Yes, I’m serious.

If you haven’t heard already, Stanley “Tookie” Williams, co-founder of the Crips and a convicted multiple murderer, will be executed in the next couple of weeks unless the governor intervenes. The usual suspects are coming out in support of Tookie: Hollywood, the ACLU, socialists, Snoop Dogg. The Berkeley City Council is mulling over another one of their famed policy resolutions. The kids are being mobilized.

With a such a carnival of fools supporting this proprietor of urban terror, you might wonder why I support sparing him too.

I’m not really against the death penalty for any moral or religious reasons. Even if we could guarantee that 100% of those put to death were guilty of their crimes, I would still be against it. It wouldn’t be wrong for them to be executed, but I just think that between life or death, the latter is the lesser of punishments.

Think about it: life in prison. A couple years of that and I’d rather die too. It would be even better if every life prisoner served out the remainder of their worthless lives in a Supermax style prison. I’m not exactly sure about how those prisons operate, but here’s how I would have it: No TV, no books, no human contact, no sunlight, no hope. Just you, your bed, and hours, days, years to think about what you’ve done. Call it cruel and unusual, I call it punishment.

It’s not like I enjoy having our fellow citizens locked up. On the contrary: we have too many people in prison as it is. Millions of people in jail is just shameful. We could easily cut that number in half by ending the War on Drugs and immediately releasing nonviolent drug offenders. Shrink it even more by legalizing victimless “crimes.” Let law enforcement focus on real threats to society: mega-gang founders, killers, rapists, burglars, etc.

Once we’ve cleared out half of the prisons, we could use the extra money to create new “Hell on Earth” ones. Those currently serving life terms in a regular prison or are on Death Row will be transferred. The criminal elements will take notice. Violent crime will nosedive.

Let me sum up:

1. Save Tookie
2. End the War on Drugs, etc.
3. Abolish the death penalty
4. Build awesome new prisons to transfer life prisoners and Death Row inmates to
5. Throw Tookie’s ass in solitary, never to be heard from again
6. (optional) Fry Mumia. Sorry, but he and his supporters are just too annoying.

Anyone who implements this plan, let’s call it the “Tookie Williams Plan,” will truly deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. It starts with step 1, governor.

I rarely have time to write a full post these days, but I still read my Bloglines feeds and do a little browsing here and there. I always find stories that don’t merit a full post, or aren’t related to the main themes of this blog, but are interesting nevertheless. So each day I’ll be posting some links to funny/insightful/stupid things that I’ve recently read. Here’s a couple to get us started. Once I find an easier way to blog my surfing, I’ll have much longer lists.

Newsweek, Free Speech Under Siege by George Will (so true…):

So Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a 48-year-old Texan, tried riding to the rescue. Hensarling is a Republican, which means next to nothing nowadays, but also a libertarian, which means he believes, as Republicans once did, in limited government.

MTV.com, 50 Cent news (G-Unit!):

50 thinks the president is “incredible … a gangsta.” “I wanna meet George Bush, just shake his hand and tell him how much of me I see in him,” 50 told GQ. If the rapper’s felony conviction didn’t prevent him from voting, 50 said he would have voted for Bush.

Berkeley LiveJournal, thread about this homeless-mocking t-shirt (my friend also wants that shirt):

watchmespin: you do understand that many of the homeless in berkeley are products of the reagan era and are not stupid kids too proud to go back home to mommy and daddy, right?

oomfufu1202: Yet another cheap shot at Reagan. I’ll be sure the Cal Patriot hears of this…

Let me get back into the groove with a little Becky O’Malley from the Berkeley Daily Planet:

Another sobering thought is that the sensible majority might get the country back in 2006 or 2008, but it would be so broke by that time that it couldn‘t be fixed. This administration has been very diligent about transferring the taxes paid by middle class Americans into the pockets of the super-rich. The worst case would be that a dream ticket (think Clinton-Obama) would be elected only to preside over the last rites of a bankrupt nation.

The Bill Clinton administration managed to reverse the deficit inherited from previous Republican tomfoolery, but can it be done a second time? The country might have reached the economic nadir first achieved by American cities in the late seventies and early eighties. When mayor’s offices in cities like Detroit were finally turned over to women and African-Americans, it was a sign that the moneyed elite had finished plundering them, and they never really came back after that.

Here is yet another example of why I find the Democrat alliance with women and minorities so puzzling. Could Becky be more condescending? She’s basically saying that women and blacks only became leaders because the “moneyed elite” (read: rich white men) finally allowed them to after they were done “plundering.” Apparently the electoral fortunes of minorities don’t depend on their own merits.

Becky sez: All you colored boys and girls need to wait until the grownups are done.

This blog has been up and running for a year now. I’m probably not going to update during Thanksgiving break, so read on and relive some memories, or get acquainted with our blog if you’re new.

Over 500 posts and 1500 comments later…

Some highlights from the past year:

• November 2004: I’m so excited about blogging that I actually make some custom charts to accompany my post about male vs. female college enrollment over the years. Needless to say, there hasn’t been another chart since. In another case of unrealistic expectations, I try and get readers to contact City Hall to complain about something. Even I didn’t bother to write.
• December 2004: One of my (then) co-bloggers takes some heat for his choice in words. In our first major controversy (besides this hilarious bridge thing), I find myself going on the first of my rants in defense of free speech.
• January 2005: A boring month overall. I do take some photos of a boring inauguration protest. Like with the charts, taking original pictures took up too much effort on my part. So how about sending me some photos to post?
• February 2005: Some guy thought we had a racist cover on that month’s issue. He blogs about what racists we are and how he’s going to complain to the administration. I repost his complaints and a good time is had by all.
• March 2005: Chancellor Birgeneau publically declares his views on Proposition 209 and affirmative action. I declare that he has started a “War on 209.” One of my co-bloggers posts an excellent recap of a Ward Churchill event on campus. Instapundit links to us for the first and, so far, only time.
• April 2005: We start webcasting ASUC senate meetings. Like with most of our experiments, we soon give up.
• May 2005: I give my opinion on the military recruiting controversy. I post a long rant about Warren Beatty’s commencement speech. I must enjoy typing or something. Summer begins, and posting becomes infrequent…
• June 2005: No it doesn’t, and I blog more than I ever had before. I conclude my roundup of left-wing commencement speeches. The anti-medical marijuana Supreme Court decision angers me so much that I write another long rant at 5 in the morning. I rant on even more about Supreme Court stuff. I join the Bear Flag League. I call the Daily Cal hypocrites for supporting PBS. Some hilarious observations about Berkeley conservatives from the left.
• July 2005: Thoughts on South Park Republicans.
• August 2005: I might support Steve Jobs for governor?
• September 2005: Kanye West pisses me off, among other things. I’m scum. Political quiz.
• October 2005: Ranting about Harriet Miers (phew, close one). Revealing crypto-Maoists. A nice debate about legalizing marijuana, where I seemingly do most of the arguing. My friend gets mugged.
• November 2005: The War on 209 gets personal. The on-going “HateGate” controversy, where I defend racial insults and give the ACLU a piece of my mind.

Some favorite comments:

• “Patrick, you are an idiot. I hope for the sake of humanity that you are disallowed from ever dating a conservative Christian daughter. Go back to wherever you came from, haha” -tom, 2/9/2005
• “piss off. fucking cal students have no appreciation for the city they temporarily live in. OBVIOUSLY you don’t care, but with the hippieville remark you go from indifferent to ignorantly stereotypical.” -oliver monday, 6/22/2005
• “south park republican” = “young, dumb and full of cum” -HB, 7/7/2005
• “know this Pat….any success that you have in your future life will only be further proof of the success of such a government program.” -HB, 8/4/2005
• “Ironic how Monika comments about Christianity, while Patriot blog claims butt plugs and Gitmo as the great American boons.” -HB, 8/5/2005
• “Patrick - Do you have anything to do all day besides attacking the Cal African American community?” -tea, 3/1/2005
• “yes, you are scum.” -charles, 10/11/2005

Along the way, this blog has gained fans from the left, SFist:

We’ll admit it, one of our favorite political blogs is written by a Republican. That’s right, we said it. Hey, it’s all about ‘balance’ here at SFist, if not moderation. Shades of gray, people, shades of gray! Why do we love it? Because Patrick Rodriguez covers the Cal campus political scene like only a free-market libertarian in Berkeley can, with humor and an outsider’s insight.

and the right, California Conservative:

Keeping the conservative guard on the far-left liberal campus of U.C. Berkeley, californiapatriot.org is fighting the good fight. One post at a time.

They’ve got one helluva a blog.

Detractors from both sides too! From the left, Cal Patriot Watch (RIP) deemed us a “characteristically humorless blog.” And from the right, just check out any comment thread.

What a long post. I just thought some shameless self-congratulations were in order. I’d like to thank my past co-bloggers for blogging with me. I’d also like to thank, in advance, my future co-bloggers (assuming I actually get any). Think about how much better this blog could be if it were more than a one-man show…

Alright. Until next time. I’m out. Enjoy the turkey.

Item 1: Go Bears!

Item 2: The unfortunate position (or rather non-position) that the ACLU is taking on the campus “HateGate” scandal. From the Berkeley ACLU mailing list:

Dear Berkeley ACLU members,

In regards to the current case involving Erika Williams and Sherman Boyson, the Berkeley ACLU has contacted our affiliate, the ACLU of Northern California, and they have informed us that we are not authorized to take a position on whether or not the University should take disciplinary action against Mr. Boyson. Our endorsement of the public hearing on racial justice issues was in line with ACLU policy, but we will not take any position on further actions resulting from this hearing.

If you have any questions feel free to contact the ACLU board or attend our next general meeting on November 29 at 7:00pm.

All the best,

The Berkeley ACLU Board

Now I have no affiliation with the ACLU, nor do I seek any, but I want to acknowledge that they do some good work from time to time. As a libertarian, I find some of their positions repulsive, and others not aggressive enough. Yet sometimes, they’re the only major voices sticking up for an important cause. That said, I’m very disappointed with the way that the ACLU-NC is treating its UC Berkeley chapter.

The campus ACLU co-hosted an event with BAMN to highlight accusations of campus discrimination. I question the wisdom of this decision, but it’s their right. When BAMN decided to turn from dialogue to a demand for dismissal of the employee in question, shouldn’t the co-hosts of the event get a say? Especially when the issue at hand is free speech, one of the ACLU’s core issues?

Shouldn’t the civil liberties group closest to the incident in question have some say in the matter? The ACLU of Northern California has half a state to worry about, so why not let the Berkeley ACLU take a stand against civil liberty abuses on the Berkeley campus? If not them, then who? Will they not be permitted to “take any position on further actions resulting from this hearing” even if the “further actions” include the censuring or dismisal of an employee based on private speech?

Could it be that the ACLU-NC values racial sensitivity over free speech? The affiliate has, in fact, turned its back on free speech advocates in the past. Nat Hentoff, one of my favorite disillusioned former ACLU members, on an important First Amendment case of the last decade:

ON AUG. 2, the Supreme Court of California, in a 4-3 decision, placed a prior restraint on speech, including a list of specifically forbidden words. This decision was abetted and encouraged by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California — and supported by ACLU headquarters in New York.

In Aguilar vs. Avis Rent-A-Car System, the court upheld an award of $135,000 in damages to Latino employees of Avis who had charged employment discrimination in the form of persistent racial epithets and insults by a supervisor, John Lawrence…

What also matters is that the ACLU — a paladin of free expression in so many areas — has now allowed itself to be gleefully cited by its opponents as agreeing that certain words can no longer be spoken in certain places before there is clear evidence that any of those words has created discrimination in a particular instance or in a particular context.

Now this case is a bit different from the one we now face, but it does demonstrate a willingness to place other concerns over free speech (a position that many free speech absolutists on the left and right have condemned). Perhaps this rogue group needs to learn a little something from their counterparts on the East. You might remember this case:

Joseph Locurto’s lawsuit, filed in Manhattan’s U.S. District Court, alleges that he was illegally suspended for exercising his free-speech rights and deprived of his job without due process.

Locurto, 30, acknowledges in court papers that on Sept. 7 he “participated in an offensive float in a parade” in Broad Channel, a virtually all-white Queens community on an island in Jamaica Bay…

The men on the float also wore blackface makeup and Afro or dreadlock-style wigs. They threw watermelons slices and fried chicken from the float and carried boom boxes.

Norman Siegel, the New York Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents Locurto, said that when Mayor Rudolph Giuliani learned that city employees were part of the float’s activity, he said they would be fired…

Siegel said Locurto, a police officer since February 1994 and assigned to the 104th precinct in Queens, was suspended without pay for “off-the-job, private, expressive activity without any charges, and no hearing.”

which was, for the most part, resolved in 2003:

The decision handed down by U.S. District Judge John E. Sprizzo has far reaching implications beyond the three plaintiffs. The New York Civil Liberties Union, who defended Locurto, lauded the ruling as a victory for freedom of speech. “Expression is protected regardless of the content so long as it doesn’t disrupt their particular employment practices,” said Donna Leiberman.

Now this case could serve as a precedent for what may about to happen to Sherman Boyson, BAMN’s target. Punished for “off-the-job, private, expressive activity.” Yes, that sounds about right.

If the Northern California ACLU wants nothing to do with this case (for political reasons), they should at least authorize the campus chapter to take a position. If not, the members of the Berkeley ACLU may want to consider taking a stand, and risk the consequences for defending such a core value. And Berkeley students of all stripes: conservative, liberal, libertarian, should stand up with them.

We’ll keep you updated on this on-going drama.

It has been a week since professional victim Erika Williams shocked the campus with her accusations of racism and sexism on the part of a university employee.

Today’s updates:

BAMN has started a new blog (yay!):

This blog was created in order to compile information, evidence, and personal stories of racist, sexist, and other discriminatory treatment of students and the community of the UC system. We want to start to peel back the layers of lies and deception that the proponents of Proposition 209 and other anti-affirmative action leaders have buried us under and reveal the truth and the reality of racism, overt and covert, on our campuses and in our communities.

Of particular interest is their “pledge.” Point #3: “Latina/o, black, Native American, Filipino, and other underrepresented minority students are receiving a more restricted and diminished intellectual and social experience at UC-Berkeley.” As an (underrepresented?) Filipino-American, the “restricted and diminished intellectual and social experience” that I’m receiving is news to me. Maybe I’m not looking hard enough.

Also, they have posted a transcript of Erika’s testimony. There’s some more details in there, if we are to take her word for it. I’ll cover this in a separate post later on.

The students over at the Berkeley LiveJournal community are also debating the incident. It seems like most are coming down against the whiners.

Finally, it looks like alleged “fat-assed fuck” Sherman Boyson cherishes free speech more than we knew. In a Daily Cal opinion piece from October 24, 2000, Boyson defends none other than, yes, us:

The [leftist] trio have a lot of outrage, but they have no answer for the simple facts of the matter. The protestors purposely and effectively denied speaker Dan Flynn the opportunity to speak. It doesn’t matter if he is a bigot. It doesn’t matter that The Patriot has a headline that reads “Fry Mumia.” It doesn’t matter if Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. All of this is irrelevant to the actions by the protesters that The Patriot and the ASUC have condemned: the protestors denied someone the opportunity to state their opinion.

This trio seems to feel that it was valid to suppress the freedom of speech as long as they had a very good reason to do so. There is no good reason to suppress free speech. And by arguing that logic, they are inviting oppressive and racist governments to squash their protests and their rebellions because those governments might feel they have a good reason to suppress progressive free speech…

I am much more in support of the trio’s political leanings than those of the Republicans or the Berkeley Conservative Foundation, but I would much rather have those conservatives running my country and protecting my rights than the progressives if this is the kind of respect they hold for the basic rights of all citizens of this country. At least, when I object to the actions of those conservatives, I will be allowed to express those objections.

So I’m still waiting for the Cal Dems and the Berkeley ACLU to take a position. I appreciate Boyson’s sentiments from five years ago, but I wish he were wrong: Everyone should be defending free speech from those that seek to silence it. It’s time to pick a side.

The Daily Cal updates us on racial slur “scandal” that shows no sign of letting up:

Campus administrators are investigating a student’s accusation that an undergraduate advisor used a racial slur against her last month…

Whether the campus decides to pursue disciplinary action depends on the outcome of the investigation, said John Cummins, chief of staff to the chancellor.

Administrators said at this point, they could not speculate on how the university will respond.

The “victims” held their press conference:

At a press conference yesterday, Williams and members of BAMN called for Boyson’s “swift and immediate removal,” saying that his continuation in his current advising post would oppress minority and female students.

“Such racial and sexual prejudice are inexcusable and inappropriate in any academic advisor … but especially from an advisor in the school of social welfare,” Williams told the crowd of some 20 students and reporters.

Williams said the university response to the situation has been “lackluster.”

The attached photo kills me. The way she tries to portray herself as an innocent victim of racial oppression. She makes me sick.

The University should not be spending any time on this. Maybe they can investigate if Boyson ever used racial slurs against a student in the context of his actual on-campus role as a student advisor. Other than that, they have no business going into his personal life if his off-campus actions don’t adversely affect his job performance. Employers do have a right to employ the kind of employees that they want. However, when this surveillance enters into the realm of private conversations, personal sites/blogs/email, personal preferences, substance use, or other areas where an employee’s personal life doesn’t negatively affect his or her work, then we have a big problem.

If the University gives into BAMN’s demands, the public/private life boundary will have been violated. For what, a bunch of racially motivated whiners. What’s next?

I trust that the University will do the right thing. If they don’t, we should all think twice next time we ever do or say anything. What a world we live in.

From the Berkeley Daily Planet’s take on the minority enrollment situation at Cal:

“My friends ask me why would I want to go to Cal when there won’t be any other blacks there,” said Jocelyn Eastman, a senior at Oakland Tech who is in the process of applying to UC Berkeley.

After a tour of the campus she is having second thoughts.

“The first thing I noticed was the segregation,” she said. “Why do everyone’s friends look like each other here?”

A Berkeley High sophomore compared the diversity he sees in his high school with his perspective on UC Berkeley.

“It’s a privilege to go to Berkeley High, an integrated school,” said Derwyn Johnson. “It’s too bad you don’t see that here on this campus. … Even though this campus needs more students like me who will stand up and fight for better minority enrollment numbers, I’m not sure if I want to put myself in such a segregated place.”

The first student seems a little confused. Her friends don’t think she should go to Cal because there aren’t enough blacks (to presumably become her new friends). Then she takes a tour and changes her mind. Now she doesn’t think she should go to Cal because she believes that, on this campus, her only friends would be black. Now I’m a little confused.

The second student, I agree with completely. We don’t need any more BAMN recruits.

The Daily Cal has a report about last week’s BAMN forum on the “hostile climate for underrepresented minorities” here on campus. As suspected, it was nothing more than an attempt to manufacture a controversy to further their agenda.

Speaking to more than 200 students at a campus forum on race Thursday, sophomore Erika Williams said Sherman Boyson, the undergraduate advisor in the school of social welfare, called her a “nigger” in October during a confrontation outside the apartment complex.

Boyson confirmed he said the word but said it was used in an “indirect” manner, after Williams called him a “fat fuck.” […]

BAMN officials will hold a pressconference tomorrow and push to have Boyson removed from his position, according to ASUC Senator Yvette Felarca, an event organizer.

Beetle says what we’re all thinking, so check out his take on the situation.

I have to admit that I was almost convinced by their half-truths. During a speech to PS 179, Shanta Driver, a national BAMN leader, brought up this incident as an example of the “institutionalized racism” cemented by post-affirmative action policies. I mean honestly, when is it ever appropriate for a student advisor to use a racial slur, or any slur at all, against a student? With no further details, you’d be hard pressed to deny that this was a genuine case of racism on campus.

However, they end their tales superficially shocking for a reason. If they give out any more details, suddenly the incidents no longer suit their purpose.

In this case, there was an off-campus private argument between a woman, who happened to be a student, and a man, who happened to be a student advisor. Angry, the woman called the guy a “fat fuck,” most likely not because of any animosity toward overweight people in general. Also mad, the guy called the girl a “nigger,” and probably not because of any hatred in general toward people of African descent. Forget about BAMN and their whining; was this even a racial incident? Evidence of a “hostile environment” toward minorities?

Does the utterance of a racial slur necessarily imply a racist worldview? Are you automatically a racist if you use these terms? When you’re in a heated shouting argument, you probably want to offend your foe as much as, and hopefully more, than he offended you. And, in general, racial slurs are arguably more powerful than “jerk” or “asshole” or even attacks on physical or mental conditions. When someone has pissed you off, is it wrong to go straight for the big guns? You’re going to say something that you most likely don’t mean, so does it even matter what you say at all?

The point is: people get mad, people use insults, people get over it. Using racial slurs might be offensive, but it doesn’t necessarily make you a racist. Real racists are still assholes even if they don’t use racial slurs. And some people need to not make a big deal out of every little thing.

For example, this crazy homeless woman went up to my friends and I while we were eating at McDonalds and called us crazy chinks. She was a little off. I mean I obviously wasn’t one, but they were. Anyway, that incident was good for a couple of laughs and went into our story arsenals (I’ve left out a lot). No need to call the civil rights police.

Anyway, that’s my post for the day. This chink has got to sleep.

Busy with stuff… But here’s an interesting article from today’s Chronicle if you haven’t read it already:

Now, perhaps because my ninth-grade son is my oldest child, I have not yet confronted the fact of life that all parents must face someday: the thought of our own child having consensual sex. So I was startled when I read these exact words in the Berkeley High bulletin: Having sex? Thinking about having sex? Sign up for Condom Club now! Bring your lunch and come to classroom G103 on Wednesday, October 12th to join. Come once and get a sticker for the back of your student ID. Show your ID at the Health Center and receive 12 free condoms a week. Free food…

Twelve condoms a week! I don’t know sex workers who need that many condoms. Certainly none of my middle-age friends need 12 condoms a week. High school students do?

Well hey, at least these kids will have something unique to put under the extracurricular activities portion of their college applications.

Carissa Kwan writes about an important anniversary that we recently passed:

The fall of the Berlin Wall is most indelibly associated with President Reagan’s bold demand in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 1987: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Two years later, his challenge was met, and the Berlin Wall, which has come to symbolize the brutal division of a continent, came tumbling down. November 9, 2005 will mark the 16th anniversary of that momentous occasion that ended both communism and the Cold War. For the citizens of Eastern Europe, who had lived behind the Iron Curtain for four decades, the fall of the Berlin Wall represents hope and carries a message of triumph for the freedom of mankind.

Happy Veterans Day!

Our beloved chancellor in the Daily Cal:

“We will not be able to have an environment which I consider non-discriminatory until we repeal 209,” Birgeneau said.

I think that speaks for itself.

On a related note, the following event will be held tonight:

STUDENT PUBLIC HEARING ON RACISM AND HOSTILE CLIMATE FOR UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS AT UC-BERKELEY

* Students Demand Increase in Underrepresented Minority Student Enrollment *
* Chancellor Robert Birgeneau Will Attend *

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005, 6:00-8:00pm
Multi-Cultural Center, 2nd Floor of MLK Student Union
Building, UC-Berkeley (near Bancroft and Telegraph)

Choice quote from BAMN leader Yvette Felarca:

“The situation for underrepresented and all minority students at Berkeley is becoming increasingly intolerable.”

I enjoyed the letter by Rachael Alyn Petach in today’s Daily Cal. I was going to write a lengthy response post, but Beetle beat me to it. That, and I’m lazy.

Some highlights:

On page 21 of the aforementioned magazine, there was a simple page with contains the heading “A Coherent Argument for Feminism” followed by a complete absence of text and in small text at the bottom right corner of the page, the instructions, “See page 33.” Page 33 does not exist…

Already comprised by sex and gender roles laid out by years of narrow-minded propaganda, are women now to be subjected to insulting articles while walking through school?

I have lost respect for this magazine and in reality, attacking feminism reflects poorly on the conservative agenda in general. If anyone else who read this felt a third of the violation I feel right now, at the very least an apology is in order.

Oh man. No one’s forcing her to read it. Did the magazine force itself into her face while she was walking through Sproul? In addition, I also love it when people pretend to have “lost respect” that they never had in an attempt to be taken more seriously.

Seeing as a representative of the magazine can take the time to stand on our campus and pass out that issue, it would be appropriate that in their next issue the same page is occupied with a short piece of the validity of women’s rights. Perhaps those responsible for the California Patriot can then learn from this experience, as well as empower and enrich the lives of the individuals who happen to read their next publication.

Laugh! The November issue already came out, but if she had written us directly instead of whining to the Daily Cal, maybe she could have gotten her wish. However, if anyone out there feels like writing a “short piece of the validity of women’s rights” so that we might “empower and enrich the lives” of our readers, I’d be more than happy to post it on this blog and bring it up for discussion.

With that, I leave you with this:

“Stop being jelious that we can have babies and you can’t!”
“just because we don’t have a penis doesn’t mean we’re inferior”
“Women are beautiful. And CUNTS are even more beautiful because everyone, including YOU, comes from one. ” *flower*

And remember to vote:

Proposition 73: Yes
Proposition 74: Yes
Proposition 75: Yes
Proposition 76: Yes
Proposition 77: Yes
Proposition 78: No
Proposition 79: No
Proposition 80: No

as per our handy voter guide.

Feel free to talk about your predictions, whine about the results, gloat, or discuss other election related topics.