Sickos

Catherine mentions that the talk last night at the Florida Avenue Home for Unemployed Bloggers concerned the advisability of having sex with one's clone. Personally, I think names need to be named here. Sommer, Will, and Julian were firmly in the sex-with-your-clone is hott, while Catherine had wishy-washy views. I think this is gross.

Comments

But what if your clone had that hot, long and big haircut from your prep school days?

Posted by: ferd on October 21, 2006 02:53 PM

Laws requiring anything other than normal registration to vote are entirely unamerican, invariably introduced by Republicans seeking solely to marginalize potential Democratic voters just prior to elections, and have an obvious and odious discriminatory impact on the poor, seniors, and minorities, who are less likely to have drivers licenses and less likely to have ID cards.

Objections to voter "verification" provisions are grounded in history as well as contemporary evidence. During their day, poll taxes and literacy tests, which were also said to protect against fraud and breed confidence in elections, had the direct effect of erecting a barrier to minority voters.

Civil Rights Divisions in all localities should actively and vigorously throw these laws out as they constitute violations of the Voting Rights Act, intervening to preempt discriminatory voter identification provisions which, if implemented, constitute inflexible measures for screening prospective voters and mandating government-issued identification at the polls. These burdensome identification requirements fall well within the historical line of barriers to the ballot box and should be subject to intense scrutiny during the Voting Rights Act Section 5 (preclearance) process and further review under Section 2 of the Act as a discriminatory voting practice or procedure (42 U.S.C. ¡ì 1973b).

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C.A. ¡ì 1973c) was passed for the express purpose of ensuring that jurisdictions with a history of discrimination against minority voters would be subject to vigorous oversight by the Justice Department and guaranteeing that this terrible history would never be repeated. Proposed new voter identification provisions are covered by Section 5 and are subject to immediate review. Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction - or any political subunit within it - cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains preclearance. Further, preclearance requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

Poll taxes and literacy tests, which were also said to protect against fraud and breed confidence in elections had the direct effect of erecting a barrier to minority voters. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 specifically outlawed these and other similar devices because they could be arbitrarily administered by local registrars and state officials in a discriminatory manner. Requiring government-issued identification at the polling place inevitably creates similar barriers and hurdles for racial and ethnic minority voters and has a chilling effect on voter participation.

The negative effect of these provisions has been widely recognized at the state and federal level.
The Federal Elections Commission noted in its 1997 report to Congress that identification entails major expenses, both initially and in maintenance, and presents an undue and potentially discriminatory burden on citizens in exercising their basic right to vote. The burden of this requirement falls disproportionately and unfairly upon racial and ethnic minority voters, as well as voters with disabilities, since a disproportionate number have neither identification nor the financial means to acquire it.

On November 5, 2001 a federal court prohibited the use of an identification requirement, with an alternative signature attestation option, at the polls in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Both the Department and private plaintiffs argued, and the court found, that "the burden imposed by this requirement will fall disproportionately on the Latin American community, thereby violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. ¡ì 1973."

The Department of Justice has taken issue with identification requirements for having a discriminatory impact on minority voters. In the City of Lawrence case, the Department noted that, "our experience in jurisdictions around the country suggests that minority voters - especially those who do not have the required identification with them at the polls ...may be disproportionately disadvantaged by such (identification) requirements, either by difficulties at the polling place or by fears of such mishaps that make them unwilling to go to the polls.

In a directly analogous case, the Department objected to the use of photo identification requirements without also permitting a signature attestation for first time voters under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because it had a disparate impact on minority electoral participation. Since black voters were found four to five times less likely to have photo identification, the Department believed that this requirement would have a "retrogressive effect on the opportunities of black voters" and would likely "have a disproportionately adverse impact on black voters in the state."

There are many voters who simply do not have identification and requiring them to purchase identification would be tantamount to requiring them to pay a poll tax. Moreover, the burden of this requirement falls disproportionately and unfairly upon racial and ethnic minority voters, as well as voters with disabilities, since a disproportionate number have neither identification nor the financial means to acquire it. A burden such as this, which disproportionately affects minorities, would clearly be retrogressive under Section 5 and not subject to preclearance.

All Americans of conscience should not and must not allow such obvious and discriminatory limitations on our basic voting rights to take effect, retrogressively setting back decades of progress and advancements of basic voting rights for all Americans. Thank you for your immediate attention to this extremely serious matter.


Posted by: HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS on October 21, 2006 02:58 PM

You are correct. Will, Julian, and Sommer should be chemically castrated for the sake of humanity.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on October 21, 2006 03:14 PM

Thanks, Will, Julian, and Sommer, for making Leon Kass seem sane.

Posted by: ogged on October 21, 2006 03:20 PM

I can imagine no greater narcissistic pleasure, and hope someday to have more of a life than HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS.

Posted by: Linus on October 21, 2006 03:23 PM

I wouldn't fuck myself if I were the last man on earth, although if I were Ron Jeremy before the belly, but only if I shaved my back first.

If we include different clonal development stages (although of course no pre-consensual Bobs) and time travel, multiple clones, gender manipulations, various positional permutations, daisy-chains and Bob sandwiches...we would still discover that David Gerrold wrote it thirty years ago.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on October 21, 2006 03:45 PM

You wouldn't have sex with your twin. A clone is a lot like a twin. It's a different human being.

If, however, I traveled through time and met myself (leaving aside why that's impossible) we would totally get it on.

Posted by: digamma on October 21, 2006 04:42 PM

This is what you guys talk about when I'm not around?

Posted by: Kriston on October 21, 2006 04:48 PM

This, I think, will be the real Great Struggle of the Next Century: the CloneFuckers vs. Civilization. I think we all know Beinart's a CloneFucker.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on October 21, 2006 05:14 PM

This is what you guys talk about when I'm not around?

I think we started talking about yoga, flexibility, and the possible merits of being able to give oneself head.

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias on October 21, 2006 05:26 PM

I have frequently posed the question whether someone would give himself head if he could physically do it. Nobody wants to answer that question. I don't see how it's really any different from masturbation.

Posted by: blah on October 21, 2006 05:45 PM

"I have frequently posed the question whether someone would give himself head if he could physically do it"

I have seen Ron Jeremy do it onscreen.

Porn Star Legend of Ron Jeremy ...documentary, not porn. More sad than funny, but interesting. Was on cable. I don't know if this shows his trick, but if so, it would have a big white dot.

"You wouldn't have sex with your twin."

Teenage Twins; Brooke and Taylor Young, 1978. I shouldn't know this exists. I ain't linking to one of those kind of sites. They are very cute.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on October 21, 2006 05:53 PM

I have frequently posed the question whether someone would give himself head if he could physically do it. Nobody wants to answer that question. I don't see how it's really any different from masturbation.

You'd probably get some semen in your mouth, and then you'd instantly be gay.

Posted by: ben wolfson on October 21, 2006 06:12 PM

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: teofilo on October 21, 2006 06:32 PM

Your clone could be much younger and cuter than you are, in which case you'd have to beg.

Posted by: John Emerson on October 21, 2006 06:36 PM

You'd probably get some semen in your mouth, and then you'd instantly be gay.

Yeah, but most guys reguarly jerk off an erect penis (and deal with the semen) without worrying about being gay. Also, you could give yourself head without actually shooting it into your mouth.

Posted by: blah on October 21, 2006 07:55 PM

"most guys reguarly jerk off an erect penis (and deal with the semen) without worrying about being gay"

No, you're simply proving that most guys are gay . . .

Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

Posted by: rea on October 22, 2006 10:01 AM

In the interests of faithfully representing the thought experiment, the clone is imagined as identical to the clonee in every respect, physical and mental, until the moment just before the choice. You walk into a cloning closet, and two of you walk out, both remembering having walked in, etc... So if you're generally willing to beat one out, why wouldn't you be willing to beat one out for a person who is, pretty much, identical with you... that is to say, is you? I'm not going to take any guff from Yglesias, who clearly has clone hang-ups, perhaps having experienced a traumatic clone-related experience as a youth?

Posted by: Will Wilkinson on October 22, 2006 11:56 AM

For one thing, Will, the manner in which the beating-out occurs will differ when there are two parties rather than one. Plus, you know, your clone's experiences post-closet aren't your own, so why would you care? Your clone isn't "you", just someone very, very similar, whom you would probably on just that ground detest.

Posted by: ben wolfson on October 22, 2006 01:22 PM

However, that's just the kind of clarity I'm trying to get here, so I invite you to come on over.

Posted by: ben wolfson on October 22, 2006 01:23 PM

Ummmmmmm...self abuse is where I draw the line. Losing my eyesight and having to shave my palms is about all I can deal with.

BTW...Bob, to this day Ron Jeremy claims he never performed fellatio on himself, even though it has forever been immortalized on video as part of the legendary transsexual film "Sulka's Wedding". And "Teenage Twins" is still available for just $24.95. It has been re-released on dvd by VCX Video and is in stock, lol. Of course there are some very nefarious porn sites I know of where it can easily be d/l'd for free...

Posted by: Porn Store Owner Dude... on October 23, 2006 03:15 PM

Well, the more important question, really, is "Would you torture your clone if in a Jack Bauer-type/save-LA-from-being-nuked situation?"

And "Would you find that arousing?"

Posted by: The Confidence Man on October 23, 2006 03:54 PM

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

penis büyütücü

Posted by: sexshop on November 7, 2008 05:59 AM

Post A Comment

advertise_liberally.gif