There are two bits of sex in the news that I think I had better address. The first is the man with the world’s largest penis. Jonah Falcon, the man with said penis, was stopped at the San Francisco International Airport by TSA agents for the bulge in his pants. Apparently, there was no foreign object in his pants; it was all him. According to Falcon, he not erect. What’s more, his flaccid penis is so large that he has to strap it to his left leg. Frankly, I feel sorry for the guy, but he seems to be very happy with all the attention he is receiving.
The folks at The Young Turks had a very funny discussion of it. I thought that Ana Kasparian made some excellent points, but probably just because she said more or less what I thought and more or less what I want to think women ought to think about all this. Here is the whole 8:00 segment, which is well worth watching:
I have a few questions:
At 13 inches, is the penis ever truly erect? Isn’t the torque on it so large that it droops down? Would this not be something of a turn off to a sexual partner who wants to feel that they are exciting Mr. Falcon?
I assume that the extra length goes along with a larger girth; does that mean that fellatio is out?
Is any woman’s vagina 13 inches deep? Doesn’t this mean that coitus could be dangerous—like jamming a pole into the vagina? And doesn’t this mean that there would be little bodily contact—especially clitoral contact?
I don’t mean to be excessively graphic or analytical, but these are the questions that come to my mind. I would think that the guy might well be able to attract a large number of lovers who would be into sex with him for the thrill of it—just like they might want to do a bungee jump once. But I would think this guy would have to possess other characteristics to make a lover stick around. With all due respect to everyone involved, Mr. Falcon would seem to be very similar to a hermaphrodite: a person who wants to be in long term relationship with one of them would either love them despite their physical characteristics or because the person had a fetish. I would prefer the former. At this point in my life, I would hope that anyone would love me despite my body, not because of it.
Is That a Gun in Your Pocket, Fred?
Fred Willard was arrested at a porn theater in Hollywood. Frankly, who cares? I have a hell of a lot more respect for that than I do for drunk drivers. But according to the Sacramento Bee, Larry Flynt has offered Willard a free online subscription for Hustler. He said, “We think Fred should join millions of others and enjoy porn in the privacy of his own home, and, what better way to do that than with a free subscription to our popular Website?”
I think that’s a fine offer. I hope Willard takes him up on that.
Fred Willard could be a serial killer and I would still always love him for Fernwood 2Night:
Ezra Klein sends me to a graph by Naomi Robbins, who is clearly a very smart woman (scientist, grapher). She has created this excellent graph that compares the Obama and Romney federal income tax plans. The main thing about this graph is that it does not distort how much Obama plans to raise taxes the way that most graphs do. If you are interested, check out Klein’s article.
Here is the graph:
<%image(20120719-taxcompare.png|446|485|Obama and Romney Tax Plan Comparison)%>
If you’re in the top 5%, by all means, vote for Romney—he’s got your back. But for anyone else, you would be crazy to vote for Romney. Sure, if you are middle class, Romney will cut your taxes whereas they’ll stay the same under Obama. But Romney will cut the hell out of your social security and medicare. In the latter case, he will likely cut it to the point where it will be useless and you will face retirement without medical care.
For the bottom 95%, there is basically no change in your federal income taxes. Those in the lower middle class will see a slight decrease in these taxes. If you are in the lower class, Romney is going to raise your taxes as he decimates safety net programs for the poor and middle class.
Let’s be clear about this. Romney believes that the rich are morally superior and deserve to have even more money than they already do. This is bad enough. But what always goes along with this is the belief that the poor are morally inferior and deserve to suffer as much as possible. The middle class are just neutral, but in the effort to harm the poor and favor the rich, the middle class are also hurt.
I’m all for voting against my own self-interest. It is fine to vote for higher ideals. But I fear that most people who vote for Republicans do it for the wrong reasons. They think they are voting for their own self-interest, but they are doing the opposite. The Republicans are for the status quo; they don’t want the poor to become rich. (Can you say “Too big to fail”?) If you are poor and you aspire to become rich, vote for any party other than the Republicans.
You’ve got to see this. I found this new blog Reading is for Snobs via Atrios. The video is queued up at exactly the right place, so there’s only about 15 seconds to watch:
I can’t find this video anymore, but I explain it in the text.
John Sununu claims that the rich are fleeing to Canada, that great bastion of the free market. When I had heard that conservatives said after the SCOTUS upheld the ACA that they were thinking of moving to Canada, I concluded that it was a joke.
I just tuned into the beginning of The Rachel Maddow Show. She was talking about tests of leadership and mentioned that John McCain passed his test of leadership in this 28 second video clip from the 2008 campaign:
I am so tired of McCain getting credit for this. He said this on 10 October 2008. By that time, he was 90% certain that he had lost the presidency. His countering this woman was his effort to save what little dignity he had left. Had the race been a dead heat, John McCain would have pandered as much as, say, Mitt Romney this last year.
John McCain gets far too much credit for reasonableness that he does not exhibit. People think he goes against his party, but the only time he did that was to get back at George W. Bush for his “black baby” whisper campaign. John McCain is a standard Republican senator. I can understand why conservative news outlets like him. What I can’t understand is why centrist news outlets treat him as anything other than another conservative. And I really can’t understand the honor showed him from liberal outlets.
John McCain. Orrin Hatch. Chuck Grassley. There all interchangeable.