Saturday, November 8, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
What is the Gerund of Cunnilingus? One who performs cunnilingus is a "cunnilinguist". But to perform Cunnilingus is...what? cunnilinguiling? Cunnilinguising?
Fellatio is fellation. So one may be "fellating". The wikipedia page has a nice Etymology Section:
The English noun fellatio comes from fellātus, which in Latin is the past participle of the verb fellāre, meaning to suck. In fellatio the -us is replaced by the -io, an alternate form of the suffix -ion. The -ion or -io ending is used in English to create nouns from Latin adjectives and indicate a state or action wherein the Latin verb is being, or has been, performed. Further English words have been created based on the same Latin root. A person who performs fellatio upon another may be termed a fellator (or cocksucker, a term which is usually considered obscene). Because of Latin's gender based declension, this word may be restricted by some English speakers to describing a male. The equivalent female term is fellatrix.However, there is no in-depth (ha, ha) Etymology provided for Cunnilingus and rather we have simply this:
The term comes from an alternative Latin word for the vulva (cunnus) and from the Latin word for tongue (lingua).Sexism? I think so.
So, what would the Gerund be? "I am presently cunnilinguiling", "I am presently cunnilingusing"?
If you're wondering what brought this up (ha ha) I was writing this:
"pragmatism fellating, Empiricism cunnilinguiling,"
And realized that I don't know what the proper Gerund form of Cunnilingus is.
Over the next 70 days or so President Elect Barack Obama is going to be putting together his administration. We here at Everyone is a Sith understand how to lead, how to get things done.
I would like to nominate Dave Chapelle for the Secretary of Keeping it Real
Any other ideas?
We are two days out from the election, but Sarah Palin has been thrown under the bus at least three times today.
First: Sarah Palin took a meeting with McCain Staffers in a towel.
Second: A Staffer called the Palin's "Hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast."
Third: Sarah Palin does not know what Africa is.
This is going to be more fun then our (my) dirty trick watch. And yes, i am bathing in schadenfreude territory. But as a history I understand that the victor fights this history book.
Update: "Republican Party lawyer would be dispatched to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her possession."
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Per Pollster.com and, to a degree, Fivethirtyeight.com these are the latest Swing and Lean States:
Throw some baseless speculation into the comments thread.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The prominent atheist is stepping down from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales.
For Fuck's Sake...
I think that someone needs to explain to Richard Dawkins than an external reality existing estranged from the self is a fairy tale, that its existence is not scientifically verifiable. Science only occurs within an accepted context, an assumed context. One assumes the existence of an external reality estranged from the self and then engages in manifestations of that external reality scientifically. But the foundation upon which that scientific research occurs is an assumption, an illusion, an unverifiable guess.
The most detrimental component of Dawkin's development was probably Star Trek, I'm guessing. Via the character Spock, Star Trek propogated the illusion that it is possible to be entirely logical and scientific, that there could be entirely logical beings.
The problem is that logic does not occur until one makes the non-logical, non-scientific leap into an assumed reality. Logic and Science only occur within contexts of reality. Those contexts are not entered into logically or scienficially. There is something else compelling the leap.
And if Dawkins is going to start scientifically assessing Harry Potter and My Little Pony and Sleeping Beauty I think someone needs to start scientifically assessing Dawkins' primary assumptions of reality.
Except we can't. Because primary assumptions of reality are not scientific.
So, instead, we probably just need to inscribe A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge onto a two-by-four and beat the living fuck out of Dawkins until he shuts the hell up.