Ottawa Women are Pussies?

[OK, something of a provocative title. I put it out there hoping it would offend some other pussies. And, of course, given the pussies I hoped to offend, I chose to use the title in what may seem to be an idiosyncratic definition drawn from a possible etymology that proposes that “pussy,” when used in a pejorative manner, is derived from “pusilanimous”–craven coward.]

The Women of Ottawa are apparently ashamed of their own bodies and fear looking in mirrors. They also seem to be afraid of owning their own shame and fear and project anger toward other women whose bodies threaten their own self-images. Not only that, but they are too cowardly to face women whose bodies move them to anger and seek some authority figure to intervene in their stead, allowing them to remain anonymous cowards.

Gym tells Ottawa woman breasts ‘too large’ for tank top

“She was told other clients at the gym had complained her top made them feel uncomfortable.”

“[O]ther clients.” So, maybe not just the Ottawa women are pussies, eh? Po’ babies.

May I? Please?

May I dope slap someone for using “abit” to stand in for “a bit”? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top? Would it help my case if I told you the same folks used the adjective “backdoor” when they meant “back door”? Hmm?

[excessively polite mini-rant /off]

Warning Signs

1.) The book blurb for a self-pub contains orthographic and grammar errors as egregious as this, first sentence of a blurb did,

“A global flu pandemic has wiped out ninety nine [sic] percent of the worlds [sic] population.”

The first page of the book includes, among other offenses, “He staggered back, unable to breath.”

You might well, with signs like this, think, “Hmmm, Cupcake, if you haven’t bothered to learn basic English, why should you expect to have English speakers/readers buy your book?”

Oh, and if “Cupcake” thinks so highly of his own subliterate capabilities (and is so dismissive of his readers) as to eschew paying a competent line editor to mend his execrable grasp of grammar and vocabulary, well, that’s another strike against him and his “literary” non-efforts.

(And yeh, the butchery of English continued in that case, until I finally exited the snippet and sought some mind-cleansing in better-written text.)

Note: there is a lot of non-fiction written nowadays that is just as bad as in the fiction referred to above. Damn democratic influences in the arts! *heh*

Remember this “Holiday”

Remember, folks, Friday (April 1) is Donald Trumpery Day. It’s a big day for his cultists.

Be careful to avoid them as they gather to celebrate. The destructive power of stupid people in large numbers should never be underestimated.

Thatisall.

The Nut of an Exchange Between Two Rare Adults on FarceBook

Part of a FarceBook discussion of the phenomenon of His Ignoble Trumpery’s supporters viewing him as “anti-establishment” and Ted Cruz, whose entire public career has been in combat against “establishment” intrusions into Americans’ liberties is excerpted below:

JB: “These days, having once been inside a federal building for lunch makes one a career politician. Just like having once held an elective office of any kind makes one ‘Establishment.'”

JD: “But building casinos using tax breaks and eminent domain, while buying candidates left and right, does not. I think I’m beginning to get it.”

Yeh, apparently “owning” politicians (and openly BRAGGING about it!) and using one’s influence with “the establishment” to enrich oneself at the expense of others (via sweetheart “gummint takings” to benefit himself), and more, somehow just doesn’t penetrate the angry, tantrum-throwing toddlers’ pea-brains. Nope. His Ignoble Trumpery makes growling noises and barks really, really loudly, so he’s “ati-establishment” regardless the testimony of his actual history.

Meanwhile, Cruz, whose public career includes winning defenses of individual liberties and states rights before the SCOTUS and excoriation of “establishment” abuses on the floor of the senate, defense of our borders (even Jeff Sessions admits Cruz was integral to the defeat of Lil Marco and the Gang of Eight) and more is all just part of being an “establishment” politician.

Purple-Tinted Rainbow Twaddle Masquerading as Legal Reasoning

Justice Kennedy was exactly the right person to sum up the legal reasoning of the majority opinion behind SCOTUS’ 5-4 HODGES decision. [Note: link is to pdf of Kennedy’s formal opinion.] Let’s just let Kennedy’s emotional bullshit speak for itself:

purple-tinted-rainbow-twaddle

That’s what passes for legal thought in the SCOTUS nowadays. . . Blatant distortion of fact and meaning. Logical fallacy after fallacy supporting emotional bullshit. That is the whole argument for same-sex “marriage” in a nutshell. At least Kennedy got that right.