Thursday, December 30, 2010

Unintended Consequences

I'm prone to ear worms.

Y'know... when a song gets stuck in your head, playing in a loop, until you think you'll go mad. I've mentioned this problem before.

Scientists think they could be caused by anything from brain tumors to schizophrenia to genius. (I'm going with genius. And if the other voices in my head don't pipe down about it, I'm gonna beat them into submission.)


I made a terrible error today. I posted that Minchin song.

When The Kid played it for me (not having seen my anti-feminist rants) it struck me as fate. That song HAD to go on the blog, right?

Yeah. Except now it's stuck in my head. For the last coupla hours, I keep breaking out randomly with, "Fuck, I love boobs, though!"

Some of you are laughing harder than others right now.

I gotta do something about this.


They're all jubbly; They make me feel lubbly


My oldest just pointed me to something that, in theory, may have helped me overcome my total opposition to feminism and its destructive tenets. Thanks, Kid.

From Aussie comedian humanitarian guru Tim Minchin comes the haunting melody "Confessions". I've now seen the light regarding feminism, poor people and the environment.

We're just fucking monkeys in shoes.

Hey, you dang groundhog!

Heh. THIS is my absolute favorite commercial:

"Hey, You dang woodchucks!"

OK. I freely admit to being an overgrown 7 year old. I swear I crack up every time I see that.

But you know what it reminds me of? Another famous rodent. One I'm not too keen on. One I still bear a grudge, nearly a year later.

Yes, Phil. I mean you, you fat bastard.

Now, I already posted about what I'd like to do to ol' Phil... complete with a link to the recipe. Imagine my surprise -- nay, my almost speechless shock -- when the one person who is supposed to know and love me best looked me right in the face yesterday and asked:

"Hey! I'm pretty sure I could get the time off, paid. Wanna go to Punxsutawney for Groundhog Day this year?"

No. No, I do not want to drive for hours so I can stand outside freezing my parts off in the pre-dawn chill to watch that overgrown rat pop up for eleventeen seconds. It's cold in PA in February! (Heh. I offered to drive to Punxsutawney, on the condition that I be warm in the hotel bed alseep during the "festivities".)

Except... I might like to see Phil. We have unfinished business from the blizzard, after all... Hmmmm.... Spit-roasted groundhog...

I'll keep you posted. If I go, it may end up newsworthy.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

And then there's THIS guy...

Keith Olbermann has his little segment where he features the "Worst Person", and in typical liberal hyperbolic fashion, it's usually someone who isn't doing actual harm -- Bristol Palin comes to mind. When I think "Worst Person", I think of the kind of people whose life mission seems to be spreading unhappiness and pain -- Keith Olbermann comes to mind. (Couldn't resist.)

And then there's THIS guy...

PA's own "Dirtbag of the Century" award is locked up.

Jody Lynn Bennett, 37, is accused of stealing. From a coffin, during funeral services.

Bradley David-McCombs Jr., who was 17, died in a car accident on Christmas Day. In his coffin during viewing were a couple of GameBoy consoles and a few tapes. Bennett stole all of it, and fled when confronted.


These poor people. Not only did they lose their son... they lost him on Christmas Day. That would be all the heartbreak any family needs.

And this asshole decided to give them just a little more.

I hope this guy gets caught. And after he's caught, I hope they throw the book at him -- or beat him to death with it. Short of that, it is my sincere wish that this no-good motherfucker gets absolutely brutalized in jail.

Jody Lynn Bennett. I hope his name becomes synonymous with shit. I hope by this time tomorrow, the entire world knows his name and face, and he can't find a rock to hide under.

Jody Lynn Bennett. May karma bring you exactly what's coming to you.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Feminists: Snake Oil Saleswomyn

Well, I've certainly learned a lot in the last few days.

When I picked a name for this blog, I was trying to reflect what it is I wanted to write about. What "Makes My Brain Itch". By that, I meant the things I see or read or experience that stick in my head and buzz around in there, occasionally distracting me, but always sticking with me and demanding to be considered from one angle or another.

Well, feminism makes my brain itch. More than that, over the past week there've been moments I'm tempted to lay my head down beside the keyboard and pour a bottle of Drano in one ear. (Don't get your hopes up, I'm speaking metaphorically. Sorta.)

I've known for most of my adult life that I disagree with the basic tenets of feminism. That's because, to my mind, it's not about uplifting women to equal status but about knocking down men. When I saw a blogger I generally enjoy being set upon by feminists for remarks about the Assange rape accusations, I jumped in -- not because I'm a member of any RSM hallelujah choir, but because the attacks seemed unfair. (I've yet to meet a person I would consider a supporter of rape. It seemed, and still does, a disgusting remark to make about someone.)

Next thing I know, one of the feminists I linked is tweeting about me. (And, by the way, in case you didn't know... I'm an assface blogger. Are tolerant liberals sweet? And this from a blogger who prides herself on living "cruelty free"!) I wouldn't mind the tweet... if it wasn't bullshit. According to The Opinioness of the World:

Except I didn't write that. Nor did I imply such a thing. Go read what I wrote.

Getting an idea how they work yet? I am. Now.

An exchange with another feminist ended abruptly when I told her I don't believe in rape culture.

I don't believe in rape culture. Hadn't, in fact, heard of such a thing until I started following the tweets on #mooreandme #rapeinmedia and #rapeculture. But, in fairness, I went looking to learn more about it. (I was helped by this post at American Power, where Donald Douglas was apparently in a similar position. Interesting links... including this primer on Rape Culture 101.)

Turns out, the problem is me.

I once wrote about David Brooks, and his thoughts on the educated class versus the ignorant, uneducated yahoos like myself. Well, it turns out that the reason I can't grasp feminism - or rape culture - or patriarchal society - is also that I'm ignorant. That's right. Per Melissa McEwan:

"And just like how people who speak Arabic are better translators of Arabic than people who don't, people who have immersed themselves in the critical theories of gender are better translators of what is and is not sexism."

See that? I don't understand sexism because I didn't waste tens of thousands of my parents' dollars sitting through "Womyns' Studies" programs. Because I have not sufficiently immersed myself, I'm a piss-poor translator. Or something.

What horseshit.

I've been a living, breathing human being for several decades now. In that time, I've been an avid observer of my fellow humans. I'm pretty sure if I were actually living in a culture of oppression, I'd have noticed -- with or without a college degree.

And I'll tell ya something else: I don't need a college degree to know that twisting someone's words to portray them as saying something they didn't makes you a damn liar. (That's right, Opinioness. I'm talking to you.) I see now that it doesn't matter what Stacy McCain originally said. Why? Because it doesn't matter what I said. They misrepresent in an attempt to create a villain, because you can't have a victim without one.

These women have invested time and money into being taught to think like victims. But when you believe that the world is against you, when you buy into some cultural conspiracy to hold you back, you are creating a problem where there doesn't need to be one.

Assange himself, in a recent interview, said "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism." I gotta say, from my reading the last few days, everything about feminism is starting to look like a hornets' nest. And I'm learning that if you bump that nest, they'll try to sting you. (Ask Moe Tkacik.)

I'm going to wrap this up by reiterating a previous statement:

There is nothing wrong with women making wise choices. I'm not trying to bring women down by saying that they should be smart enough to asses their situation, that's a compliment. I clearly have more faith in individual women than your average feminist. You will never succeed in making the world a harmless place, so there is no shame in being aware of and cautious about real dangers. I tweeted (to zero replies):

"Does being a feminist mean you have to check your brain at the door?! Just because you SHOULDN'T be raped doesn't mean you WON'T be! Think!"

I stand by that. The feminists can chirp all they want about a rape culture, but it's the culture of willful blindness that's more dangerous to women. They know that. It's why they're reduced to lies and misrepresentations. Feminists are snake oil saleswomyn, and what they're selling is victimhood.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Feminists are more dangerous than Assange and McCain combined

So, yesterday I put up a piece about fact that Julian Assange stands accused of rape (based on the loosest possible interpretation of the word), and yet RSM of The Other McCain is the one on trial. In my opinion, it's actually more of a witch hunt, but be that as it may...

I was so pissed by the feminazi responses to his posts (and the comments on their blogs) that I didn't really address the original statements that stirred up the trouble. McCain has "walked it back" a bit since his first remarks... but should he have?

I don't think so, anyway.

He's simply saying that:

"If you tumble into a random hook-up with no prior knowledge of the guy’s reputation and he turns out to be a selfish brute whose standard modus operandi is repulsive, dangerous or painful, in what sense are you a victim of anything except your own stupidity?"

Some activities carry inherent risk. Among them, getting into a private (even if not sexual), secluded situation with a near stranger. Sure, you have the right... But it is wise? Is it safe?

You have the right to live in a trailer in Texas. Odds are, you won't get sucked into a tornado. But, c'mon... you've seen The Weather Channel just like the rest of us -- unless your cable was out due to your "house" being stuck in a tree, that is. Your right to do something doesn't take away the risks, which you should plan for accordingly.

You have the right to scuba dive with -- and hand-feed -- sharks. But again, c'mon... you've seen Jaws. You probably won't be devoured even as you drown. But since Peta has been as yet unsuccessful in their effort to make sharks vegan, the possibility exists and should be accounted for.

So sure... You have the right to tumble into the sheets with someone you picked up on brief acquaintance. You probably haven't just locked yourself into an apartment with Ted Bundy's apprentice. Or a serial rapist. Or a raging case of herpes. But the risk is there. Period. And, as above, it should be accounted for in your plans.

If you don't know someone, you don't know what they're capable of. And if you put your safety and health in the hands of someone you don't know, you can't predict the outcome.

The feminists do not want to accept this as fact. They would cry out that women have the right to behave as men -- to sleep with whomever they please, in whatever situation they please. Their disgust with McCain is based on his assertions that such behaviors expose women to risk and possible abuse/exploitation. (Which is completely correct.) The problem with the feminist mindset on this is that it does not take into account basic biological facts.

Men are, in general, larger and stronger than women.

Instead of reminding women of this -- and teaching them to take their risks with this basic thought in mind -- they want to emasculate men so that women are safe to act without thinking and, therefore, without consequence. Women are now equal to men in all ways but biological, but instead of accepting what evolution has produced and encouraging women to plan accordingly, the feminists want to push that inconvenient issue aside and put everyone on a level field. Since they demand women should be able to act without consideration -- and they can't negate the risks by making women bigger and stronger -- they try another tactic:

The pussification of the American male. Feminism has brought about a generation of waxed, moisturized metrosexual men who aren't afraid to cry -- but who would be worthless to protect you from a mugger. (Funny, though... when it comes to "hookups" these soft, smooth, fashionable men are often thrown over in favor of "bad boys", further proving that at a base biological level, most women still desire actual men.)

So, if feminists can't acknowledge the possible risks in stranger hookups, where do they see danger? The following quote is from Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti, and is lifted from McCain's post:

“While right-wing groups certainly don’t come out in support of rape, they do promote an extremist ideology that enables rape and promotes a culture where sexual assault is tacitly accepted. The supposedly ‘pro-family’ marital structure, in which sex is exchanged for support and the woman’s identity is absorbed into her husband’s, reinforces the idea of women as property and as simple accoutrements to a man’s more fully realized existence.”

Never mind the idea that pro-family equals pro-rape. McCain addressed that. These advocates of "female sexual power" are under the impression that married women use sexual favors as a means to support themselves. Or rather, not themselves, because their selves are absorbed into the self of the husband.

Is there a single married woman in America that doesn't find this idea offensive? In a good marriage, sex isn't exchanged for anything. It's shared. Either these feminists are not married, or they don't know what happens in a good marriage. In their world, a loving husband is far more dangerous and sinister than some stranger picked up in a bar.

While the feminists rant about McCain and his (accurate) statements, they're actually guilty of doing more harm to women than all the McCains, Assanges and even Bundys of the world. By teaching women -- especially younger generations -- that the right to do something automatically makes it safe, they are creating a culture of carelessness... and all the danger that entails.

They want to equate McCain's remarks with the old "she was wearing a miniskirt so she was asking for it" nonsense. That's not what he said. I read his remarks more like this:

If you walk around the zoo wearing a blindfold and accidentally stumble into the lion's cage, perhaps you'd have been safer with your eyes uncovered and your brain turned on. Since you can't make the lion not prefer the taste of flesh, it's in your best interest to see where the cage is and walk around it.

Makes more sense than trying to make a sissy out of the lion so you can walk where you damn please.

UPDATE 12/24: Welcome, readers of The Other McCain! A link from the man himself. Thanks!

While I'm not ungrateful, I'm a little puzzled that he chose to highlight this bit:

Makes My Brain Itch laments the “pussification” of American men. Actually, there’s something more complex at work.

It's the same line Tweeted by one of the feminists I wrote about above:

The Opinioness
…(@scratchermmbi) laments the "pussification" of men, thinks women & their risky behavior bring rape on themselves. #Mooreandme #rapeinmedia

I mentioned that as a side effect... and frankly, I thought it was the least of the points I was trying to make. I guess if that's what you took away from it, fine. I just didn't expect that line to be my thesis statement.

-And a belated thanks to Charles G. Hill at Dustbury, for the link. Welcome!

UPDATE 1/02/11: I see the feminists are popping in from the #mooreandme tag...

Well, since you're here -- and probably aren't going to like what you read anyway -- you may as well check out the rest of my posts on feminism here, here, and especially here. Cheers!

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Assange accused of rape, but it's The Other McCain on trial

I may be the only person on the innerwebs who hasn't chimed in on Julian Assange and Wikileaks. I wasn't going to touch it, for reasons of my own. I've followed the coverage of the leaks, the accusations of sexual misconduct and the general blogging on the topic with my mouth shut, so to speak.

But the mini blog war over it, now... That's bringing up some opinions that, frankly, piss me off.

Today at The Other McCain, RSM has a piece in which he responds to an unnamed Republican communication strategist who has sent him some rather pointed (pointless?) questions. The guy is getting hammered on this topic by a number of bloggers and pundits.

Now, let me state right here that I don't agree with everything Stacy McCain writes. He's a social conservative, whereas my own leanings are libertarian. I'm not amused by his stance on the repeal of DADT : "So we now approach the day when uniformed service personnel — including ranking officers — will march in the Gay Pride Parade next to Dykes on Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." I disagree with his theory as to why Kim Kardashian is unmarried: "Perhaps someone should share with Kim Kardashian that old-fashioned advice about “free milk and a cow.” (I'm inclined to think it's more that most men don't picture marrying some woman who got nailed on video tape - and all his friends have seen it...) Just two examples.

But I gotta say, on this Assange rape situation, I think he's right on the mark.

It’s a he-said/she-said situation, and how did Assange’s victims get themselves into that predicament? By hooking up with an asshole.

Actually, I think McCain's statements are almost mild. I'm going to go further, feminists and apologists be damned.

I think these women are probably full of shit.

Allow me to put on my fireproof suit and elaborate...

I went back and reread the Guardian piece about the police report and the actual accusations. I have several points that I find troublesome... but you want to know the number one problem I have with it?

Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

That's GOT to be the first time I've heard of a report of rape which included a value judgement on the quality of the sex.

Not only did he rape me, Your Honor, he sucked at it!

Rape is not sex. Rape is an act of dominance and violence. I find it impossible to believe that any woman who has been physically victimized in such a manner would equate it with sex, and then compare it to her other sexual experiences. It's certainly not SOP to ask rape victims whether they came, or whether their attacker was well hung. That little ditty bothers me more than the other tidbits...

Like this:

Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

She didn't want to go along, but she'd already gone along so she went a little further. But now it's a problem. Got that?

Here's another:

She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no.

Bovine excrement. A condom is noticeable. Period.

OK, last one:

Assange's Swedish lawyers have since suggested that Miss W's text messages – which the Guardian has not seen – show that she was thinking of contacting Expressen and that one of her friends told her she should get money for her story. However, police statements by the friend offer a more innocent explanation: they say these text messages were exchanged several days after the women had made their complaint. They followed an inquiry from a foreign newspaper and were meant jokingly, the friend stated to police.

So the "victim" was joking about the possibility of turning a profit from being raped? Hmmmph.

If these portrayals by The Guardian are accurate, these women have zero credibility.

Stacy McCain doesn't need me to defend him. (Pity him if he does, as I'm not always reliable.) But the attacks against him are a little alarming. He's been called a misogynist and someone who supports rape - pretty heavy accusations for a guy who even keeps his "cheesecake" posts PG-13. It strikes me as unnecessary and unfair. He says his main point is this:

Promiscuity makes women vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and disease. This is not my opinion, but a statement of fact.

There is nothing offensive about that statement. It's plain truth. These attacks on McCain for making them are not only not helpful, they're harmful. While nobody sane blames the victim in a rape, political correctness must not demand that we can't admit there are risk factors and teach women to avoid them.

As for me, I'm also not implying that Assange's accusers asked for or deserved it.

I'm flat out stating that there's something fishy about the whole damn thing, and the reported behavior of these women calls their objectives and actions into question.


Them's my thinks on it.

Fireproof suit off and back on the hanger. Let 'er rip.

Updated 12/23: I'm not done. Read on.

Friday, December 17, 2010

It Wasn't Me

Heh. I just saw a news story about a guy who threatened to eat President Obama.

Considering the guy's from Pennsylvania, and I have made repeated threats to commit acts of cannibalism, I thought I should clarify.

It wasn't me.

See, I threatened to eat the militant vegans if they interfere with my carnivorous appetites. Barack Obama is not a vegan. (I've seen enough pictures of him chowing down to know.) So, while I'm mildly amused that someone would threaten to "cut [Obama's] meat from his bones and put them in the oven," then "sit down at the table and start eating," I repeat:

It wasn't me.

Though if he lets his tubby wife get carried away with her healthy eating kick and come after my bacon double-cheeseburger... well... they're both fair game, then.

Hippy Smokes

From the department of What The Fuck...?!

I smoke. You knew that.

I smoke Camels. Regular ol' full-strength, unleaded Camel Filters.

Camels have been on sale. Which is a good thing, because at the rate they tax the damn things, my habit is now more expensive than addiction to crack.

So a sale is a great thing. Buck off a pack, and they have designs on them. Mine feature Sturgis. Pretty fuckin' tough, right?

...sigh... except they were out of regulars. So, with the economy what it is, I opted for a pack of Camel Lights at $1 off. (If I want it stronger, I'm not at all above cutting off half the filter.) Still, works out just fine, right? Right?

Presenting exhibit A:

There's a peace sign on my smokes.

I'm trying to figure out what the hell they're smoking over at RJReynolds. Whatever it is, they don't sell it - if ya get my drift. Why would a cigarette company want to honor a town that would outlaw the Happy Meal? How do you think they feel about smokes?!


Reminds me of the truck.

Did I mention the truck? No?

One of my spawn drives a pickup. It's one bad little truck. Looks cool, sounds mean as hell, four wheel drive. I love the truck. I love to drive the truck.

Or, I did...

Last time I had the truck, I jumped in without looking closely. I wanted to get smokes (crazy coincidence, huh?) and was in a hurry. As I left the same gas station where I just bought my hippy smokes, I noticed something new about the truck.

She's plastered neon flowers and peace signs on the small windows behind the seats. (They go really well with the camo Army seat covers and steering wheel cover. /sarc. Teenagers are contrary.)

Anyway, I don't drive the truck anymore.

And next time, I'm paying the extra buck for normal cigarettes. Hippies and the economy be damned.

Jason Altmire - A Hooligan?

Yesterday, T at Republican Redefined put up a pretty interesting link... It shows which politicians have requested what earmarks, and labels them "Heroes" or "Hooligans", based on their level of addiction.

So of course, I had to check out Jason Altmire. He's listed as a "hooligan".

I admit to being torn here. I didn't vote for the guy... BUT I could have. When Mary Beth Buchanan threw her hat into the primary ring, I admitted freely that if she won the nomination, I'd vote for Altmire. I ended up backing (and voting for) Keith Rothfus, because I wanted the most conservative candidate possible this cycle.

But the simple truth is -- Altmire's not that bad. He's reasonably centrist, has a good record on veteran's issues, pro-gun, anti-abortion. Someone I know referred to his voting record as "schizoid... this guy's all over the place." I guess that's accurate. But that's also how I vote, so I don't hold that against him either. He wasn't my preference, but I consider him tolerable.

And I'll tell you what I think: THAT'S why he won. Financial differences aside, his opponent made the tactical mistake of trying at every turn to paint him as a liberal. Despite my remarks to Rothfus that they were very similar (moreso than he'd like to admit - and the voters knew it), he attempted to portray Altmire as Pelosi's lap dog. And lost.

Mr. Rothfus... on the off chance you're reading this... I hope you do decide to run again. And I hope you're wise enough to acknowledge the similarities between the two of you while highlighting the differences. It's just smarter strategy.

Anyway, back to the earmarks.

I don't like earmarks, but not for the generally given reason about federal spending. Sometimes, federal spending is necessary and appropriate. My problem with earmarks is the way they're tucked into everything else. If the federal funds are appropriate and necessary, they should be able to pass as a stand-alone bill, no?

Still, I'm undecided on some of Altmire's requests. Examples? Advanced Lightweight Gunner Protection Kit for Lightweight MRAP Vehicle. Collagen-Based Wound Dressing. Transportable Renal Replacement Therapy for Battlefield Applications. These seem like positive things. And if it brings the work to this area? Well, someone has to do it, and this region is in a bad way.

Even this one: National Network of Digital Schools Management Foundation... While I ordinarily think federal intervention in education has been nothing but a negative, I can't get too worked up about this funding. We struggled and busted our butts to get out of a toilet of a town/school district. If I were still there, I'd be very happy to have the cyber schools option.

So, I admit it. I'm undecided on Altmire's requests. I'm open to thoughts, if anyone still reads this blog. Gimme some input.

I'm just not convinced Altmire is necessarily deserving of the title "hooligan".

Hell, half the time I'm not convinced he's deserving of the title "Democrat".

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

From the mouths of babes

OK. I know I've mentioned I have kids... a whole passel of them. Have I also mentioned (do I need to?) that they're a pack of feisty, opinionated creatures?

Have I mentioned that they're trash mouths? No? Well... for good or bad, they speak much the way I do. Which means they can make a sailor blush. I take a very practical stance on their profanity: They curse to each other, but not at each other. Maybe some folks don't get the distinction. My own mother refers to us (myself, my spouse, my offspring) as the Osbourne Family.

Regardless, my kids are permitted to yell "Shit!" if they stub a toe, but are not allowed to direct their naughty words at their fellow human beings. (I think the harm is in the intent, not the word.) It's a rule that works for us.

So imagine my amused alarm when I had to correct the six year old for this. She was watching television, and Michelle Obama's anti-obesity/get moving PSA came on. (I can't find the one I mean online, or I'd share.) Anyway, this PSA infuriates her. It's almost funny, as the supposed-grown-up, to watch her completely blow her cool every time the thing comes on. But this story is about the first time she saw it.....

I hear, from the living room "Why don't you try it yourself, lady?!" Then some random grumbles. Then "FAT ASS!"

At this point, I get involved. "Honey, you're not allowed to call people ugly names. Who are you yelling at?"

And the response: "The President's wife! Why is she on TV anyway? And she's saying we shouldn't eat some foods and talking about fat. She's fat! Ugly old fat ass!"

My reply: "Whoa! Young lady! You are NOT allowed to talk like that!"

And her priceless reply: "But have you seen the size of her butt? Why is she on TV telling me what I should eat?! I'm not fat! She's fat!"

I couldn't come up with a single coherent argument. My daughter is right. While she happens to be thin and trim, there's this woman with... uh... extra rumpage telling her to eat better and move more. And interrupting the cartoons to do so.

I was reduced to granting her that yes, she may be correct... but no, she still isn't allowed to call people fat ass.

She now refers to the First Lady as "Mrs. Big Butt". I keep quiet.

That's my girl. She may not be big enough to speak her mind with impunity... but she knows a hypocrite when she sees one! I have hope for the future...

Updated 12/17 9:07pm:

I just shamelessly lifted this from JammieWearingFool (where Just A Grunt freely admits to shamelessly lifting it from a liberal site).

OK... let me admit right up front... I'm sick. Heh.

My six-year-old was nearby, and I called her over to have a look at the picture on JammieWearingFool. I asked, "Honey, do you know who that is?"

She replies with a sweet grin, "Mm-hmm. Michelle Obama."

And before I could utter another syllable, she points to the screen and says:

"Fat ass! See! Look at that big butt! What?! It's not my fault she's fat! She's got a big ass head, too! Look at head! Big butt, big head! She looks like a potato!"

I had to send her away from the computer so I wouldn't laugh my ass off in front of her.

A potato? Hoo boy.