Charging with fists raised at Althouse: from the right, it's Robert Stacy McCain, from the left, it's Thers.

I'm thinking of ducking down the alleyway and letting the 2 men collide with each other. I'll find a high vantage point and watch the fracas. First one to unball his fists and put his palms up defensively loses... unless the other one, sensing a touch to the chokepoint on his neck, backs off and shrieks "You choked me."

Robert Stacy McCain should be pleased that Thers decided to attack me on the same day, because I wouldn't have rewarded his attack with a link if it wasn't funny to find myself in the "Clowns to the left of me/Jokers to the right" position.

McCain's post is titled "Ann Althouse: Rube." The word "rube" denotes a dumb rural character, but McCain uses it not for it's actual meaning, but because he's noticed there's a way that Glenn Reynolds uses it, and he seems to imagine that using Glenn's word will bring Glenn in on his team. Which is fine with me, because I've ducked down the alleyway, and Stacy is going to be fighting Thers, who might have "Eli" with him. I doubt if Glenn answers to the dogwhistle "rube," but I do think the fracas will be more amusing with Glenn there. (By the way, the expression "hey, rube" is traditionally "a rallying call, or a cry for help, used by carnies in a fight with outsiders." It's not a way of saying "I think you are a dummy from country.")

Anyway, Stacy's in a dither because, last Friday — predicting Obama's 2012 campaign strategy and referring to the emotionalism of the 2008 Obama campaign — I dropped a footnote to say that even though I voted for Obama, I wasn't caught up in the emotionalism. I observed it and critiqued it. I was in my high vantage point. I was sober and rational, but — confronted with the 2 major party candidates — I picked Obama. I have never apologized for that choice, because I still think McCain — John McCain — would have been worse, and the Republican Party would be in a far weaker spot right now if McCain were President. You can disagree with me, but don't portray me as another "Yes We Can" dreamer. My 2008 posts are all there in the archive. You can see how distanced I was from the Obama love cult.

But Robert Stacy McCain doesn't seem too familiar with the Althouse blog... or even the one post he purports to write about. He's bouncing off of some other blogger's post about me (in the style of Emily Mills who attacked me using material she got not from my blog but from some other blogger who purported to know what I'd written). (Stacy also nicks a photograph from my Flickr stream and uses it without complying with the Creative Commons license I was nice enough to provide.) Anyway, Stacy's point seems to be that I was wrong to vote for Obama. But my post wasn't even saying I made the correct choice, only that I chose based on sober reasoning, not emotionalism.

In any case, R.S. McCain doesn't say I should have voted for John McCain or that every rational person choosing between McCain and Obama would have picked McCain. In fact, sounding damned emotional, he says: "If you put a gun to my head and told me to vote for John McCain, I’d tell you to go ahead and pull the trigger." He calls McCain "a treacherous bastard." Okay, then, why wasn't it rational to vote for Obama? At the point of voting, either McCain or Obama was going to be President. Pick one. No, R.S. McCain voted for Bob Barr. Like that was rational!

At least McCain's commenters are critical. Donald Douglas is the first commenter, linking to his own post: "Ann Althouse a Rube? Nah, Robert Stacy McCain's Just Trolling for Traffic." He accuses McCain of liking to post my picture, and Douglas posts another picture of me. (Douglas does make that picture link back to the Flickr site, but he too fails to follow the Creative Commons license, because he doesn't include the photographer's name. Douglas chose a picture taken 30 years ago by my first husband. McCain chose a picture taken last year by my present-day husband.)

Now, let's swivel leftward and see what's going on with Thers. Thers has been attacking my blog for many years, and usually I ignore him. I don't know why he's so fixated on me. He didn't post a picture of me, so take that for what it's worth. He illustrates his post with a video clip called "Detachable Penis" from a band called King Missile, so apparently he's trying to waggle his wiener in my direction. Thers is writing to defend his confrere Eli, whom I took a shot at yesterday, because he said something stupid that everyone was attacking yesterday because it was on Memeorandum. I don't know who, exactly, detached Eli's penis, but I got my cut in, and I understand that it caused Thers sympathetic pain.

Thers quotes me saying something that exemplifies the way I speak when I'm observing the fray from a high vantage point: "People who are immersed in politics ought to take a good look at their own minds." His idea for a comeback is pretty prosaic. Do you even have to go over there and read it? You can guess: I don't follow my own advice. It's the "I know you are but what am I?" Pee-Wee Herman-type riposte that's supposed to answer a personal attack, which that quote of mine isn't. And Thers, of course, doesn't follow my advice either. He's not self-reflective. He attacks me:

All the evidence shows that Althouse has been long separated from her mind; if she originally removed it in order to give it a proper gawking, that is a perfectly laudable motive. 

A grisly image. A man who's musing about his detachable penis pictures a woman with her brain removed from her skull.

And let us be charitable! 

A reflexive line, by a man whose conscience perhaps nagged him. He knows that after the Tucson massacre, we weren't supposed to be using graphic metaphors like that. He could have edited that out, but writhing over Eli's detached penis, he had to lash out.

Perhaps there is a perfectly sound reason that as soon as her mind departed her skull it promptly escaped, never to be heard from again; and very likely all she had on hand to fill the resultant cranial void was Franzia and guano.

He's straining so hard for comedy, and he can't decide whether to call me a drunk or a shithead. And what's with the Franzia? Didn't he get the memo about Paul Ryan? Yesterday was the day to attack right-wingers for drinking expensive wine.

Then he gets to my little joke on Eli: "I have no interest in these hysterical little men who obsess about whether their 'base' is getting served or stiffed." He rolls his eyes and says:

Althouse is watching consonants whirling through onion rings, yet once more. 

See? Go to those links. He's been reading my blog for a long time, and he remembers my old comic riffs about genitalia. Unlike Stacy McCain, he's familiar with the archive here, and he's been trying to to get the better of me in the genitalia humor department for years. But he can't. He says:

She’s got a dirty mind, don’t she, Yossarian? The dirtiest. 

So... a reference to "Catch-22"... disembodied. The book is funny. The detached reference? The sad waggling of a man who would be erudite, who's trying to show that he's smart and the woman is dumb. A literary reference. I typo'd "litterary" a Freudian slip, indicating that I think his writing is trash. He ought to pick that thing up.

I've got a "dirty mind"? Oh, okay. Thanks. I suppose Freud had a "dirty mind" too. Isn't it funny the way lefties are, at bottom, puritanical about sex? Sex is dirty? As Woody Allen famously said: "Only if it's done right." And if it's done left, it's done with a detachable penis. Put some ice on it.  Maybe you can get somebody to sew it back on.

Quick, because here comes Robert "Stacy" McCain, fists a-flying!

"Girls as young as one are being forced into sex change operations in India by parents desperate for a son."

"Surgeons in the city of Indore are reported to be 'converting' hundreds of girls a year, who are subsequently pumped full of hormone drugs."

"I've never understood the assumption that if a woman was drunk and doesn't remember giving consent that it must be rape."

Says a commenter named Hamp at the blog JoeMyGod, at a post about Bristol Palin (and what she wrote in her memoir about losing her virginity):

It takes two to tango as it takes two to have sex. And if they're both drunk, if they both made the decision to drink to the point of blackout, then why is only the man at fault? Unless the woman was drugged or forced to drink then both parties are equally responsible. And how does one force another person to drink wine coolers to the point of no return? Did he tie her down and force the drinks down her throat? I doubt it. She's just another person refusing to take responsibility for her own actions. She wasn't raped she just got drunk and made what she now thinks was a bad decision.

JoeMyGod is a prominent blog that has won awards in the politics/LGBT category. I noticed this post because I was getting blog traffic from it after it linked to my post "Did Levi Johnston rape Bristol Palin?" I'm not sure the people over there discussing Bristol's book realize that she did not apply the word "rape" to what happened to her. I did. I looked at her facts, and I introduced the legal concept. Bristol (and her family) did not bring in the police. It seems to me that she took responsibility for her own actions and expressed her sadness over what happened. She did not call it rape. She may have described the facts with the intent that the reader would think what I thought. I only read a short excerpt from her book, so I don't know what her overall intent is. Perhaps she's trying to say: Girls, don't drink yourself into a stupor when you're out in a tent with a boy.

There are comments in that thread like "I just...well....I....Skankity-skank-skank" and "The apple didn't fall far from THAT twisted tree"/".... and the semen doesn't fall far from the oft offered ova." But after Hamp's disquisition on on the mutuality of sexual intercourse, FreudianNips says:

That's just lovely Hamp. Just lovely. I take it you are not a woman? I am, and while I did not consider it rape since I was in a relationship... I can tell you there are not much worse feelings than waking up knowing you've been pounded and not remembering it....

I think most of us are all familiar with the mechanics of both male and female genitalia. Is it a stretch to say that it is maybe more of the man's fault when "blackout sex" occurs, in certain situations (specifically this one if its true)? I mean, he's the one who has to get hard and stick it in her. And let's be real, all a woman ever really has to do is lie there, conscious or not, for sex or rape (BIG DIFFERENCE BTW) to occur....

I don't want to judge anybody or make assumptions, but in my opinion, a lot of men here seem to forget, or perhaps have never realized, the way men can control, manipulate, intimidate and yes, coerce women into doing things they do not want to do or wouldn't normally do. Maybe its because most of you are gay and mostly interact with each other, and maybe its because none of you are scumbags like that, but it is real. It may not be tangible or empircally provable, but many, many women know this. I mean, why do women stay in abusive marriages? ...

It doesn't have to be obvious, or threatening, or even dangerous, but men do this to women, whether they are aware of it or not. Do you know how prevalent, how pandemic, how swept under the rug abuse is, especially sexual abuse? Its fucking everywhere. And I am sick of these circular, apologetic, excuse filled articles and comments, when every damn day another high profile man is accused of, and USUALLY guilty of, crimes involving his fucking dick and putting it where it shouldn't be. And every damn time it happens, women are knocked 10 steps backward and have to try harder, prove harder and defend themselves harder just to stay on track of having a chance one day of being taken seriously. 

God damn I hate the Palins and the energy they have put into this world. 

After that, guess where the conversation goes? To banter about the mechanics of sexual intercourse given the length of Levi's penis and the girth of Bristol's torso.

"We know where you’re going to use it, and it’s great for that area."

What's the best way to encourage men to powder their balls?

... Dry Down Friction Free Powder by Jack Black ($18 for 6 ounces), with cornstarch, lavender and green tea, “works great south-of-border,” according to its packaging.

“Guys have a great sense of humor about this stuff, and they appreciate us saying, ‘We know where you’re going to use it, and it’s great for that area,’ ” said Patricia Finn, vice president for marketing at Jack Black, which has no affiliation with the comedian of the same name.

Great. I'm sure the famous Jack Black appreciates your associating his name with cornball jokes. Literally cornball. It's corn(starch) for your balls!

Man Powder, by Matte for Men ($26 for 10.5 ounces)...  its directions recommend using it on “underarms, feet or ‘down below!’ ”...

Introduced last year, Dry Goods ($12.50 to $14 for 5.4 ounces)... features a unique valve that permits spraying it “upside down for those hard to reach places”....

A unique valve for your unique valve.

Tim Joyce, the president of Joyce Labs, which makes Dry Goods, ... said the name Dry Goods “is totally euphemistic to make you think of your business.”

His business is your business. (Requisite song link: here.)

Even Gold Bond ($8 for 10 ounces), the 103-year-old brand of general-use medicated powder, is deploying double entendres... “I never suit up without Gold Bond Medicated Powder — it keeps my equipment dry.”

Looks like the advertising industry is desperately in need of a man who knows how to write snappy quips about balls. And I know just the man, and they say he may soon be looking for work....

ADDED: If Anthony's unavailable, there's always Louie.

"Alright, my package and I are not going to beg. We both see the hazard of going down the path of comparative sexiness."

That's something I read out loud over here at Meadhouse.

MEADE: "Is that Weiner?"

ME: "Do you recognize Weiner's writing style?"

No. He just recognizes my reading style. I'm reading something about sex out loud, basically.

"Rep. Weiner Used Congressional Gym As Backdrop."

And he used his cock as a frontdrop.

And photos of his D.C. condo — which is for sale — are up on line too. It's awfully neat and clean, I must say. And I love the "H" and "A" throw pillows on the bed. You can spell "HA" or "AH," depending on your mood.

(Links via Memeorandum.)

ADDED: I'll bet the pillows were both Huma's from her single days. It's just by chance that his first name begins with the same letter as her last name, Abedin.

By the way, add spaces to the name Abedin and you get a bed in. Remember when John Lennon and Yoko Ono had a bed in?



Ah! (Ha!) Back then "acorn" meant something else.

Maybe Anthony and Huma could have a bed in.... if they need another idea of how to redirect the public dialogue. Imagine!

"Heart you, heart your passion, and as always, heart your balls!"

Another Weiner sexter is revealed.

UPDATE: "Anthony Weiner admits contact with girl, 17." He says that his messages with her were "neither explicit nor indecent."

Breitbart's X-rated picture of Anthony Weiner just slipped out.

Like a Hollywood startlet, splashing in the wavelets in front of the paparazzi, when — oh, no! how did that happen! — her bikini top falls off, Andrew Breitbart iPhone-flashed his ultra-secret picture of Weiner's wiener on the Opie and Anthony Show, and "Opie" took a picture of the picture, and that picture is now all over the internet.

Breitbart is outraged or putting on a performance in the Theater of Outrage.

I don't really know why a closeup of a naked erect penis means anything (other than the usual Naked! Erect! Penis!). The evidence connecting it to Weiner is all that matters.

I've been averting my eyes from the Weiner...

... but I can't help noticing this and this.

"I've really never understood the business... of sending these pictures to women."

Can someone please explain to Mark Schmitt — and everyone else with this comprehension problem — why some men send pictures of their genitalia to women?

AND: Here's an even more awkward effort by a Blogginghead to talk about erections. I especially love the way this clip — which I edited to enhance the humorous effect — begins with the diavloggers being all out of synch talking about how lovers can be out of synch. (Warning: the phrase "morning wood" pops up.)

The Weiner Hacker Prize

"As much as I admire Congressman Weiner's Gandhi-like forgiving attitude toward his assailant - as well as his world class ninja programming skills - I'm afraid this incident doesn't just involve him. For, after all, what Internet user is safe when the person who hacked this unsuspecting Weiner remains at large? Okay, maybe not "large," but still, come on man. Who's to say this same criminal hasn't somehow hacked my last 5 federal income tax returns with fraudulent deductions for alcohol-related blogging expenses?"

Iowahawk puts up $1000.

"Things that I never imagined people would care about are now being plastered all over blog sites..."

"... including pictures of me from when I was 17 and tweets that have been taken completely out of context. I tweeted once (it was reported that I said it twice) that 'I wonder what my boyfriend @RepWeiner is up to.'"

ADDED: Imagine if Anthony Weiner were a Republican. (I know, it's such a hackneyed visualization, but it's important here.) The liberal/lefty blogs would be shredding him mercilessly. I'm not saying Weiner's not getting his hair mussed. But if he were a Republican, the feeding frenzy would be of a different magnitude entirely.

IN THE COMMENTS: Freeman Hunt writes:

So the media is just accepting this absurd assertion that all his accounts were hacked? They were all hacked for the purpose of sending a boner photo to some woman in Seattle? And he hasn't bothered to contact law enforcement?

Right.

Must be nice to be a Democratic politician.

Nevadabob writes:

1) Weiner hasn't reported the alleged hack to the FBI.

2) Facebook hasn't announced any investigation of Mr. Wiener's allegedly hacked account.

3) Twitter (the company) knows the IP address of the computer that really sent the tweet. However, Twitter hasn't announced any investigation. They also haven't released the IP address of the person who actually sent the tweet so we can see if that IP address belongs to the Democrat Rep. Wiener

yfrog knows the IP address of the person that actually uploaded the obscene photograph Mr. Wiener's yfrog account. Thusfar, yfrog has not released that IP address so that we can track down the nefarious hacker who did that. Also, Mr. Wiener could request that they release that IP address to the public so we could help him track down the hacker. But he hasn't.

Mr. Wiener so far refuses to tell us what his own IP address is. And, he is refusing to answer detailed questions that would allow us to determine if the IP address which sent the tweet is at his home in New York.

It's trivially easy to determine if his accounts have REALLY been hacked. Is the FBI investigating? He is, after all, a sitting member of Congress and it is a felony to impersonate a member of Congress. It's also a felony to hack people's Facebook and Twitter accounts.

I'm left to wonder why hasn't Mr. Wiener reported this breach of Homeland Security to the proper authorities? Is it because falsely reporting this would itself be a felony?

ADDED: Is it news if a politician is unfaithful to his wife? It's not important (unless there's some big hypocrisy involved, as there is with politicians who have made their careers spouting "family values"). But I think it is news when a politician mishandles his internet communications. Minor news, but worth noting.

And it's really news — serious news — if either: 1. the internet accounts of a politician have been hacked in an effort to destroy the man, or 2. the politician makes the false statement that he has been victimized by a crime. One or the other has occurred in this case (unless I'm failing to see some other option).

Should we all be closing our Twitter accounts lest some devious prankster destroy our reputation? Or has Weiner —  for his own purposes — maligned Twitter's business and undermined the Twitter-user's sense of security? I want to know!

AND: If Weiner is lying about his accounts getting hacked, he could be sued by Twitter (and the other companies) for defamation.

ALSO: NBC News reports "Lewd Photo Sent Over Rep. Weiner's Hacked Twitter Account... his Twitter account was hacked." Not that Weiner makes that claim, but an outright assertion that his account was hacked. Twitter is getting slimed here. Does it deserve it?

Wiener and Weiner are 2 different words.

Learn spelling if nothing else.

A photo of a man’s bulging gray boxer-brief underwear was posted to [Rep. Anthony] Weiner’s account with yfrog — an online image-sharing site — on Saturday night, according to biggovernment.com, which is run by Andrew Breitbart. The photograph is from the waist down, and shows no face.

“The weiner gags never get old, I guess, ” the veteran lawmaker emailed a POLITICO reporter in response on Saturday.

“This evening a photo surfaced on Congressman Weiner’s yfrog account and in his verified Twitter timeline of a man in his underwear with an erection,” Publius, the handle for the site’s editors wrote...

Earlier this week in Weiner’s home state, a special election was held to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of married Republican Rep. Chris Lee, who sent a shirtless photo of himself to a woman he met on Craigslist....

You've got your special election and your special erection. 2 completely different things. But they can be linked.

ADDED: FedkaTheConvict the convict recommends this absurd interview Weiner gave to Megyn Kelly (back in March). Let me pinpoint the part I found especially funny, when he grants her time to speak, then immediately talks over her.

"Don’t think the Republicans’ move to get America’s vaginas back to cherished 50s-era restrictions will end with banning abortion and restricting contraception."

"After that’s done, the next step is moving us back to the god-fearing age when women wore thick pads and belts. Proper ladies know that menstruation is god’s reminder that we’re evil, and should be dealt with in a way that maximizes discomfort and humiliation."

Amanda Marcotte attempts some broad humor. The clip is funny:

Kotex Classic - watch more funny videos

Most sex is bad sex, right?

It's important to draw a line between rape and bad sex. And watch what you sext...



And maybe I should watch my own on-camera gestures...

"I wanted to fix the offending tip ... remove the whole phallic aspect. I told her I'd just swing it upwards."

The problem with Brandy's elephant tattoo.

"For the people who believe that readjusting the Snuggie when you move from the Barcolounger to the mobility scooter is too much work..."

"... comes the Forever Lazy, described as : 'the one piece, lie around, lounge around, full body lazy wear!'"... observes Manolo, adding:

Many thanks to the Manolo’s internet friend Anne for altering him to this.

That's not a reference to me. Anne with an e would be a misspelling, referring to me. But he does have have a typo there. He's thanking Anne "for altering him." I'm sure he means "alerting," but it's a nice Freudian slip, since those giant fleece onesies will destroy your manhood.

"Am I the only person left in the world who worries about spilling his coffee on his laptop?"

2 years ago.

ADDED: I ran across that after reading the colloquy between AllenS and Meade in the comments to the post about Brett's fuzzy penis:

AllenS: Jenn Sterger (the woman) was hired because of some sexy pictures of her in Sports Illustrated mag, that Brent Musberger thought would be a good matchup for the male dominated football sports sceen. Jenn and Brent are just as much at fault here. I'm thinking of sending the woman a picture of my penis also. Could I borrow the fish bowl lens?...

Meade: It's a fish eye lens. Fish eye. It's for taking shots of massive objects or scenes which a normal lens can't take all in. A fish bowl lens would be for taking shots of tiny things. Like Brett Favre's... ability to make good judgments.

AllenS: Ok, ok. Can I borrow the lens that makes stuff look bigger?

But, in fact, the fisheye works really well to make something look large if you get the camera lens right up at it. Lots of other stuff is including in the picture, arrayed all around and looking comparatively small. Frankly — and this is not an offer to AllenS — it would be really interesting to take pictures of naked men and get the extreme closeup on the genitalia with a well-composed and interesting background. I went looking through my old posts with the "fisheye" tag to find some that prove my point.

The second picture here of the fisheye dog makes this point very well. Get right up to the nose. The scenery in the background isn't as interesting as I'd want for my proposed compositions, but you can see how tiny Meade looks in the background (when in fact he was quite close by). Here's another photograph that illustrates the point, albeit with the female body:



That's from the Khmer Dynasty room at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. Here's the effect of the lens looking at the room from the other side:



Here's some male and female nudity, to be fair:



That's the Museum of Natural History — not Brett and Jenn. You may recognize that couple from the movie "Election" — which is a great cautionary tale about the inadvisability of cheating on... many things (including your spouse).

And then — searching through the fisheye pictures — I found something that was extremely important to me: the purple tree, which had this.

"Do you guys TRY to not get laid?"

"The forensic analysis could not establish that Favre sent the objectionable photographs to Sterger."

Aw, come on! Did they examine his penis and compare it to the picture? Yes, the picture may have been fuzzy... but maybe his penis is fuzzy.

Favre has to pay $50,000 anyway, because he "was not candid in several respects during the investigation." Either he failed to cover up in the first instance or he inappropriately covered up in the second.

"Lawsuit exposes royal prince's bizarre sex statues — of HIMSELF."

That Daily News front-page teaser got me to click, and it was well worth it. The pictures of the statues are absolutely hilarious. (No nudity revealed in the cropped photos.)

Photographs of the pieces obtained by the Daily News show an endowed, muscular prince in a series of sexual positions with the woman, one of many at his beck and call. [Prince Jefri] Bolkiah has multiple wives and a harem of lovelies.

The prince is suing over the price his ex-advisers took for selling an estate — where he stored the statues. They only got $11 million for it. The prince's lawsuit and his efforts to exclude the statues as evidence at trial led to this complete exposure of the embarrassing statues.

People, think before you sue!

We had no thoughts at all about about Prince Bolkiah before he sued, and now his name is associated only with this one thing. And by "thing," I don't mean his cock. But he is well-endowed. In the statues!