more fem fight club thoughts. word of warning i am insane and crazy
- Unlike narrator who would hate it a lot if he got castrated i think a hysterectomy would appeal to fem narrator (doesnt think it would change a lot (Not True) and severe pregnancy phobia) However she wouldn’t actually go through with the surgery because A. she doesnt do anything unless pushed to by an outside force (inertia) and B.
- Penetration Anxiety!!!!! applies to surgery, bullet, PIV sex, literally anything. aversion so strong it extends to Tyler subconsciously. Imo her aversion to penetration is stronger than her wanting to be straight. she would maybe be okay with a bit of cheek hole action though.
- Tyler and marlon dont fuck. because of reasons stated above and to be completely honest because i think it would be gross. but not the fun gross.
- When marlon is ODing on xanax Tyler just burns him with cigarettes and hits him all night until he stops. this makes marlon imprint on her like a baby duck.
- Marlon has hiv :( so probably good he and tyler dont do it
- when fem narrator kills herself she slits her wrists instead of shooting herself because. penetration anxiety!!
- i dont think marlon has a good enough relationship w his parents to be sent bags of liposuctioned fat so unfortunately they just have to go to a medical waste center the first time :((
- marlons the type to say “im gonna kill myself when i turn 30” but he actually tried to follow through with a quarter bottle of xanax and a razor. somehow he survives hooray !!
- Tyler has a veritable fight club harem (ego reasons). narrator is very confused when random space monkeys come up to her to hang off her arms.
- fem narrator’s ikea is kitchenware. she has 8 dutch ovens and still eats spoonfuls of horseradish for dinner.
- she had one of those lowkey eating disorders before tyler fully gestated. she was forced to stop not because tyler cared about her mental well-being but because tyler wanted to get Jacked. Now she eats plain chicken breast and spinach every single day.
- the worst possible ending for narrator would be the premise of fight club 2 (married to marlon and has a kid)
- most controversial marlon to me is bald!! not like mr clean but like Eminem… i need to show off his slightly receding hairline and widows peak… also if he has hair he looks too good he need to look like a golf ball balanced on a bundle of sticks (faggot)
In an unprecedented move, the Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced a bill requiring the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct and to create a mechanism for investigating alleged violations of the code and other laws.
It is no secret that the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act was prompted in part by investigations into several Justices’ deficient financial disclosures, receipt of extravagant gifts, questionable transactions and misuse of staff. The full court has consistently resisted adopting such an ethics code, but certain Justices’ justifications for their questionable conduct only hurt their cause.
Their excuses were all remarkably flimsy, almost beyond belief.
Justice Clarence Thomas began the round of rationalizations when Pro Publica reported that he had enjoyed decades of lavish vacations at the expense of billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow — including cruises in Indonesia and the Greek Islands on Crow’s superyacht — none of which were included as gifts on Thomas’s financial disclosure forms as required by the Ethics in Government Act.
In a one-paragraph statement, Thomas opaquely claimed that he had sought guidance early in his tenure on the court from unnamed “colleagues and others in the judiciary,” who advised him that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends” was not reportable.
Thomas has never revealed the identities of his alleged ethics advisors, but it is notable that no Justice or Judge has stepped forward to take responsibility for his decidedly lax interpretation of the disclosure rules. Whoever may have mentored Thomas, it is highly unlikely, to put it mildly, that any federal judge in the early 1990s would have understood “this sort of personal hospitality” to cover the omission of 20 years of luxury vacations at a private Adirondacks resort, a Texas ranch and California’s Bohemian Grove, ferried on a private jet (not to mention payment of private school tuition for the Justice’s nephew and the purchase of his mother’s home).
As excuses go, “somebody once told me it was okay” is about a step above “the dog ate my homework,” but it is still better than Thomas’s earlier excuse for not disclosing years of his wife’s employment when Virginia Thomas was paid $686,589 by the conservative Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College.
Upon amending 20 years of his financial reports, Thomas gave the far-fetched explanation that he had “inadvertently omitted” the information “due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” It takes almost preternatural shamelessness for a Supreme Court Justice — whose job calls for parsing the most complex legislation — to insist that he misunderstood the plain meaning of “spouse’s employment” for 20 reporting years.
If Thomas’s excuses for nondisclosure were sketchy, at least he didn’t become visibly angry when he was caught. Not so Justice Samuel Alito, who made an irate preemptive strike via the Wall Street Journal editorial page when he learned that Pro Publica was about to publicize his own nondisclosures.
The Pro Publica reporters contacted Alito for comment before going live with their article about an Alaska vacation financed by prominent Republican donors. Rather than answer their questions, however, Alito took advantage of his contacts at the Wall Street Journal to get a jump on the story. He published his response several hours before Pro Publica’s post, in which he called the yet unseen article misleading and false.
There was no disputing the facts. In 2008, Alito enjoyed a three-day, all-expenses junket at a remote Alaska fishing camp owned by a wealthy conservative activist named Robin Arkley II which was apparently arranged by Federalist Society official Leonard Leo. Another guest was the billionaire Paul Singer, who flew the Justice to Alaska on his private jet. No details about the trip were listed as gifts on Alito’s disclosure forms.
Unlike Thomas, Alito claimed no preexisting friendships with his benefactors, which did not stop him from playing the “personal hospitality” card. Although the statutory disclosure exception clearly applies only to “food, lodging, or entertainment,” and not to transportation, Alito defended his nondisclosure by cobbling together several unrelated statutes in a tortured attempt to show that private jet flights constitute “hospitality facilities.”
The Justice seemed to argue that the trip had no value because he sat in “what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat,” imposing no “extra cost” for Singer. One might expect an avowed textualist to pay more attention to the statutory definition of “gift,” which includes, for example, “free attendance at an event,” which also costs nothing to the host.
The most recent revelations involve Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s use of court staff to bolster her book sales at speaking engagements. That would have violated the lower federal courts’ Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which prohibits the substantial use of “chambers, resources or staff” to engage in otherwise permitted financial activities — if the Supreme Court had ever adopted its own version of the code.
Sotomayor’s excuse was that her “chambers staff” was only recommending “the number of books based on the size of the audience so as not to disappoint attendees who may anticipate books being available at an event.” In other words, the Justice admitted assigning a judicial assistant to keep track of book purchases relative to audience sizes, in order to maximize her potential sales.
The three Justices’ hollow rationalizations display a patronizing expectation that the public will ultimately buy whatever they say, no matter how implausible.
But to paraphrase the late Justice Robert Jackson: Supreme Court Justices do not get the last word because they are infallible; they only believe themselves infallible because they get the last word. When it comes to judicial ethics, that has to change.
The A Team • Drunk • U. N. I. • Grade 8 • Wake Me Up • Small Bump • This • The City • Lego House • You Need Me, I Don't Need You • Kiss Me • Give Me Love • Autumn Leaves • Little Bird • Gold Rush • Sunburn
I wrote this Our Flag Means Death song in April 2022 and I never posted the full version anywhere. Now that the second season of OFMD is coming out as we speak, I wanted to share it with you. I love this show with all my heart and I hope you like this little love song I wrote for Ed and Stede:
Jimi Hendrix is photographed on his knees, setting his Fender Stratocaster alight while performing "Fire" at the Monterey Pop Music Festival in California on June 18, 1967.