<![CDATA[Comments from J.D.Regent]]> <![CDATA[Comments from J.D.Regent]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Saucy Brits Love A Little Bondage In The Bedroom]]> I would seriously be thrilled if I never, ever have to hear about the sex life of another public person not otherwise famous for sex. It is kind of ruining my own sex life. I mean, is nothing sacred? Are we all just a lawsuit away from infamy in the NY Post? It's gonna turn me into a prude, damn.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on <i>Intervention</i>: Dying To Live Up To The Image Of A Twin]]> I wonder about the physiological effects of sharing a womb, you know? Sharing nutrients like that from the start seems like it could be connected to issues related to food, and flourishing, and survival, and independence. FWIW not a twin nor have had ED so I'm sorry if this is ignorant or out of line in some way.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on France Decides That Liberté Means Keeping Your Religion Elsewhere]]> @Pope John Peeps II: wait wait wait. "A secular state should have certain basic guarantees of rights, and should those rights not be adhered to by the person in question, he/she should be denied entry." How is Faiza not adhering to French rights? What does that even mean when the right becomes a reason to exclude? She is not accused of opposing French laws or interfering with others' free exercise of their rights in a secular society. I think you mean to say what the court said, that Faiza is not conforming to the French ideal of what freedom should look like. I don't think it takes a knee jerk woman-defender to see a little irony in their denial of her application on the basis of the French love of human equality.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on France Decides That Liberté Means Keeping Your Religion Elsewhere]]> @LaFemme: what is the basis for the rejection of their applications?

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on France Decides That Liberté Means Keeping Your Religion Elsewhere]]> @dianersb: it's true that it's nearly impossible to become a citizen in Germany but at least that principle is equally applied to everyone, as far as I know, whereas this woman clearly qualifies for French citizenship and the state is using its discretion to deport her away from her family anyway. I definitely agree there is crazy islamophobia all over Europe, though.

Does someone who knows more about citizenship in France know how frequently ideology is used as a reason to reject an application? Do left wing "extremists" or far right anti-semites have the same problem?

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Loose Lips]]> dude, did anyone see the interview where they were like what will you do differently in your next relationship and he was like, I'd go brunette instead of blond??? because his new girlfriend is like a brunette clone of Christy? nast.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on James Bond Really Ought To Be A Brown, Pashto-Speaking Woman]]> @jesyke: which probably tells you something about the fucked up training priorities. i guarantee you it would take less time to train someone to withstand torture than to blend in in the fucking mountains of Afghanistan.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on James Bond Really Ought To Be A Brown, Pashto-Speaking Woman]]> @jesyke: I don't understand this. Why would a white man from an American military background be cheaper or easier to train to go undercover in say a Pakistani community than, you know, an Urdu-speaking woman born in Pakistan.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on James Bond Really Ought To Be A Brown, Pashto-Speaking Woman]]> @LaFemme: oh i made up that number. it might be higher. i understand that the security clearance process takes a long time, but i disagree that it is the main problem in recruiting people with appropriate linguistic and cultural knowledge to join the GWOT(tm).

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @PilgrimSoul: yeah that is fair enough. i just happen to have a very high threshold for poor taste.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on James Bond Really Ought To Be A Brown, Pashto-Speaking Woman]]> @saycheeseanddie: Valerie Plame?

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @uhoh-ohno: I also agree that the way the cartoon is drawn is not racist. Well, maybe Michelle's lips because she doesn't really have large lips and her huge chin is a little weird too, but not out of the realm of what happens in any characature.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on James Bond Really Ought To Be A Brown, Pashto-Speaking Woman]]> Riiiight... I mean haven't we been hearing stories about how there are only like 16 Arabic speaking FBI agents since 9/11? I think there are like 22 now. There's a little problem with recruiting people to work for the government from the same communities the government treats like they are going to go criminal any moment.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @Political Party Girl: THANKS. It's like, there is NO EVIDENCE that Obama is Muslim, supports terrorists, trucks with black separatists, etc. He has a fact checker website. If someone wants to find out the truth about Obama's background, it is easy to do. The people who still believe he is any of these things will not be convinced, or unconvinced, by a New Yorker cover. They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in backing up their own irrational fear of Barack's blackness by resort to ridiculous stories. I doubt this cover will have much effect on anyone either way.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @PilgrimSoul: yeah i can see that.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @PilgrimSoul: hmmmm. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I am with Gundam_Halo in that I think the satire is very broad and obvious except to those who already think and are unlikely to be unconvinced of a nefarious Muslim/Black Liberation theology/Black Panthers/Weather Underground/Wahabist conspiracy to make Barack Hussein Obama the next Manchurian candidate.

I realize we are all a little burned from the Swift Boat thing with Kerry, but like I said I think we totally failed at responding to that shit with our impassioned patriotic flag waving etc, and maybe a little satire is just what the doctor ordered to take the wind out of these particular sails.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @PilgrimSoul: right because you think it is a bad cartoon, or not a good satire, or something. if i thought that i wouldn't be defending it, my side or no. i guess i need to understand better what people are actually criticizing about it -- i get the one about idiots not getting it, but i'm interested to hear why people think this is bad satire, or somehow itself racist, when in fact it is insulting the racism itself.

@American Dreamer: it's over the top because the lies about Obama is over the top. To me the picture shows the ridiculousness of the rumours because how could all of these things be true at once? Black power, AND Muslim, AND hates the flag (pin),AND terrorist fist jab... it's as ridiculous as the stories are.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Christian Bale Trades <i>Batman</i> For Brooklyn Tough Guy]]> omg i sent my one and only fan letter to christian bale when i was like nine after newsies... BIG sigh.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @funnyface: it's less that i feel we need to like educate the idiots and more that I think we need to claim our power to establish the frame of the discourse. I just feel like we are always cowering in fear of some stupid person's interpretation of a bill (THEY'LL THINK YOU LOVE TERRORISTS IF YOU VOTE AGAINST THE NEW FISA BILL) or a cartoon, or whatever. I just think everyone needs to chill. Our alarm at our own side's actions is as hysterical and counterproductive as Republican grandstanding, and I think it strengthens swift boat style bullshit when we take it so seriously and let it define and change what we do. I think we dig our own grave with this shit sometimes.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @Porpoise Spit has no comment: what did they say about it? (fox)

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @PilgrimSoul: i mean i agree generally that the new yorker espouses a very narrow and elitist view of the world, but i'm not sure how this comic is representative of hipster racism (a phenomenon I totally acknowledge). It seems to me it is poking fun at white terror at black political movements. to me the cover satirizes not the obamas, but white racist fear. no?

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @PilgrimSoul: well they already did it to milosevic and to charles taylor, it's not the first time.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> I don't know I just feel so sick of all of us/Obama (because isn't he just the blank screen we all project onto?) constantly positioning ourselves/him so as not to upset the stupidest, most ignorant, most racist segment of society. No one ever triangulates for the intelligent, cosmopolitan, anti racist leftist contingent (I might be wrong about this). Do we really all have to abandon even SATIRE for fear of what people will do with it? I feel weary. The story inside probably does suck though.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @NefariousNewt: actually what will probably come of it is even more bloodshed inside Sudan, specifically Bashir targeting the peacekeepers patrolling south Sudan and the AU soldiers monitoring Darfur. I feel really torn, I don't know, but I am gladder about it than most human rightsy people I know.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> ps I can't believe we're not talking about the head prosecutor of the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for the sittting president of Sudan! For genocide!!!!

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on The <i>New Yorker</i> On Obama: When Satire Isn't Satirical]]> @the_decider: yeah and you see her front but his back. I wouldn't say that its non-satirical satire. It's totally satire. I would guess that 80% of the American public wouldn't really understand satire even if it didn't play on the irrational fears that have been stoked for them by years of GOP ops, but I get so tired of having to spin everything for the stupidest among us. Do those people really read the New Yorker anyway?

Isn't there a chance that it will defuse some of the taboos? Take this shit out of internet gossip and whispers and address it head on?

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Advice From Your Inner Grandma: You Can't Change A Man]]> @J.D.Regent: oh just kidding. i was totally dumped once, horribly and devastatingly. Twice. How could I have blocked that out? Man my denial function is um...healthy.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Advice From Your Inner Grandma: You Can't Change A Man]]> @kikichanelconspiracy: I have NEVER BEEN DUMPED. Blasphemy! But you're right that pity relationships always end (frankly also usually begin, and middle..) horribly regardless of who does the final dumping.

@Penny_Esq: AW he sounds like JUST my type. Throw in some sort of religious fever and he is all of my exes. You can't blame yourself for being with someone who makes you feel human while you're at law school.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Advice From Your Inner Grandma: You Can't Change A Man]]> @Oriana: i also know SO MANY awesome straight guys who are single in large part because of shyness. The lack of dominant women who aren't bored by the prospect of having to be the aggressor at first seems to be more epidemic than I thought...

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Advice From Your Inner Grandma: You Can't Change A Man]]> @PilgrimSoul: Sadly, there is no place for charity in romance.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Advice From Your Inner Grandma: You Can't Change A Man]]> My problem was always the pity date. I'd get defensive of people who were obviously defective in some major way and be like why doesn't he deserve love too? My heart is big enough, I will take one for the team. Hello MARTYR COMPLEX! Catholic church, I blame you.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Loose Lips]]> @SouthernSatine: girl i would love to pick your brain. that is my bro's diagnosis but it came late to him bc he is 33 so back in the day they just called it adhd. he has a wicked interesting mind. if i could blame it on my parents' cognitive patterns in some way it would definitely please me and my other siblings.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Loose Lips]]> @langtry: that's why i am like, how can you definitively say that it is not connected to whatever chemical exposure? Because symptoms called autism could have actually very diverse sources -- some caused by viruses, some by exposure, who knows...kind of like cancer i guess.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Loose Lips]]> @funnyface: same... and my father in law, sister in law, and sister...but i have to say i think my sibling's autism is caused by environmental factors. i think my mom was exposed to something while she was pregnant with him not only because of all his neurological and other genetic issues but also bc of weird cancer issues she has had since then. i realize its conjecture but hell, science hasn't exactly provided too many answers for my family on the mysterious illnesses that plague our bloodline.

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Loose Lips]]> @SouthernSatine: beyond the vaccine thing, is there any link between toxic chemical exposure and autism? benzene or something?

]]> <![CDATA[J.D.Regent commented on Loose Lips]]> isn't part of the problem that Autism is really a kind of umbrella term for a set of symptoms that really varies quite widely person to person? It seems like some people had kids who suffered toxic exposures of some sort and "became" autistic, and others for whom the symptoms were observable from day one, and they all get the same diagnosis.

FWIW, from what I understand Jenny McCarthy advocates for "green" vaccines, not no vaccines.

]]>