As a rule, I try not to be drunk when I look at Facebook.

I have found it leads to stupidity, like, “liking” someone’s status –“It’s wine o’ clock!”– because in your cabernet-haze, that sentence is better than poetry.

It also frees me up to have feelings I normally suppress in order to exist in society; mainly anger and there’s quite a bit to be angry about.

As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court made a supreme decision that affects more than half the population who have those whore parts. The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito to get back at the girl who rejected him in high school.

I’ve read a smattering of articles on this because I’m trying to avoid a rage stroke. My understanding is a divided Supreme Court continues to believe corporations are people much in the same way my 4-year-old son believes his monster truck has feelings and is allowing these “people” to use made-up religious beliefs in order to deny some forms of birth control for real people who actually possess human-like vaginas.


That decision, as Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg so eloquently put it, sucks balls.  Some Facebook “friends” took to Facebook to vent their outrage over this decision. They then posted a picture of their mojitos with the caption: “It’s Mojito o’ Clock!” and that sentence was better than an employer-covered Plan B pill.

I’m a little tipsy at the moment.

And then one “friend” posted this:angerwhiteguyMy immediate pinot-noir-fueled idea was to respond in this manner:

speakerrespondsSocial media is ripe for this sort of thing. In fact there was this whole article about in Sunday’s New York Times. We relish in the rage of strangers and become willing participants, each piling on his or her own vitriol until we transform into a community of Yosemite Sams.

I erased the “um. . . fuck you” and tried for logic instead: peenimplantI figured this response would take in the “minefield” the ruling created, but, as the article rightly points out, social media is not a place for nuanced discussion about controversial issues. Short, snippy quips are preferred.

iudchokeI ended up not doing anything because life is meaningless, amirite? Up top!

Good thing too because that article points out that those who frequently vent Internet rage are in general pretty angry people in real life.

You know the type. They’re the ones who would put corporate profits over women’s preventive health care.


  1. At my job I frequently get older male patients who practically beg me to refill their Viagra scripts. But I just throw my head back and cackle then tell them, “Sorry, but I don’t believe in your penis.” Is this wrong of me?

  2. Dear Angry White Guy,
    You’re a male with no uteru; no stake in this issue; clearly no solutions to offer; and so, no import. You stfu already; the grown-ups are talking.

    1. The angry white guy always remind me of a Simpsons episode where Homer says something about being a white 18-49 year old man “everyone listens to me” while he pulls out a can of nuts and gum.
      This is truth.

  3. I was at work when I heard about the ruling. I really did have to sit down because I thought I might be having a stroke. Next month, the supreme court rules on whether or not we chicks are allowed to wear shoes while we’re knocked up.

    1. I’m thinking the pro-barefoot side will be victorious.
      I was the same as you. I had to stop reading/listening about it or I was going to hit someone with my vagina.

  4. I’m thinking that all we sluts and whores should band together and demand that they call us “floozies” instead. Because that is something we might just win.

    1. Let’s revise the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments to “We hold these truths to be self-evident, women are straight up floozies.”

  5. I am by nature a peaceful person, but that outrageously ignorant ruling made me want to bitch slap 5/9ths of the Supreme Court as well as George W. Bush for appointing Samuel Alito in the seat vacated by Sandra Day O’Connor. Had his original candidate for that seat, Harriet Miers, not been railroaded out by a tsunami of rabid conservatives, this ruling very likely would have been in favor of anyone born with a uterus and all with a functioning brain cell.

    1. I’m not so sure Miers would have ruled against Hobby Lobby; the reason she didn’t get the Judicial Committee vetting, where both sides of the aisle objected to her, was that she really didn’t have even a 101-level understanding of the job.

      Had she been on the Court, she probably would have voted with the majority on this case, and may have turned Hollingsworth v Perry the other way,last year, upholding Prop 8 in California. I think the damage she could have caused had she been in place was too much of a risk overall to take a long shot on that.one ruling.

    2. The thing that makes me dry-heave the most is some many of those 5/9ths are comparatively youthful. They will be on there making their shitty judgements for the majority of my lifetime.

  6. They could have at least used Mojito’clock. It would have helped make some sense out of this goddamned mess. I just keep looking at all the insane rulings and political meanderings in the US and thinking “what is going on down there?” Which, ironically, is the very question the Supreme Court wants us to avoid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s