A New Vibrator to Get Girls through the Pandemic

Let’s see… while Teen Vogue, a magazine whose audience is underage girls, is not promoting leftist propaganda, it is promoting decadence. It is discouraging girls from being proud of their educational achievements and encouraging them to to identify themselves by their sexual anatomical configuration. 

So, here is Teen Vogue’s contribution to the current national coronavirus crisis. You guessed it: a user’s guide to sex toys, that is, to vibrators. Surely, it will help America’s teenage girls get through those school-less days. Surely, it's an improvement over teenage boys. Besides, teenage boys are sheltering in place, anyway.

I did not make this up. It does not come from the Babylon Bee or The Onion. Besides, you can buy a vibrator on Amazon and they will ship it to your door. Just make sure you sanitize it to remove all traces of any potential viral matter.

So, hot off the pages of Teen Vogue is this:

If you’re new to the world of sex toys, a quick Google search for the best vibrators on Amazon can be a great place to begin. There’s a huge array of options out there, which can feel overwhelming, but we (and the dedicated horde of Amazon reviewers) are here to help.

Vibrators are great for everyone, whether you’re just learning what feels good for your body or you’re an old pro at self-pleasure. Many come with various levels of intensity, which allows you to use them at the pace that best suits your preferences. 

And with so many different kinds of models out there, there’s bound to be one to suit your needs. Not looking for penetration? Searching for a clitoral stimulator? A prostate massager? What about something for under $10? There’s a vibrator for that.

At this point, you might be wondering: Can Amazon ship vibrators? The answer is, of course, yes! Though some people might find sex toys scandalous, there’s absolutely nothing illegal or shameful about investing in your sexual pleasure in ways that make sense to you. Read on for Teen Vogue’s picks for the best vibrators you can buy on Amazon, whether you’re in the market for a bullet vibe, a budget option, or one that’s shaped like a tube of lipstick.

I especially admire the creative ingenuity of the branding geniuses who have named these vibrators. Again, I will remind you, this comes to us from Teen Vogue, not from Mad Magazine… though Mad Magazine no longer exists.

So, here are some names, ripped from Amazon:

Tracy’s Dog Clitoral Sucking Vibrator 

Paloqueth G Spot Rabbit Vibrator 

Secret Lover Bullet Vibrator with Angled Tip 

Umania G Spot Bullet Vibrator 

Secret Lover Mini Lipstick Vibrator 

Secret Lover Mini Lipstick Vibrator 

Adorime High-Frequency Clitoris Vibrator 

XoSense G Spot Bullet Vibrator

A bullet vibrator, huh? I thought they were in favor of gun control. Anyway, you get the picture, though you might wish that you didn’t. I will note that the list also includes a few vibrators for women with prostate glands-- I assume that they are transgendered. And even a few for couples.

The issue here is not sexuality. It’s discretion. What a girl does in the privacy of her own bed is not shameful. Making a public spectacle of it, is. This popular magazine is hawking products that encourage women to define themselves in terms of their sexuality, not their minds.

Is this what feminism has come to? Apparently, it has.

Joe Biden Accused of Sexual Assault

Those who are young and naive, and those who have lived very sheltered lives, have widely proclaimed that Joe Biden’s habit of sneaking up on women, grabbing them by the shoulders and sticking his nose in their hair had nothing to do with sex. They were not bothered at the image of him doing the same thing to a thirteen year old child.

Apparently, they cannot recognize a simulated rape when they see it. For those of a scientific bent, a woman’s hair is saturated with pheromones… i.e. Q.E.D. 

If you understood that Biden’s actions constituted sexual assault you will not be shocked or surprised to hear that Biden, on at least one occasion, sexually assaulted a female senate aide. The woman’s name is Tara Reade. She told her story to Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti on a broadcast called Rising.

Among the salient details of this story are these. The story is being promoted by people from the political left, people like Krystal Ball, Glenn Greenwald and Nathan Robinson. They, like Reade herself, support Bernie Sanders. At the least, Reade is a lifelong Democrat, a Hillary Clinton voter, a great fan of Barack Obama. She is not a member of the vast right wing conspiracy. 

We note that Reade did file a contemporaneous complaint after the sexual assault. The result: she could not get a job in politics. Today, most leftist lawyers will not take her case. Because, you know, they have very high standards when it comes to sexual harassment.

And we will also note, among the horrifying aspects of the assault, Biden’s words to a woman who refused to go along with his sexually predatory ways: “You’re nothing.”

We are anxiously awaiting the feminist launch of a political movement that will definitive call out this powerful man who sexually harassed a female aide. 

Here is the clip from Rising:

Not Desperate Enough to Eat a Tofu Hot Dog

Here’s a story to brighten up a rather bleak week. We all know that Americans have been hoarding household essentials, like toilet paper, hand sanitizers and bottled water. We did not know that these same Americans, while stripping supermarket shelves bare, have refused to buy certain items.

Most especially, American citizens have turned away from all vegan products, from vegetable burgers and even soy bean soups. While the media has been trying to persuade us that vegetable burgers are the next new thing, the public seems to have understood-- by the unimpeachable logic in that old phrase: you are what you eat-- that the more vegetables you eat the more you become like a vegetable. 

The Miami Herald has this human interest story (boldface mind):

A lot of media attention has been focused on what people are hoarding amid the coronavirus pandemic, but social media is captivated by what we’re leaving behind.

It’s admittedly funny when a supermarket is out of almost everything, but can’t give away pineapple pizza, chickpea pasta or anything with the word “corona” on it, like Corona beer.

Social media is interpreting these shopping choices as an odd sign of hope: A way Americans are demonstrating that, despite living in desperate times, we’re still not desperate enough to eat a tofu hot dog.

“Somehow reassuring in the midst of coronavirus shopping frenzy to know that people still have the sense *not* to buy chocolate hummus and buffalo hummus,” Noah tweeted on March 12.

“The people have spoken and it is a resounding “Hell No!” We would rather starve in a pandemic before eating plant-based meat!” Jesse Pritchard posted March 20.

Go team!!

When Italians Do Not Follow the Rules

By the best reasoning available, Italy is suffering a larger share of coronavirus infections because its people are averse to following rules. Italians have a rebellious streak, so they defy the orders to stay inside, to shelter in place, to hunker down.

Now, to prove the point, we have this clip, via The Guardian, of a series of Italian mayors trying vainly to persuade their fellow citizens to heed the order.

Recession or Depression?

Normally, when we seek analysis of the current economic crisis we turn to pundits and newspaper columnists. We would do better to ignore people like Paul Krugman who merely intones that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. His column has long ceased to provide analysis. It has become propaganda.

Then we can add your trusty neighborhood broker, who can occasionally provide some much needed perspective on the state of the markets.

Still, if you have been feeling a mixture of anguish and dizziness over the past months, you are seeing things correctly. Aside from the loss of capital, the market’s violent whipsaws are anything but encouraging.

So, as a public service, today I bring you the analysis offered by a Canadian market strategist, by name of David Rosenberg. He has, as you might know, been bearish throughout most of the great stock market rally. Over the last couple of years he has preferred treasury bonds to stocks-- and has done very well with far lower risk.

And yet, we are now in a bear market, so it is perhaps time to listen to someone who has predicted it-- albeit too early.

Rosenberg is none too happy with the pundit class, especially with those who have been trashing him for being too bearish during the great bull run:

I find it fascinating that so many pundits are willing to tell their clients to stay the course after more than a 30-per-cent market meltdown. They have been saying the same thing the whole way through, and my wager is that they will tell you the same claptrap through the next 30 per cent decrease.

It’s amazing to me that these people never seem to be accountable. At least bears will help you preserve your capital; the bulls will only destroy your capital.

Naturally, the great snap back rally might be a trap. It might be the harbinger of things to come. Rosenberg wrote these words before the rally and before the senate passed its stimulus bill. He does not mention it, but the unprecedented interventions by the Federal Reserve suggest a state of great worry about the economy.

When Rosenberg surveys the economic scene, he sees a pending depression:

We have to start thinking of the current situation as morphing into a state of economic depression. Someone put that bug in the ear of U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin last week: without policy stimulus, the unemployment rate will hit 20 per cent. That hasn’t happened since 1932 when real GDP contracted 13 per cent.

I’m sensing that the damage to the U.S. and global economy will be twice as bad this year as it was at the 2008 peak of the Great Recession. That would mean a GDP contraction of five per cent for 2020, which hasn’t happened in the post-Second World War era.

Why does he say this?

Across the world, restaurant activity has already collapsed 50 per cent from a year ago. Box office receipts have all but evaporated — the movie theatres are shut. Air travel is down 30 per cent and the decline is accelerating as planes get grounded. All public venues are closed in most places on the planet. At this point, either an extremely deep recession or a depression that involves an L-shaped recovery seem reasonable to me, but that’s not yet fully priced into the stock market, even with this year’s epic 30 per cent plunge.

A deep recession would see the market decline at least 50 per cent, considering the two-decade-high valuations heading into the crisis. As the old saying goes: the bigger they are, the harder they fall. We have a big problem on our hands. There is no economic visibility so everything’s a crapshoot.

But, we are fighting a war, aren’t we? And wars produce massive economic activity. Rosenberg has considered the analogy and has rejected it:

But in a war, the economy booms as production ramps out. This war is against an invisible enemy that destroys jobs, incomes and output. While even I was prone to draw inferences from what happened after 9/11, which clearly was a horrible tragedy, the reality is that nobody was told to stay home and not work. Indeed, U.S. president George W. Bush told everyone to all go out and spend.

This national economic lockdown just has to last a month for us to see an absolute wave of defaults and bankruptcies with no jobs for people to go back to. If nothing is done to make people whole, call this “transfer payments” instead of “stimulus,” because the amounts being discussed will put food on the table and a roof over heads, but that is about it. I am not sure the Democrats realize the seriousness of the situation in their quest to make sure there are greater restrictions placed on corporate fat cats getting a bailout. 

And then there is the psychological cost of our hunkering down:

The anxiety that comes from not being able to earn a living is one thing. The unnatural state of total social isolation for many is also a tinderbox. Social instability is coming next. Anarchy is possible. The bottom line is that people need to eat and they need to socialize. McDonald’s call it a “Happy Meal” for a reason: ­ the population needs happiness as much as markets need liquidity.

Of course, the bill that just passed the Senate pays people to stay at home. But, that can only last for so long.

In case you were feeling optimistic about a return to normal, Rosenberg tries to debunk the attitude:

Enough on sociology and back to the economy. A lot of recession news is priced into the markets to be sure, but still not enough if this turns out to be worse than the Great Recession. In terms of magnitude, that now looks to be the case. This is no time to think in a linear fashion and no time to prepare the portfolio for a very deep recession with little in the way of a meaningful recovery. Households and businesses will be coping with how their lives have permanently changed once the crisis ends. But nothing is going back to the way it was; there will be a new normal, but it won’t be the old normal.

As for potential buying opportunities, Rosenberg suggests that pent up need for leisure will benefit stocks like Disney, Starbucks and McDonalds. He concludes that we should await developments before rushing in to buy. 

Don’t get me wrong, ­ there will not be a V-shaped recovery. But there will be recovery, and the stock market will bottom ahead as it always does, typically three months ahead of the GDP trough. That trough may not be until September, which means the stock market may have another three months of pain trade. Then we will have the backing and the filling, and the testing and the retesting. You don’t need to be the first one to see if the bear market has ended: ­ be smart, not quick. In the interim, stick with cash, government bonds and high-quality rate-sensitives in the stock market with strong balance sheets, and stay as liquid as possible.

Unsolicited Solicitiousness

Among the joys of reading letters addressed to etiquette columnists is this--they offer an unadulterated glimpse into the American mind. At times, we would feel much better if we did not have such a direct vision into someone who, as happens in today’s letter, is self-righteously self-indulgently self-absorbed. And, someone who takes offense when people express concern for his or her health.

Happily, he or she writes to Miss Manners, who sees quickly that he or she needs a basic attitude adjustment.

I cannot tell you whether this letter writer is male or female. Whichever, he or she has quite an attitude. He or she becomes seriously aggrieved when people inquiring about his or her health. He or she is appalled that anyone would care about his or her well being.

Get it? Probably not. It makes little sense, but it shows a man or a woman horrified at the notion that people cannot read his or her mind and cannot understand that he or she might have stop bicycling for no other reason than that he or she needs to take a break.

Consider the letter:

I often enjoy bike rides, and, for various reasons, I tend to stop a lot while riding. I'm an introverted and private person. The problem: Often when I stop and get off my bicycle, another bicyclist comes along and stops to ask — or, rather, demands to know — "Are you okay?"

Each time I've been asked, there has been absolutely nothing about the situation that suggests that I am not all right. I am standing there, intact (not prone on the ground, not seated, not scraped and wounded, not looking upset or as if I just fell); my bike is intact; I am often on the phone; and what's more, I tend to be turned away from the approaching cyclist, to attempt to dissuade them from stopping and interrogating me.

Yet apparently, none of these things have proved useful to discourage this questioning. When I've voiced these concerns with those who've stopped to inquire about my state, these conversations have not gone well. Admittedly, I've been testy and sarcastic in my replies, which reflects my annoyance. I've explained that I have a mouth and two hands, and could very well call or signal for help if I needed it. Yet, such replies seem to always result in the other rider snapping at me that I'm quite rude, and insisting I should be grateful that they offered to help. These scuffles do not make either my ride or theirs more pleasant.

I could simply reply "yes, I'm okay," but to do that would be to support their practice of rather inappropriately and invasively (as I experience it) interrogating any stopped person, which I am reluctant to do.

If I say nothing at all, I am treated to a hail of insults as they ride off. If I try to explain why I don't appreciate being commanded to reply to an invasive question/interrogation, I'm again likely to be treated to a series of insults, but there's the off chance I might be able to illuminate someone.

Then again, perhaps it's futile to think I can have any impact at all, particularly if my reply evidences any of the annoyance that I feel. Do you have any words of wisdom?

Miss Manners is dutifully appalled by this psychic contortion, and by this seriously inconsiderate attitude toward people who, after all, are only inquiring as to the cyclist's health:

As irritating as you find people’s unsolicited solicitousness, discouraging people from showing concern for others is bad policy. Snapping at people makes the world a less pleasant place and, what may mean more to you, prolongs the encounter. Grit your teeth, repeat, “Thanks, I’m fine,” and go back to your phone.

Of course, it is a good thing that people show concern for others. When they see activity that deviates from the norm, they correctly inquire about the well being of the person, even if the person in question is not an acquaintance.

I know that you are entertaining a slightly different thought, so I will say it for you. Perhaps the solitary cyclist is a ravishingly beautiful female. Perhaps those men who stop to ask about her health are looking to make a new friend or even a new lover. In today’s gender neutered world we are not afforded such information, so we can only speculate about whether it is the cyclist’s abrupt stopping or her skin tight riding shorts.

Andrew Cuomo Rising

While we are all laughing at the enfeebled Joe Biden and while no one really believes that Bernie Sanders can come from that far behind, the new Democratic candidate being floated is New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

One can surely imagine a scenario were Biden drops out for health reasons and a Democratic convention turns to Cuomo.

Anyway, The Daily Caller says what many of us have been thinking:

An unexpected global pandemic could give New York Governor Andrew Cuomo what he wants most: a Democratic presidential nomination.

Cuomo, who just last year was on everyone’s short list of potential challengers to President Donald Trump, is handling coronavirus with such poise that political analysts from both sides of the aisle tell Daily Caller that it’s improbable but not impossible Cuomo leaves a brokered Democratic National Convention with the party’s 2020 nomination.

And also:

He’s even successfully gone toe to toe with Trump, something most of the president’s allies haven’t figured out how to do. After criticizing the president’s “initial response” to the pandemic, Cuomo held a series of one-on-one conversations with POTUS in addition to the group teleconferences with the nation’s other governors. The result? Nothing short of presidential praise in front of a primetime national audience. He demanded additional ventilators on Tuesday, and FEMA shipped an additional 4,000. (RELATED:Cuomo And Trump Both Say Economic Standstill Is Unsustainable, But Differ On How Quickly To Get Back To Business)

Perhaps most importantly, Cuomo just flat out seems presidential.

Time will tell, but this far-out possibility seems well worth our attention.