is no doubt the result of the internet, which has allowed people like Alex Jones, with his Infowars website, to get the word out to more people. But TV has played a role, too, with shows like "Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura" getting ratings for the misleadingly named truTV. But perhaps the biggest factor has been the increasing embrace of conspiracy theories by the Republican Party. While Sandy Hook trutherism and some other right-wing conspiracy theories can still be reasonably classified as "fringe", other wild conspiracy theories have made the jump into the mainstream of the party, believed by nearly everyone in leadership and treated by politicians as facts instead of the nutty conspiracy theories that they are. The big one, of course, is climate change denialism, a conspiracy theory so widespread on the right that even admitting that the temperatures might be changing (while maintaining it's not our fault or nothing could be done anyway) is considered some kind of triumphant breakthrough for any Republican willing to go there. The mainstream media frequently treats this as if it's just a controversy or difference of opinion, but closer examination makes it clear that you can't believe that climate change is a hoax without also believing there's a worldwide conspiracy, involving most of the world's scientists and political leaders, to conceal the truth from the public. Or consider the ubiquitous nonsense about Planned Parenthood and "baby parts" that has been flying around since this summer. The hoax videos that kicked this off are clearly alleging what is quite obviously a batshit conspiracy theory, that Planned Parenthood is involved in some secretive conspiracy to profit off getting women to abort so they can sell the fetuses. That it even needed to be disproved is ridiculous, as it's self-evidently a paranoid fiction, starting with the fact that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and the sums discussed in the videos are so small that they clearly aren't profitable by any measure of the term. And yet, Republican politicians on every level have been eagerly promoting this clearly indefensible accusation, behavior which should be seen as no different than what Alex Jones is doing on a daily basis. Tuesday night's Republican debate had a couple of whoppers come out of candidates that clearly have an air of the conspiracy theory about them. Donald Trump claimed that "tens of thousands" of Syrian refugees have "cell phones with ISIS flags on them." It's a story that's being pushed heavily by, you guessed it, the Infowars site run by Alex Jones, who Trump has also favored with an interview. While it's technically true that these photos exist, there's still no reason to think that taking a picture of something means you support it. If that was true, then the whole explosion of cell phone videos exposing police brutality wouldn't be happening. In a similar vein was Carly Fiorina's bald-faced lie about Obama expunging what she called the "warrior class" — generals "Petraeus, McChrystal, Mattis, Keane, Flynn." “Every one was retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn’t want to hear,” she announced. It was a lie — Petraeus was nominated to be CIA director by Obama and Keane retired during the Bush administration — but it was really more than a lie. It's also a conspiracy theory, in that it's creating a pattern where none exists and declaring that it is the result of nefarious, shadowy actions when it's quite clearly not. The conspiratorial mindset has been gaining strength in Republican circles for a couple of decades now. Fringe conspiracy theories about the Clintons started on the fringes but grew in power until the Republican Party got it into their head that they had to find something to impeach the president over. The same thing happened to Obama, who was plagued by the "birther" conspiracy theory for so long he finally released his long form birth certificate. Now you see the same game being played with Hillary Clinton, this swirl of paranoia and half-baked accusations, all meant to create the impression that something dirty is going on, even if they can't quite figure out the exact details. All this behavior is indistinguishable from the conspiracy theory-mongering going on in the fringe circles that James Tracy hangs out in. The only difference is that the mainstream conspiracy theories have the imprimatur of authority on them, being repeated, as they are, on national television and coming out of the mouths of people who are distinguished politicians and even presidential candidates. Conspiracy theories are normal and mainstream, thanks to the Republican Party. So it's no wonder that so many people feel emboldened to take up some of the stranger theories that are out there.
Let the writers eat cake: This $225 writing manual outrages the already-pinched literary class
If you were trying to come up with a perfect name for a literary magazine in the 21st century, it would be hard to do better than “Narrative.” In an age in which scholars study “narratology” and every turn in American politics is about “the narrative,” this is about as resonant a term as anyone could find. Add in work by heavyweights like Joyce Carol Oates, Ann Beattie, and T.C. Boyle, and you’d have a journal the literary community would be sure to embrace. Well, that’s not quite how things have gone for Narrative, the non-profit online journal Esquire’s Tom Jenks and author Carol Edgarian founded in 2003. At a time when the literary community is feeling besieged by shrinking attention spans, the collapse of bookstores, the pressures of adjunct teaching, and a relentless economy that makes life hard for many authors, Narrative should have wide support among bookworld folk. But the magazine seems dedicated to scattering any kind of warm feelings it might attract. Frustration with Narrative goes back a few years now. But the latest round has been sparked by a book on writing by Jenks, “A Poetics of Fiction,” which will go for… $225. “[That cost] represents a relatively small amount compared to what I charge for material given in much smaller portions in workshops and tutorials,” he writes in an email blast. “The book represents an extremely good value in terms of how it can help you across a lifetime of writing.” To which Kelly Luce, on Elecric Lit, responds: “What’s inside? Magic spells? An invitation to Yaddo? Roofies for agents and publishers?” Luce's rant is followed by 11 recommendations – Natalie Goldberg’s “Writing Down the Bones,” James Wood’s “How Fiction Works,” Stephen King's "On Writing" – which, put together, all cost less than Jenks’. Snark about the cost of the craft book comes after the magazine has drawn more than its share of criticism. A few years ago, Jimmy Chen wrote a fake obituary on HTMLGIANT. “If you would like to submit an elegy, please include a submission fee of $15 at the door,” he concluded. “All manuscripts should be in 12 pt. type, double spaced with one-inch margins, sequentially numbered pages, and contain exactly four metaphors, three similes, two foreigners, and one tear drop stain. If applicable, an editor will condescend with you.” The main complaint about Narrative is not about condescension, exactly, but about its pricing policy. Not pricing for reading it – the website is free for all to peruse – but for submitting work: Narrative charges more than $20 to consider most submissions. Writer and Barrelhouse editor Dave Housley has called it a ponzi scheme, accusing the famous writers whose work shows up in Narrative as being “the original investors in this ponzi scheme.” The famous names, he writes, “are what's making the whole thing work.” https://twitter.com/housleydave/statu... Even a friendly story by the Washington Post’s Ron Charles stopped for a moment on the fees the magazine charges. “Only one aspect of the operation troubles me,” Charles wrote. “Narrative charges a fee for submissions (around $22, depending on the type). Such fees help pay the bills, but they also function as a tax on the least talented and most starry-eyed.” He updated the article with the information -- pulled from a 2012 tax form -- that Jenks made $130,000 for his editor duties that year, and Edgarian $95,000. I’m not so sure it’s fair to accuse Tobias Wolff or Denis Johnson or Mary-Louise Parker, who have published work in Narrative, as being the investors in a ponzi scheme unless they are receiving material (or even reputational) advantage from deceiving people. And maybe Jenks and Edgarian are doing what they need to keep Narrative rolling in a difficult time for authors and publications alike. All nonprofits pass the hat in various ways. But either the editors have an absolutely tin ear for how their policies land, or they’re content to be like the kind of rock club that charges musicians to play. Given what are already steep odds against writers making a living from their work, this is the last thing the literary world needs.If you were trying to come up with a perfect name for a literary magazine in the 21st century, it would be hard to do better than “Narrative.” In an age in which scholars study “narratology” and every turn in American politics is about “the narrative,” this is about as resonant a term as anyone could find. Add in work by heavyweights like Joyce Carol Oates, Ann Beattie, and T.C. Boyle, and you’d have a journal the literary community would be sure to embrace. Well, that’s not quite how things have gone for Narrative, the non-profit online journal Esquire’s Tom Jenks and author Carol Edgarian founded in 2003. At a time when the literary community is feeling besieged by shrinking attention spans, the collapse of bookstores, the pressures of adjunct teaching, and a relentless economy that makes life hard for many authors, Narrative should have wide support among bookworld folk. But the magazine seems dedicated to scattering any kind of warm feelings it might attract. Frustration with Narrative goes back a few years now. But the latest round has been sparked by a book on writing by Jenks, “A Poetics of Fiction,” which will go for… $225. “[That cost] represents a relatively small amount compared to what I charge for material given in much smaller portions in workshops and tutorials,” he writes in an email blast. “The book represents an extremely good value in terms of how it can help you across a lifetime of writing.” To which Kelly Luce, on Elecric Lit, responds: “What’s inside? Magic spells? An invitation to Yaddo? Roofies for agents and publishers?” Luce's rant is followed by 11 recommendations – Natalie Goldberg’s “Writing Down the Bones,” James Wood’s “How Fiction Works,” Stephen King's "On Writing" – which, put together, all cost less than Jenks’. Snark about the cost of the craft book comes after the magazine has drawn more than its share of criticism. A few years ago, Jimmy Chen wrote a fake obituary on HTMLGIANT. “If you would like to submit an elegy, please include a submission fee of $15 at the door,” he concluded. “All manuscripts should be in 12 pt. type, double spaced with one-inch margins, sequentially numbered pages, and contain exactly four metaphors, three similes, two foreigners, and one tear drop stain. If applicable, an editor will condescend with you.” The main complaint about Narrative is not about condescension, exactly, but about its pricing policy. Not pricing for reading it – the website is free for all to peruse – but for submitting work: Narrative charges more than $20 to consider most submissions. Writer and Barrelhouse editor Dave Housley has called it a ponzi scheme, accusing the famous writers whose work shows up in Narrative as being “the original investors in this ponzi scheme.” The famous names, he writes, “are what's making the whole thing work.” https://twitter.com/housleydave/statu... Even a friendly story by the Washington Post’s Ron Charles stopped for a moment on the fees the magazine charges. “Only one aspect of the operation troubles me,” Charles wrote. “Narrative charges a fee for submissions (around $22, depending on the type). Such fees help pay the bills, but they also function as a tax on the least talented and most starry-eyed.” He updated the article with the information -- pulled from a 2012 tax form -- that Jenks made $130,000 for his editor duties that year, and Edgarian $95,000. I’m not so sure it’s fair to accuse Tobias Wolff or Denis Johnson or Mary-Louise Parker, who have published work in Narrative, as being the investors in a ponzi scheme unless they are receiving material (or even reputational) advantage from deceiving people. And maybe Jenks and Edgarian are doing what they need to keep Narrative rolling in a difficult time for authors and publications alike. All nonprofits pass the hat in various ways. But either the editors have an absolutely tin ear for how their policies land, or they’re content to be like the kind of rock club that charges musicians to play. Given what are already steep odds against writers making a living from their work, this is the last thing the literary world needs.
How the feud between Rubio & Cruz has exposed our national security secrets
Not only did Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just give ISIS and all our other adversaries important information about our intelligence programs, but in the process he proved that secrecy has become no more than a tool for policing dissent. At issue are a series of claims that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have made in recent days about the old and new phone records programs used to identify potential terrorist sympathizers in the U.S. The two candidates are fighting over whether the old Section 215 phone dragnet, which aspired to collect all the phone records of all Americans or a replacement program introduced by the USA Freedom Act better protected the United States against terrorism. Rubio started the fracas, on Friday, when he revealed on Fox News that a large number of companies aren't retaining call detail records that would be available for queries under the new program instituted by the USA Freedom Act. "There are large and significant number of companies that either said, we are not going to collect records at all, we’re not going to have any records if you come asking for them," Rubio explained, "or we’re only going to keep them on average of 18 months." Since the initial Edward Snowden leak, the government has considered not only what phone companies participated in the Section 215 phone dragnet but even how many participate to be highly secret information. They've gone so far as to invoke state secrets to hide such information. That hasn't changed with the passage of USA Freedom Act. Indeed, the bill was written so ambiguously with regards to the scope of the new call records program that a number of activists who had supported the bill only began to learn of its scope in the wake of Rubio's leak that "a large number of companies" might get records requests under the bill. Rubio effectively alerted adversaries that the program now goes well beyond the Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint records included under the old program. Rubio added key information on Sunday, when he revealed on "Meet the Press" that some of the "phone companies" under the program will only hold call records for "six months." This detail made it clear the "large number of companies" getting call record requests were not subject to a Federal Communications Commission's mandate that "phone companies" -- that is, traditional telephony carriers -- keep records at least 18 months. Indeed, the six month period is less than cell providers have indicated they keep records, providing yet another clue that the USAF program extends beyond what most people think of as "phone companies." Importantly, Rubio obtained this information while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee. As someone read into these programs, he has a heightened duty to keep this information secret -- a duty he ignored in the rush to make false claims about intelligence. Curiously, Senator Richard Burr, a surveillance maximalist like Rubio, showed no concern that Rubio had twice gone on cable TV and leaked classified information. It wasn't until Ted Cruz tried to rebut some other false claims Rubio has made about USAF that Burr got concerned. In Tuesday night's debate, Cruz said that the old Section 215 dragnet "covered 20 percent to 30 percent of phone numbers" -- a detail first reported by four major newspapers in early 2014 -- whereas "the new program covers nearly 100 percent." Cruz explained how that could be the case: "The prior program only covered a relatively narrow slice of phone calls ... primarily land lines." But the new program includes a number of different kinds of "phones." "Now we have cell phones, now we have Internet phones, now we have the phones that terrorists are likely to use and the focus of law enforcement is on targeting the bad guys," Cruz said. After Cruz's invocation of percentages, Rubio immediately tagged the information as classified. "Let me be very careful when answering this, because I don't think national television in front of 15 million people is the place to discuss classified information." And all of a sudden yesterday morning, after having ignored Rubio's earlier leaks, Burr showed a concern about leaks of classified information about the new phone records program. He told reporters he was having his staff review whether Cruz -- not Rubio -- leaked classified information, even while admitting that Cruz hadn't gotten an official briefing on that figure. In doing so, of course, he also called attention to and confirmed Cruz' comments, just in case the terrorists targeted by the program weren't following closely. Burr confirmed something else with his newfound concern about leaks. The Senate Intelligence Committee Chair showed no concern when an ally, someone actually privy to ongoing details about this program, leaked information about the new phone records program. He only got concerned -- and in the process confirmed classified information -- when someone who disagrees with his support for unlimited dragnets starting rebutting Rubio's false claims. Effectively, then, Burr is using rules about classification not to protect sources and methods -- he and his colleague on the Senate Intelligence Committee have already blown that -- but to silence dissent. Burr is trying to use this investigation into Cruz to ensure that no one can call out clear lies Rubio is telling about the surveillance programs he purportedly oversees.Not only did Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just give ISIS and all our other adversaries important information about our intelligence programs, but in the process he proved that secrecy has become no more than a tool for policing dissent. At issue are a series of claims that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have made in recent days about the old and new phone records programs used to identify potential terrorist sympathizers in the U.S. The two candidates are fighting over whether the old Section 215 phone dragnet, which aspired to collect all the phone records of all Americans or a replacement program introduced by the USA Freedom Act better protected the United States against terrorism. Rubio started the fracas, on Friday, when he revealed on Fox News that a large number of companies aren't retaining call detail records that would be available for queries under the new program instituted by the USA Freedom Act. "There are large and significant number of companies that either said, we are not going to collect records at all, we’re not going to have any records if you come asking for them," Rubio explained, "or we’re only going to keep them on average of 18 months." Since the initial Edward Snowden leak, the government has considered not only what phone companies participated in the Section 215 phone dragnet but even how many participate to be highly secret information. They've gone so far as to invoke state secrets to hide such information. That hasn't changed with the passage of USA Freedom Act. Indeed, the bill was written so ambiguously with regards to the scope of the new call records program that a number of activists who had supported the bill only began to learn of its scope in the wake of Rubio's leak that "a large number of companies" might get records requests under the bill. Rubio effectively alerted adversaries that the program now goes well beyond the Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint records included under the old program. Rubio added key information on Sunday, when he revealed on "Meet the Press" that some of the "phone companies" under the program will only hold call records for "six months." This detail made it clear the "large number of companies" getting call record requests were not subject to a Federal Communications Commission's mandate that "phone companies" -- that is, traditional telephony carriers -- keep records at least 18 months. Indeed, the six month period is less than cell providers have indicated they keep records, providing yet another clue that the USAF program extends beyond what most people think of as "phone companies." Importantly, Rubio obtained this information while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee. As someone read into these programs, he has a heightened duty to keep this information secret -- a duty he ignored in the rush to make false claims about intelligence. Curiously, Senator Richard Burr, a surveillance maximalist like Rubio, showed no concern that Rubio had twice gone on cable TV and leaked classified information. It wasn't until Ted Cruz tried to rebut some other false claims Rubio has made about USAF that Burr got concerned. In Tuesday night's debate, Cruz said that the old Section 215 dragnet "covered 20 percent to 30 percent of phone numbers" -- a detail first reported by four major newspapers in early 2014 -- whereas "the new program covers nearly 100 percent." Cruz explained how that could be the case: "The prior program only covered a relatively narrow slice of phone calls ... primarily land lines." But the new program includes a number of different kinds of "phones." "Now we have cell phones, now we have Internet phones, now we have the phones that terrorists are likely to use and the focus of law enforcement is on targeting the bad guys," Cruz said. After Cruz's invocation of percentages, Rubio immediately tagged the information as classified. "Let me be very careful when answering this, because I don't think national television in front of 15 million people is the place to discuss classified information." And all of a sudden yesterday morning, after having ignored Rubio's earlier leaks, Burr showed a concern about leaks of classified information about the new phone records program. He told reporters he was having his staff review whether Cruz -- not Rubio -- leaked classified information, even while admitting that Cruz hadn't gotten an official briefing on that figure. In doing so, of course, he also called attention to and confirmed Cruz' comments, just in case the terrorists targeted by the program weren't following closely. Burr confirmed something else with his newfound concern about leaks. The Senate Intelligence Committee Chair showed no concern when an ally, someone actually privy to ongoing details about this program, leaked information about the new phone records program. He only got concerned -- and in the process confirmed classified information -- when someone who disagrees with his support for unlimited dragnets starting rebutting Rubio's false claims. Effectively, then, Burr is using rules about classification not to protect sources and methods -- he and his colleague on the Senate Intelligence Committee have already blown that -- but to silence dissent. Burr is trying to use this investigation into Cruz to ensure that no one can call out clear lies Rubio is telling about the surveillance programs he purportedly oversees.
Have yourself a narcissistic little Christmas: Hate-watching the annual Holderness video is the holiday tradition we deserve
There's this strange prevailing assumption that once you become a parent, you are automatically enrolled in the same club with all the other people who've also had children. Your heart is supposed to swell with boundless infatuation with any child who falls into your sight line, and your tolerance for poop jokes must escalate exponentially. Breeders. We get it — MIRTE? And that's why I am here to tell you that is not true. And that for the life of me I don't understand the Holderness family. Relatedly, they're back! Dad Penn Holderness is a former WNCN-TV news anchor, currently a managing partner at a Raleigh video production and digital marketing company, where he works with wife Kim, a fellow marketing partner. Their North Carolina brood first achieved viral fame in 2013, when they donned matching holiday jammies and rapped to their unique version of Will Smith's "Miami" — one in which they shared that they'd bought a Prius, their daughter had finished a triathlon, and Dad Penn had had a vasectomy. The video got over 16 million YouTube views. They've since produced numerous outrageously popular videos, and honestly, I do have a certain respect for any family unit that monetize the act of peeling a Babybel. On the other hand, there's basically everything else about them. Their videos have the weird tang of "Look, we're PARODYING CrossFit and how slobby men are!" while also thoroughly validating it. You don't get to have your "Man Cave" and "Mommyness" cake and eat it too, folks. For their latest holiday enterprise, the family say, "We loved surprising friends an strangers dressed as Santa's elves in New York City and our home state of North Carolina." I don't know what it's like in North Carolina, but I think I can speak to how we here in the Big Apple feel about strangers surprising us. You can see it in the hasty way that poor blonde lady scuttles off after Penn leapfrogs over her at Rockefeller Center. (Frankly I'm surprised the incident didn't end with somebody getting maced.) Tip to tourists: We locals don't like being jumped on! Set to Kendrick Lamar's "i" — (The Holderness family mistakenly refer to it as "I love myself," which says a mouthful), the video is another end of the year humblebrag about their lives. I dance around in my pajamas with my kids too — although admittedly without any precision or in your face rhymes. And I know that there are families out there who find this sort of thing adorable — those millions of views the Holderness gang gets speak for themselves, along with the seemingly charmed reactions from Us Weekly and "Good Morning America." But just so you know — there are those of us who've reproduced who don't even like getting a litany of someone else's kids' achievements via a Christmas card, let alone a dancing elf video. There's this strange prevailing assumption that once you become a parent, you are automatically enrolled in the same club with all the other people who've also had children. Your heart is supposed to swell with boundless infatuation with any child who falls into your sight line, and your tolerance for poop jokes must escalate exponentially. Breeders. We get it — MIRTE? And that's why I am here to tell you that is not true. And that for the life of me I don't understand the Holderness family. Relatedly, they're back! Dad Penn Holderness is a former WNCN-TV news anchor, currently a managing partner at a Raleigh video production and digital marketing company, where he works with wife Kim, a fellow marketing partner. Their North Carolina brood first achieved viral fame in 2013, when they donned matching holiday jammies and rapped to their unique version of Will Smith's "Miami" — one in which they shared that they'd bought a Prius, their daughter had finished a triathlon, and Dad Penn had had a vasectomy. The video got over 16 million YouTube views. They've since produced numerous outrageously popular videos, and honestly, I do have a certain respect for any family unit that monetize the act of peeling a Babybel. On the other hand, there's basically everything else about them. Their videos have the weird tang of "Look, we're PARODYING CrossFit and how slobby men are!" while also thoroughly validating it. You don't get to have your "Man Cave" and "Mommyness" cake and eat it too, folks. For their latest holiday enterprise, the family say, "We loved surprising friends an strangers dressed as Santa's elves in New York City and our home state of North Carolina." I don't know what it's like in North Carolina, but I think I can speak to how we here in the Big Apple feel about strangers surprising us. You can see it in the hasty way that poor blonde lady scuttles off after Penn leapfrogs over her at Rockefeller Center. (Frankly I'm surprised the incident didn't end with somebody getting maced.) Tip to tourists: We locals don't like being jumped on! Set to Kendrick Lamar's "i" — (The Holderness family mistakenly refer to it as "I love myself," which says a mouthful), the video is another end of the year humblebrag about their lives. I dance around in my pajamas with my kids too — although admittedly without any precision or in your face rhymes. And I know that there are families out there who find this sort of thing adorable — those millions of views the Holderness gang gets speak for themselves, along with the seemingly charmed reactions from Us Weekly and "Good Morning America." But just so you know — there are those of us who've reproduced who don't even like getting a litany of someone else's kids' achievements via a Christmas card, let alone a dancing elf video.
December 16, 2015
Patton Oswalt gloriously smacks down Ben Shapiro’s absurd cries of anti-semitism
When Patton Oswalt let's loose on Twitter (let's skip the loaded troll descriptor for now), he really digs in and this time he exposed previously unknown depths of reaching when he somehow elicited Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro to inexplicably whine about anti-semitism and generally lose his mind. Behold the bewildering Breitbart level logic on display below: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... For some reason, CNN conservative commentator Kurt Schlichter jumped into the mix: https://twitter.com/KurtSchlichter/st... https://twitter.com/KurtSchlichter/st... https://twitter.com/KurtSchlichter/st... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Actually, the conservative Twitter tears were running rampant: https://twitter.com/NolteNC/status/67... https://twitter.com/thecoffeemonkey/s... https://twitter.com/MarkMMcClain/stat... https://twitter.com/Christmas1898/sta...
Dem congressman opens up about his time in a Japanese internment camp to warn of Trump’s dangerous xenophobia
California Democratic Congressman and Japanese-American survivor of WWII internment camps Mike Honda penned a moving op-ed for TIME to remind Americans of an important historical lesson and warn of "ignorant and inflammatory proclamations" from Republican presidential candidates like Donald Trump recreating a dangerous environment to repeat the tragedies of the past. "I was an infant in 1942 when my family and I were forcibly imprisoned at the Amache internment camp in Colorado," Honda wrote of being ripped from his California home. "I spent the next three years of my life living behind barbed-wire fencing." The years long internment, Honda said, "instilled in me a lifelong belief that it is everyone’s responsibility to be vigilant and protect each other’s liberties." Charging that the leading Republican presidential candidate's proposal to ban all Muslims from temporarily entering the United States is a ploy to "score cheap political points by preying upon the same climate of fear, hate and distrust that seized us after the Pearl Harbor attacks," Honda warned that the Republican Party is leading the nation down a "dangerous and un-American [] path." "Such slanderous and unfounded comments only fuel suspicions against an already scapegoated community," he argued. A recent focus group of Trump found unanimous support for a national registry of American Muslims and even some support for "a national registry of Jews." A new poll found that nearly 60 percent of Republicans favor Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from the country. "Don't give in to the ignorance and fear of Donald Trump," Honda urged. "We must learn from the mistakes of our past to prevent reactionary policies that run contrary to the very nature of the freedom, rule of law and Constitution of our country":
Trump and others have successfully garnered attention with their provocative rhetoric, but that rhetoric has real consequences. Every day, there are threats to mosques and Muslim students, leaders and community members; in the last week alone, Muslim Americans were victim to at least 19 hate crimes. Political leaders and people who hold significant influence over the American people must take responsibility for their words. The price for TV ratings and cheap political points is forcing the more than 2 million Muslim Americans to live in fear of their own government and fellow Americans. Our country is better than this. We are a nation that strives to foster openness, tolerance and equality—notions that are seemingly lost on political leaders that seek to make Muslims second-class citizens. Trump’s misguided plans are a far cry from making America great again; rather, Trump’s ideology would soon make America hate again."Our diversity is what gives us strength," Honda recalled, "and our respect for the Constitution, rule of law and American ideals is what unites us." Read the Congressman's full essay at TIME. https://twitter.com/RepMikeHonda/stat... Watch Honda revist the internment camp his family was forced into from 1942 to 1945: California Democratic Congressman and Japanese-American survivor of WWII internment camps Mike Honda penned a moving op-ed for TIME to remind Americans of an important historical lesson and warn of "ignorant and inflammatory proclamations" from Republican presidential candidates like Donald Trump recreating a dangerous environment to repeat the tragedies of the past. "I was an infant in 1942 when my family and I were forcibly imprisoned at the Amache internment camp in Colorado," Honda wrote of being ripped from his California home. "I spent the next three years of my life living behind barbed-wire fencing." The years long internment, Honda said, "instilled in me a lifelong belief that it is everyone’s responsibility to be vigilant and protect each other’s liberties." Charging that the leading Republican presidential candidate's proposal to ban all Muslims from temporarily entering the United States is a ploy to "score cheap political points by preying upon the same climate of fear, hate and distrust that seized us after the Pearl Harbor attacks," Honda warned that the Republican Party is leading the nation down a "dangerous and un-American [] path." "Such slanderous and unfounded comments only fuel suspicions against an already scapegoated community," he argued. A recent focus group of Trump found unanimous support for a national registry of American Muslims and even some support for "a national registry of Jews." A new poll found that nearly 60 percent of Republicans favor Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from the country. "Don't give in to the ignorance and fear of Donald Trump," Honda urged. "We must learn from the mistakes of our past to prevent reactionary policies that run contrary to the very nature of the freedom, rule of law and Constitution of our country":
Trump and others have successfully garnered attention with their provocative rhetoric, but that rhetoric has real consequences. Every day, there are threats to mosques and Muslim students, leaders and community members; in the last week alone, Muslim Americans were victim to at least 19 hate crimes. Political leaders and people who hold significant influence over the American people must take responsibility for their words. The price for TV ratings and cheap political points is forcing the more than 2 million Muslim Americans to live in fear of their own government and fellow Americans. Our country is better than this. We are a nation that strives to foster openness, tolerance and equality—notions that are seemingly lost on political leaders that seek to make Muslims second-class citizens. Trump’s misguided plans are a far cry from making America great again; rather, Trump’s ideology would soon make America hate again."Our diversity is what gives us strength," Honda recalled, "and our respect for the Constitution, rule of law and American ideals is what unites us." Read the Congressman's full essay at TIME. https://twitter.com/RepMikeHonda/stat... Watch Honda revist the internment camp his family was forced into from 1942 to 1945:
Trump and Huckabee supporters have bigger penises, according to this groundbreaking survey
The good social scientists at Cards Against Humanity dropped the results of a comprehensive survey of 150,000 of its customers, once and for all statistically confirming the direct correlation between the number of books a person has read and the “Fast and Furious” movies he or she has watched.
According to the study’s authors, “There’s nothing more exciting to idiots on the internet than fishing spurious correlations out of unreliable, non-representative datasets and then sharing them in easily consumable infographics.” Now hush up, deGrasse Tyson, and let the big boy scientists talk.
The real bombshell was the relationship between penis length and preferred presidential candidate. The study found that Huckabee and Trump supporters have the largest penises, with the latter edging out the former by a mere .03 inches. The farther left you fall on the spectrum, in fact, the tinier your manhood. Sanders and O’Malley supporters had the smallest average penises at 6.61” and 6.62”, respectively.
Number of sexual partners vs. preferred candidate gave better indication that the world might be a fair place, as Cruz (10.4), Carson (10), and Rubio (9.5, yikes) were ostensible virgins in the shadow of big-dicked Trump supporters’ average 13.4 sexual partners.
On the whole, the study found Republican penises are .21 inches longer than those of Democrats, which I’m sure will be thoroughly debated below in the comments section.
The findings, for sure, present a tough blow for us #libtards. But if it's any consolation, all 10.9 of my sexual partners told me that size doesn’t matter, and that I’m not cute when I cry.
Examine the entire findings here.
The good social scientists at Cards Against Humanity dropped the results of a comprehensive survey of 150,000 of its customers, once and for all statistically confirming the direct correlation between the number of books a person has read and the “Fast and Furious” movies he or she has watched.
According to the study’s authors, “There’s nothing more exciting to idiots on the internet than fishing spurious correlations out of unreliable, non-representative datasets and then sharing them in easily consumable infographics.” Now hush up, deGrasse Tyson, and let the big boy scientists talk.
The real bombshell was the relationship between penis length and preferred presidential candidate. The study found that Huckabee and Trump supporters have the largest penises, with the latter edging out the former by a mere .03 inches. The farther left you fall on the spectrum, in fact, the tinier your manhood. Sanders and O’Malley supporters had the smallest average penises at 6.61” and 6.62”, respectively.
Number of sexual partners vs. preferred candidate gave better indication that the world might be a fair place, as Cruz (10.4), Carson (10), and Rubio (9.5, yikes) were ostensible virgins in the shadow of big-dicked Trump supporters’ average 13.4 sexual partners.
On the whole, the study found Republican penises are .21 inches longer than those of Democrats, which I’m sure will be thoroughly debated below in the comments section.
The findings, for sure, present a tough blow for us #libtards. But if it's any consolation, all 10.9 of my sexual partners told me that size doesn’t matter, and that I’m not cute when I cry.
Examine the entire findings here.
The good social scientists at Cards Against Humanity dropped the results of a comprehensive survey of 150,000 of its customers, once and for all statistically confirming the direct correlation between the number of books a person has read and the “Fast and Furious” movies he or she has watched.
According to the study’s authors, “There’s nothing more exciting to idiots on the internet than fishing spurious correlations out of unreliable, non-representative datasets and then sharing them in easily consumable infographics.” Now hush up, deGrasse Tyson, and let the big boy scientists talk.
The real bombshell was the relationship between penis length and preferred presidential candidate. The study found that Huckabee and Trump supporters have the largest penises, with the latter edging out the former by a mere .03 inches. The farther left you fall on the spectrum, in fact, the tinier your manhood. Sanders and O’Malley supporters had the smallest average penises at 6.61” and 6.62”, respectively.
Number of sexual partners vs. preferred candidate gave better indication that the world might be a fair place, as Cruz (10.4), Carson (10), and Rubio (9.5, yikes) were ostensible virgins in the shadow of big-dicked Trump supporters’ average 13.4 sexual partners.
On the whole, the study found Republican penises are .21 inches longer than those of Democrats, which I’m sure will be thoroughly debated below in the comments section.
The findings, for sure, present a tough blow for us #libtards. But if it's any consolation, all 10.9 of my sexual partners told me that size doesn’t matter, and that I’m not cute when I cry.
Examine the entire findings here.
“That’s not accurate”: Fox News military analyst blows up Carly Fiorina’s latest debate lie
Gen. David Petraeus, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Gen. James Mattis, Gen Jack Keane and Lt. Gen Michael Flynn. All of them, Carly Fiorina claimed during last night's fifth GOP presidential debate, were unduly forced out of their distinguished military careers for daring to express dissent in the Obama administration. "Every single one of these generals I know, every one was retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn’t want to hear,” Fiorina said on the Venetian debate stage in Las Vegas, Nevada Tuesday evening, promising to "bring back the warrior class" if elected president. On his show, "Varney & Co," this morning, for some unknown reason -- and to his credit -- Fox Business News host Stuart Varney asked one of the aforementioned "warrior class" generals if Fiorina's description of a closed off president is accurate. "Did you in fact, general, give advice to President Obama, which he didn't want to hear and didn't take?" Varney directly asked Fox News military analyst Gen. Jack Keane. "No, I have never spoken to the president," Keane responded matter-of-factly. "That's not accurate," he said of Fiorina's description of his forced early retirement, adding, "and I never served this administration. I served the previous administration." Keane, of course, served as vice chief of staff of the United States Army under former president George W. Bush. Update: Apparently, Fiorina has yet to hear of Keane's Fox News takedown because according to this CNN reporter's tweet, she continues to hold up the general as an example of the Obama administration's unyielding intolerance for dissent: https://twitter.com/KilloughCNN/statu... Watch the short and simple takedown of Fiorina's latest debate stage lie below, via Media Matters: 
Gen. David Petraeus, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Gen. James Mattis, Gen Jack Keane and Lt. Gen Michael Flynn. All of them, Carly Fiorina claimed during last night's fifth GOP presidential debate, were unduly forced out of their distinguished military careers for daring to express dissent in the Obama administration. "Every single one of these generals I know, every one was retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn’t want to hear,” Fiorina said on the Venetian debate stage in Las Vegas, Nevada Tuesday evening, promising to "bring back the warrior class" if elected president. On his show, "Varney & Co," this morning, for some unknown reason -- and to his credit -- Fox Business News host Stuart Varney asked one of the aforementioned "warrior class" generals if Fiorina's description of a closed off president is accurate. "Did you in fact, general, give advice to President Obama, which he didn't want to hear and didn't take?" Varney directly asked Fox News military analyst Gen. Jack Keane. "No, I have never spoken to the president," Keane responded matter-of-factly. "That's not accurate," he said of Fiorina's description of his forced early retirement, adding, "and I never served this administration. I served the previous administration." Keane, of course, served as vice chief of staff of the United States Army under former president George W. Bush. Update: Apparently, Fiorina has yet to hear of Keane's Fox News takedown because according to this CNN reporter's tweet, she continues to hold up the general as an example of the Obama administration's unyielding intolerance for dissent: https://twitter.com/KilloughCNN/statu... Watch the short and simple takedown of Fiorina's latest debate stage lie below, via Media Matters:
Gen. David Petraeus, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Gen. James Mattis, Gen Jack Keane and Lt. Gen Michael Flynn. All of them, Carly Fiorina claimed during last night's fifth GOP presidential debate, were unduly forced out of their distinguished military careers for daring to express dissent in the Obama administration. "Every single one of these generals I know, every one was retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn’t want to hear,” Fiorina said on the Venetian debate stage in Las Vegas, Nevada Tuesday evening, promising to "bring back the warrior class" if elected president. On his show, "Varney & Co," this morning, for some unknown reason -- and to his credit -- Fox Business News host Stuart Varney asked one of the aforementioned "warrior class" generals if Fiorina's description of a closed off president is accurate. "Did you in fact, general, give advice to President Obama, which he didn't want to hear and didn't take?" Varney directly asked Fox News military analyst Gen. Jack Keane. "No, I have never spoken to the president," Keane responded matter-of-factly. "That's not accurate," he said of Fiorina's description of his forced early retirement, adding, "and I never served this administration. I served the previous administration." Keane, of course, served as vice chief of staff of the United States Army under former president George W. Bush. Update: Apparently, Fiorina has yet to hear of Keane's Fox News takedown because according to this CNN reporter's tweet, she continues to hold up the general as an example of the Obama administration's unyielding intolerance for dissent: https://twitter.com/KilloughCNN/statu... Watch the short and simple takedown of Fiorina's latest debate stage lie below, via Media Matters:
