“No, really,” you say, “wow, I thought we were just flouting international law with no possible repercussions because no one will ever have more power than we do.” But recently one perfect analogy of the policy our country has been conducting has dropped into my lap (thanks, Dolly) and I wanted to share it witch y’all.

The analogy is this: just as it can be said of Garfield minus Garfield “who would have guessed that when you remove Garfield from the Garfield comic strips, the result is an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolor disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life? Friends, meet Jon Arbuckle. Let’s laugh and learn with him on a journey deep into the tortured mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against lonliness in a quiet American suburb.”

. . . It could also be said that Obama, when taken objectively, is not the popular hero he appears. Matt Gonzalez’s recent article in CounterPunch illustrates the opacity of the substance that Obama is pulling over the eyes of American people.

The article argues that Obama, who does not support the impeachment of Bush and appears to be in the pocket of, among other things, the mining industry, is pandering to us. Of course, in context, this pandering doesn’t look so bad: when compared to clowns like Huckabee, this guy looks like a saint. But take away the lazy-cat foil — take away the extremely compromised Clintons, and you’re left with a guy who, objectively speaking, isn’t working with a clean slate.

My high school environmental science teacher once sighed and told me, sagely and sadly, that we have never and would never elect a president who wasn’t in the pocket of big business (I think you’re right, John). Which brings us to the topic of self-service.

Italy’s highest court ruled today that men can no longer grab their crotches in public to warn off bad luck without facing penalties. The judges suggested that men can, if necessary, wait until they get home.

And of course that reminds us of the contrary ruling, in Baby vs. Maryland in October, 2006, that “interpreted Maryland’s common law in such a way as to preclude women from withdrawing consent to sex after penetration has occurred. The court itself admits that this ruling is predicated on ancient views of women as chattel whose value is lost upon penetration, rather than independent human beings whose suffering matters, ” according to The Happyfeminist. The ruling does indeed point to actual Bible passages claiming that if a virgin is raped, she must marry her rapist, and if he is already married, he must forfeit his wife to his victim’s father to be raped and kept in exchange for the perfectly good daughter he broke.

The Happyfeminist points out that “the court further held that there is no rape under Maryland law if the woman consents to sex prior to penetration and then withdraws the consent after penetration.

Awesome; as Jessica at Feministing said, “So ladies, once it’s in, it’s in. Ain’t nothing you can do about it. Changed your mind? Suck it up. He’s hurting you? Oh, sorry–should have thought of that before. After all, it’s not like your body is yours or anything. Jeez.” That’s right, we lose the right to negotiate after we consent. That’s a pretty good reason not to have sex in Maryland. Anyway, I’d like those Italians to keep their rights to scratch their balls AND give women the rights to stop having sex whenever they want. Having only one or the other gets a little too much like a Jon Arbuckle-on-his-lonesome situation.