So somebody finally noded Mitt Romney
, by which I mean that I did (unsurprisingly nobody else being inspired to), to expectedly mixed reviews. Some criticism assumed that my negative observations were attacks from the left end of the political spectrum
; naturally those who know me, know me to be solidly dedicated to the libertarian position
-- and not because I view government as an evil
, but simply as incompetent to chew whatever it forever seeks to bite off, whether under the left of right heads of the reigning duopoly. And so, my critique of Romney is from the true conservative position, the position of "I won't suck it up and compromise
just to get the two-headed behemoth's other
head in the door, to do the same things under slightly different rhetoric."
And, let us face facts, whatever Romney's rhetoric, he has only ever
from the left, from the position that government is indeed the problem solver, and ought to have the power to regulate your personal drug and alcohol use, bar your gun ownership, and compel your health care choices. What Romney claims he'll do has never been consistent; what he's actually done when he's had the power has been to grow and strengthen government at the expense of the people governed. And, naturally, Obama's certainly no better on either score, nor has Obama brought about the peace dividends so many of his supporters have expected of him -- exiting Iraq
but remaining mired in Afghanistan
, picking sides in Libya
, and inching towards involvement in Syria
And then there's Gary Johnson
, who confessedly remains to be noded more extensively than the existing blurb (though I noted his superior executive experience and achievements way back in February, with his hand victory in the 2012 Florida Libertarian Straw Poll
). Look, Gary Johnson is simply a likable, relatable, down-to-earth guy who simply happens to have more executive experience than Obama and Romney combined
, and to be the only one of the three to actually successfully govern conservatively. The two party system likes to sucker people into the notion that there are only two candidates who could possibly win, thereby preventing real change from being accomplished; and the people simply need to wake up and tell 'em, "enough!!"
I remarked in an earlier node
that it was impossible to give a "handjob
" to a woman, on the unstated presumption that a handjob was synonymous with the male masturbatory method
, which requires the fixing of a hand-grip
upon a certain object which is readily "grippable"
-- and so, which is characterized by having a certain length and thickness and heft. This contention met with considerable consternation
from those who felt that a female could indeed be the recipient of a "handjob."
I had no intention of diminishing or demeaning the vital importance, social significance, and theological sacredness
of the masturbation methods of women, whether self-applied or provided by a lover of any gender. I am not claiming that there's anything at all wrong with any man or woman using fingers, thumbs, or the whole damn hand, to manually stimulate a woman to orgasm. I'm just relating my understanding of the proper terminology
of sexual activity.
It seems to me that the natural terminological comparison to arise here is the oral
counterpart to the handjob, the blowjob
. Whoever performs oral sex on a woman is generally not described as giving a blowjob to a woman -- think how unnatural: "see that sexy vixen there? Boy did I give her one sloppy blowjob the other day." Hearing that would only lead one to assume the vixen in question had a penis
. So maybe, in the final analysis, we ought to frame the game as "giving hand," much like "giving head."
Question of the day:
Would Schrödinger's cat play with a ball of string theory?
In auditing news:
is done!! As for the rest:
-- on page 5 of (slightly smaller gasp!!) 27!!
-- on page 4 of 20
is in the queueueue
. I have some thoughts on who to audit down the road as well....