The controversies surrounding the patient protection and affordable care act and the four major poin

Help Keep the Winemaking Home Page a Free Websitea self-serving plea for support October 24th, I have not written anything here in a long time. I will not go into all the episodes of Murphy's Law I have encountered, but suffice it to say they were numerous and often severe. Most recently, my health took a turn for the worse and a full diagnosis is still pending.

The controversies surrounding the patient protection and affordable care act and the four major poin

Seven people were asked their opinion in a column called "Room For Debate," liars, there was no debate, all of them said "I guess so", their main contribution was the hedge: When they say, "it's a woman's choice" what they mean is "it's not a man's choice, it is thoroughly stupid to wear make up just for men, the only acceptable reason is if you do it for yourself, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Or women, depending on which genitals you want to lick, hopefully it's both. I'm not saying you have to look good for men, I'm saying that if wearing makeup not for men makes you feel better about yourself, you don't have a strong self, and no, yelling won't change this.

Everyone knows you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, now you're saying the cover of the book influences how the book feels about itself?

For earlier entries, see archives (left column)

I am not doubting that in fact you do feel better about yourself, I am saying that that fact is both pathological and totally on purpose. When will you stop "requiring" it, like when you say, "oh, she's so pretty even without makeup" as if the default was makeup?

The fraud women now believe is that it is wrong to look good for men only, as an end in itself; the progressive delusion is that looking good for men is synonymous with submissiveness, so while you're allowed to look good to men, it should always be secondary to looking good for yourself.

You are enhancing your outward appearance, which is great, but then you pretend it's for internal reasons? How would you like to live in a world where men had to wear make up? Ask it this way: The trick to the makeup debate is that it pretends to want to be free of male pressure, yet the pressure to look a certain way is actually much worse from women.

No boss man would survive if he said, "ugh, you should put on some makeup, doll yourself up a little bit" but women say this to other women all the time-- especially at work. Just once I wish the reply would be, "I am, your husband kept me up all night.

The evolution from "enhances sexual attractiveness" to "doing it for yourself" is definitely a regressive step, and by regressive I here mean "regressing to age two", but it's the next step which reveals the presence of a neurosis: So here's the evolution of feminist theory, take notes: The further clue that the problem is not gender but The reason the makeup debate is insoluble is that it's not yours to solute.

The choice to wear makeup is no choice at all, I know you think you came to it on your own but you live in America, you don't make free choices here, freedom is a brand. I had used all the porn on the internet, so I turn on the TV, and there's a marionette called Diane Sawyer interviewing 20 female Senators, the most in history, applauding and giggling as if cold fusion had finally been discovered.

Of course it's a "good thing" that women are Senators in as much as not allowing them to be Senators is the bad thing, but other than that, what does it mean? That women are finally brave enough to run, or America is brave enough to hire them?

It's not like the Capitol Building was turning them away, so why is this important?

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

The ABC demo is not ever going to be a Senator, I would bet ten bazillion dollars they couldn't even name one of their Senators and a gazillion bazillion dollars they have no real idea what Senators do, so why is this on prime time ABC?

I think the answer is supposed to be, "it's empowering to women", but you should wonder: Why did they leave? I assume they aren't home with the kids, right?

I don't want to be cynical, but boy oh boy is it hard not to observe that at the very moment in our history when we have the most women in the Senate, Congress is perceived to be pathetic, bickering, easily manipulated and powerless, and I'll risk the blowback and say that those are all stereotypes of women.

Easy, HuffPo, I know it's not causal, I am saying the reverse: Again we must ask the question: Meanwhile all the lobbyists and Wall Street bankers are men, isn't that odd? This works in reverse, too, take a field traditionally XX-only, like nursing, and, huh, what do you know-- at the time where nursing is more powerful than it has ever been, there are also more XY in it than ever.

But who made it more powerful? And if you're playing that game, ask if the reason "sexy nurses" as a fetish dropped out somewhere around the 90s had nothing to do with females finally getting control over their sexualization but exactly the opposite, men came in and unsexualized the joint.

I know to a woman it must feel good, "yay, I'm a Senator! But for everyone else, what is the significance? One of the Yay-Women senators suggested that the government would benefit from all the makeup because " women's styles tend to be more collaborative ," and at the exact same moment she repeated the conventional wisdom's horrendous banality she simultaneously got married to the head of a lobbying firm.

The controversies surrounding the patient protection and affordable care act and the four major poin

That's progress, I guess. The problem isn't with women in the Senate, but rather its celebration, which these dummies blindly participate in.

Is it putting on a face for the American public, the way the first face I see on Goldman Sachs's website is a black woman?

She's probably proud, she should be proud, that she made it to GS, but for the rest of blacks and women, what is the significance? It may be regressive to ask this, but it is illuminating: In this case, you are seeing a shift of power be repackaged as a gender battle.

And it's quite apparent that power is a generation or so ahead of you, so in a 40 year old who grew up around successful lawyers then says to his 5 year old, "daughter, you should become a lawyer!

Don't bother, it'll be in Newark.Jack Keller is married to the former Donna Pilling and lives in Pleasanton, Texas, just south of San Antone.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

Winemaking is his passion and for years he has been making wine from just about anything both fermentable and nontoxic. For some reason, one of the most emailed articles from the NYT was an article about whether women should or should not wear make up.

"New York Times? Sounds progressive." Yes.

The Last Psychiatrist: No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Make Up

Seven people were asked their opinion in a column called "Room For Debate," liars, there was no debate, all of them said "I guess so", their main contribution was the hedge: "it's a woman's choice." So while pretending.

For some reason, one of the most emailed articles from the NYT was an article about whether women should or should not wear make up. "New York Times? Sounds progressive." Yes. Seven people were asked their opinion in a column called "Room For Debate," liars, there was no debate, all of them said "I guess so", their main .

Jack Keller is married to the former Donna Pilling and lives in Pleasanton, Texas, just south of San Antone. Winemaking is his passion and for years he has been making wine from just about anything both fermentable and nontoxic.

The Last Psychiatrist: No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Make Up