Strolling through the nacle this morning, where I have been told I am an unwelcome troll, I passed by fmhLisa’s latest post which calls for a “fourth wave” of feminism. I won’t try to dissect her commentary save for one little rant at the tail end of her post.

Declareth fmhLisa:

We’re not asking for no stinking hand out, we are demanding that we be fairly compensated for our very real, very valuable labor. I’ll say it again, motherhood is the number one risk factor for poverty in America. That is our reward. A woman can invest a lifetime of labor in raising her five children, all of whom grow up to work, paying into the social security system, and exactly how much of that investment of labor is she then entitled to withdraw from that system, the very system her labor directly supported? The answer is zero. If she didn’t have a “real job” if she didn’t “pay into the system” well then, apparently all that labor of raising children, that was totally without value. All those children (raised with to be responsible citizens) paying into the system, measurably worthless. (Emphasis Added)

We will assume that fmhLisa's hypothetical mother of five children is (or was) married at some point in time. This assumption is based on the fact that if he knocked her up five times, she had better have been married to him or retirement is probably the last of her worries. But I digress.

The Snarkernacle Research Department found, with one or two clicks of a mouse, information contrary to fmhLisa's claim:

Social Security survivors benefits can be paid to:
  • A widow or widower -- full benefits at full retirement age, or reduced benefits as early as age 60
  • A disabled widow or widower -- as early as age 50
  • A widow or widower at any age if he or she takes care of the deceased's child who is under age 16 or disabled, and receiving Social Security benefits
  • Unmarried children under 18, or up to age 19 if they are attending high school full time. Under certain circumstances, benefits can be paid to stepchildren, grandchildren, or adopted children.
  • Children at any age who were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled.
  • Dependent parents age 62 or older
  • If you are divorced, you may still qualify for survivors benefits.
And this is all a valid conversation, because as we know, our politicians have been wise stewards of our money. Social Security will still exist by the time fmhLisa's generation retires! There is a sacred “trust fund” in Washington, DC. There is a “lock box” where 15% of every paycheck is saved. Our politicians certainly haven't spent our hard earned money in a fashion that would embarrass drunken sailors!

Simply put, a blindfolded, intoxicated monkey throwing darts at a stock chart could give our divorced/widowed/separated mother of 5 a better rate of return. Again, I digress.

So, o wise fmhLisa, if you're going to slam the "system", the least you can do is research your slams first. Just sayin'.


This is my first entry for T&S' A Mormon Image series.

Caption: "I suggested my bishop read Times and Seasons."


Shock of shockers, fmhLisa disagrees with Elder Oakes [sic]!

... While I think the analogy was unfortunate and inappropriate, especially considering that the church in the 60s was actively participating in discrimination. [sic] I do have sympathy for the point Oakes [sic] was trying to make ... Still his choice of defending civil freedoms also somewhat [sic] ironic ... almost always a mistake to compare oneself (or one’s opponent) to ... any iconic injustice. Will almost always backfire, make you look silly ...
She's write! [sic] Analogies are ridiculous little things, and someone with an extensive legal background, such as Elder Oakes [sic] certainly wouldn't understand the nuance of an analogy. It's not like a former judge would have experience taking similar facts of a previous case and making analogous application of the rule established in the previous case to the case at hand!

We at Snarkernacle found ourselves in a quandary. Who is write [sic]? Elder Oakes [sic]? Or fmhLisa? We convened an emergency conference kall [sic], retired to our respective chambers, and subsequently made a unanimous ruling.

Dallin H. OaksfmhLisa
Clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court

Practiced at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago

Former justice of the Utah Supreme Court
Is friends with Kaimi and Steve Evans on Facebook
Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, serving as interim dean

President of Brigham Young University
Can find Provo on a map of Utah
Chairman of the Board of Directors of PBS
(we won't hold that against him)
Chairwoman of a "big blog"
Numerous peer-reviewed publications on scholarly and legal mattersFrequent rambling blog posts
Speaks and writes in depth about topics directly relating to immortality and eternal life of men (and women)Writes about poop
Speaks regularly in General ConferenceSpeaks at Sunstone
Has no hairHas pretty auburn hair

The winner is pretty clear, no? Applying common law to our circumstance, we reviewed prior SnarkLaw cases. In 2007 Snarkernacle endorsed Mitt Romney's candidacy for the GOP nomination because he had the best hair of any candidate--Democrat or Republican. We therefore are bound by--and uphold--our Hair Endorsement Policy of 2007. We rule in favor of the plaintiff, fmhLisa of Feminist Mormon Housewives.


Behold, I direct mine epistle to DKL, in the blog of Mormon Mentality, who is the chief admin over the blog.

2 For behold, I have somewhat to say unto him by the way of condemnation; for behold, he hath been appointed to resurrect LDSElect.org, and supply it with servers, and with PHP code, and all manner of bandwidth of every kind, and send forth competition against the Archipelago.

3 And now behold, I say unto you that myself, and also my kindred snarkers, have suffered exceedingly great sufferings; yea, even boredom, banishment, and fatigue of mind.

4 And now behold, we desire to know the cause of this exceedingly great neglect; yea, we desire to know the cause of your "403 - Forbidden" state.

5 Is it that ye have neglected us because ye are employed and ye are surrounded by family, that ye do not cause aggregation to be displayed unto us?

6 Will ye sit in idleness and do nothing to help those thousands round about who do also sit in Bloggernacle idleness?

7 Behold it is time, yea, the time is now at hand, that except ye do bestir yourself and reboot LDSElect, the wrath of Snarkernacle doth hang over you; yea, and it shall fall upon you and visit you even to your utter humiliation.

8 Behold, I wait for aggregation feeds from you; and, except ye do administer unto my relief (or provide me with source code), behold, I come unto you, even in the blog of Mormon Mentality, and smite you with the snark.

9 Behold, I am Dazzle of Snarkernacle. I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for the honor of the Bloggernacle (for their is no such thing) but the glory of satire, and the snarking and mocking of the masses. And thus I close mine epistle.


Great Scott!

Everyone knows the world won't end until AT LEAST after October 21, 2015. I've known this since 1989, when I saw "Back to the Future II".

Relax, people. There's still plenty of time to repent.