“That’s Emperor Chucklenuts To You, Fat Head!!!”

Oh, but you will not believe this…but if this article represents the overwhelming sentiment of the 24% of the population who still manages beyond a glimmer of working brain cells to support Dubya’s war games, then we are so totally screwed over….and not in the good way, either.

An outfit called Family Security Matters, which claims to be a right-wing thinktank which boasts the likes of Frank Gaffney, Monica Crowley, Laura Ingraham, and James Woolsey on its Board of Directors, originally published this magnificent tome to the outstanding leadership qualities of our President-Select and the inadequacies of our present system of democracy to match his greatness.  Unfortunately, the original site decided that it was a bit too magnificent and pulled it from the site…but not before some of the liberal blogosphere cached it for posterity. Digby from Hullabaloo was one of them; she even felt so moved that she reprinted the whole entire article at her site; from whence I will borrow to post for your entertainment. As always, I’ll add my commentary and annotations within brackets where feasible.

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

[Let’s just say that Dubya’s not too well liked by the majority, shall we?? For some, that might be a natural outcome of his policies..but Mr. Atkinson has a slightly different perspective…]

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

[Ohhhhhhh-kay…..so when this president was near 60-70% popularity right after September 11, 2001, that would indicate just as much the fickleness of the public…right, Mr. Atkinson??? Or does popular opinion and “democracy” only work well when your side controls all of the seats of power, as it was before November of last year??  (And considering the Dimocrats’ record of caving in to all of Dubya’s demands so far, even that minor glitch of losing the Congress doesn’t seem to matter much anyway.)]

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

[Oh, yeah….those weapons of mass destuction that we know Saddam had that he was going to unleash on us any time back then…..if only we could have found them.  And this notion of “the threat returning if the Army “merely returns to its home”….which threat would that be, Mr. Atkinson?? al-Queda (who hated Saddam with a passion and called him an “infidel” and a Communist)??  The Iranians?? bin Laden (whom apparantly wasn’t enough of a threat in Afghanistan when your favorite government was supporting and financing him and his band of “freedom fighters” against the Soviets)??? Or was it really the real threat of Saddam cutting off the US from Iraqi oil and trading in euros instead of petrodollars?? Oh, but wait…I’m getting ahead of myself; onward ho….]

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

[Not to mention that the nuclear fallout would make it a bit messy to clean up and dig up all that oil….and there is that slight possibility of China and Russia aiming their nukes at us in response…but why let facts get in the way of a wonderful empire??]

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

[Somebody probably needs to remind Mr. Atkinson that Israel has all the nukes in the region, while Iran has…..none. And, regardless of Iran’s boasting, they probably won’t be able to even get enough nuclear power for a power plant, if past reaction from Israel means anything.]

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

[Oh, but ye of little faith, Mr. Atkinson…..surely, you saw the President’s stirring speech in front of the VFW, where he remains quite the optimist about absolute and total victory in Iraq; regardless of the public’s disapproval.]

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

[Of course, this ignores the fact that the Roman Empire ultimately collasped from exactly the “peace and prosperity” that Caeser provided and extended to his successors…or the fact that Caesar ended up assassinated.]

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

[Oh, yeah….Iraq, the Fifty-First State of the Union!!! And where would all those new Americans come from, incidentially???  Those “illegal aliens” that you wish to throw out of the mainland???  The detainees out of Guamtamano Bay and Abu Ghraib?? The entire Black population of the US???]

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

[Yeah, right….a military coup that would suspend the Congress and the SCOTUS.  What kind of crack is this guy smoking??? He does know that most of the military would more than likely revolt the other way if such a “coup” would happen, right??  And he does know about this thing called “Federalism” which devolves political power to the States…and a certain constitutional amendment which limits Presidential terms to two consecutive four-year terms, right??? Boy, some folk do dream mighty dreams..mighty stupid dreams!!!]

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

 Hold up…I thought that conservatives were supposed to be strict construtionists who opposed such concentration of power in one person, right???

If this was written by some tin-foil hat wingnut from Christian Identity or the MiNUTeKKKlan, it could be dismissable as certified crank lube….but this is coming from a serious neo-CON organization (although, they were pretty quick to clip Atkinson’s wings and repudiate in public his flights of fancy. And it does give great pause to what it says for some of the others in power who may share his myopia that going “Papa Doc for Life” might just be the ticket for avoiding the inevitable political ass kicking that the Repubs and ultra-cons are scheduled to recieve in November of next year.

Perhaps that may be Unkla Karl’s last parting gift to his President and his country.  Let’s hope not.

I Iz In Yer Meme…Rolling ‘Da Octet (Lolcats Really SUCK, BTW)

OK…..so Iamcuriousblue decided to tag me on this new meme that’s going around.

Here are the rules as he sent them:

  1. We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
  2. Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
  3. People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
  4. At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
  5. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.

OK….since IACB was so nice, here’s some totally irreverent (and irrelevant) stuff about moi:

1)  I have a serious elevator phobia:  It doesn’t matter where I go, wherever possible I will ALWAYS ask to use the stairs. I guess that it’s the fear of getting stuck or getting in freefall.

2)  Other than my usual fetish for sexy, intellegent women, my other main weakness is for pasta with meat.  Serve me up lasanga or a good spagetti and meatballs dinner (especially with chunks of sausage or franks) and you will have an obedient ‘Dog for life….or at least, a week.

3)  If I wasn’t stuck in South Louisiana, the next best place that I’d want to live would be San Diego.  I spent some time there job hunting a few years back; and I loved every minute of it.  I especially enjoyed riding the trolley down to the San Ysidro station and back (though I never did cross the border into Mexico; didn’t have enough for a passport).

4) In terms of travel, here are my limits:
West: San Diego (see #3)
East: Atlanta (to visit relatives)
North: Memphis (As a member of what was then the University of Southwestern Louisiana’s band for a football game)
South: New Orleans (for Mardi Gras)

5)  I used to have a real fear of trains due to my grandmother living next to a major train line; now I can’t get enough of them.  I wouldn’t want to have one real close by, though.

6)  I was once considered “genius” enough to take Algebra I in the seventh grade.  Like that did me any good. ;-p

7)  For some reason even I don’t understand, I still do not know how to drive a car…so I end up walking a lot.  Maybe the fact that I don’t own my own car might have something to do with that….

8) Although I’m now 43 years old, everyone thinks that I’m no older than 35, at most.  Maybe it’s because I’m a twin or a Taurus…but who knows.

————————————————–

Remember, I’m posting this right around one in the morning right after a night shift at work…so sue me.

Now….who to pass the poison too??  The nominees (if not “winners”) are:

Kevin of Slant Truth
R Mildred of C*ntensquirten
Nina Hartley (via her forum)
The Mighty Quare Dewd/Queer Bitch/Bitch | Lab
Brownfemipower over at Women of Color Blog
Nezua at The Unapologetic Mexican
Rachel Kramer Bussel at The Lusty Lady
Dr. Susan Block (via Bloggamy)

And in case some of those have already been tagged, three alternatives:

Dr. Carol Queen
Bint Alshamsa of My Private Casbah
Dr. Gloria Brame

Have at it, Clones.

Oh…and the first person who attempts to run a Lolcat on me gets a full can or SmackDog Whupasstm laid on him/her….I wouldn’t impose that torture on even my worst enemy. Hmmmph.
 

Baaaaad, Dirty Dawg!!! (Or…This Blog Is Adult In Nature…Errrrrr..Du’uhh?!?!)

Oh, but this is really sweet…in a sacchrine sort of way.

There is this dating site which decided to add a feature that allows you to rate your blog according to  the same ratings code standards as what the MPAA does for movies (G, PG-13, R, or NC-17).

Well…I’m a sucker for a good meme, and decided to run this blog through their filters…and guess what?? Oh, but you will be surprised!!

Online Dating

Mingle2Online Dating 

Yup…this blog would be declared unsuitable for children and all others under 17.

Ahhh…you wouldn’t think that all the talk here about SEX would have anything to do with that, would you??

Well, you would think right.  Here’s a list of the frequency of words that prompted the rating:

  • sex (48x)
  • porn (30x)
  • death (12x)
  • fucking (9x)
  • sexy (5x)
  • fuck (4x)
  • dick (2x)
  • abortion (1x)
  • Now…aside from the fact that a freakin’ DATING SERVICE site is doing this rating stuff; what does that say about the MPAA’s ratings code that a mere reference to the word “sex”  (and even the word “sexy”?!?!?!) is worthy of an adult rating??  (Other than the fact that the ratings system sucks major ass, of course.)

    Oh, but it gets so much better: the service also allows you to rate other blogs and sites, not just your own.  So….I decided to input some of my fave blogs in, and whatdayaknow, read these ratings:

    ‘Da Quare Bitch” : NC-17
    Susie Bright’s Journal : NC-17
    Having Read The Fine Print (Blackamazon) : NC-17

    Fetch Me My Axe (Belledame) : NC-17
    Trinity’s LiveJournal (The Strangest Alchemy)  : NC-17
    Pandagon : NC-17
    Being Amber Rhea : NC-17

    OK…so far so good (sort of)…pro-sex blogs usually get whacked with adult ratings.  Except….

    Renegade Evolution : R

    Errrrr….WHAT?!?! Hold up…I protest this.  Ren’s blog is far more explicit and cusses more than the others — not to mention her love for “rough sex” — yet her blog is safer for children than mine (or Quare Dewd’s or even Amber’s?!?!)

    Turns out, Ren got the favorable rating because she uses the sex terms less (but she did get cited for using the “rape” terms 4 times, and for using the term “bitches”).

    And then there is this:

    Women of Color Blog (Brownfemipower) : G

    Yeah, right…..after all the cussin’ and fussin’ BfP’s been doing, she’s still considered safe for kids?? Hmmmph…

    And finally, because I’m that much of a snoop (not to be confused with Snoop Dogg); I tested the usual usual APRF sites:

    Womens’ Spaces (Heart): unavailable
    Foot of the Stairs (Witchy-Woo): G
    I Blame The Patriarchy: G
    Genderberg: G

    Hmmmm…do I detect a certain political bias trend here??  Like…it’s perfectly OK to blast out antiporn boilerplate as long as you avoid the usual sex terms..but if you are pro-sex, you are already considered  unfit for general audiences, even if you don’t cuss like a sailor or a porn actress near orgasm??

    What. Ever.

    I am an adult, and this blog ain’t changing one bit. The MPAA can shove its ratings up its ass, anyway. 

    Actually, they should bring back the X rating……it’s much more special than a mere NC-17.

    BTW….De-Riddle Me This, Please???

    A full gallon of Concentrated SmackDog Whupasstm goes to the reader who can successfully re-vowel this quote that I just saw at that Feministe thread:

    t wll nvr stp bng fcntng t m tht th ppl wh clm t b th nl ns wh cr abt “ctl wmn” r s nvstd n mntnng th stts q. n sggstn tht mb – jst mb – wmn rn’t pblc tlts s mt wth ccstns f shkng p wth th “rlgs rght”, ccstns f gnrng th “ctl wmn”, ccstns f clsssm, rcsm, sxsm, ccstns f bng slf-rghts prhbtnsts. ll n n ffrt t jstf th cmmdfctn nd xplttn f fml flsh.

    Wh bthr t tr nd stp th xplttn f wmn, whn t wld b jst s mch sr t mk th xplttn sr? Wh bthr trng t d nthng t ll, bcs thr ffrts hv fld? nd mst f ll, dn’t VR tr t cnvnc bs wth rctns tht th rn’t ttll nttld t sng wmn’s bd t gt ff. Bcs thr’s sm wmn t lk bng sx wrkrs nd tht mns, f dn’t ncld thm n vr sngl dscssn n th tpc, ‘ dn’t cr bt thm (vn thgh th rn’t th tpc t ll)!! (Rthr lk, f dn’t tlk bt ml vctms f DV r rp/Sxl sslt n thrd bt fml vctms, thn dn’t cr bt thm!!)

    f tht s “crng” bt “ctl wmn”, ‘m Snt Cls.

    I won’t reveal the poster here; she can be found out quite easily there.

    Another Day, Another Meme: “Five Questions”

    2)First off, here’s the rules, as sent to me by Renegade Evolution:

    1) Solicit an interview through another blogger’s comment section.
    2) Said blogger sends you five questions of varying intimacy for you to answer.
    3) You answer them in your blog (with proper credit and linkage).
    4) You then solicit others if they want to be interviewed.
    5) If they do, then you must send them five Q’s for them to answer….and so on.

    And now….the Henchwoman’s High Five, along with my responses:

    1)  Aside from Nina [Hartley], who are your favorite porn stars?

    I have to break it down into subcategories, since there are so many women I adore:
    Hardcore Pros (besides Nina): Vicky Vette, Avy Scott, Heather Hunter, Shayla LaVeaux, Rebecca Lord, Kylie Irleand, Ava Devine, Desiree Cousteau, Gina Lynn, Vanessa del Rio, Bethany Sweet, Cara Lott, Sativa Rose
    Hardcore SemiPro/Amateurs: Bridgett Lee, Naughty Allie, Nikki Jackson, Rebecca Jessop, Jan Burton
    Softcore Pros: Shauna O’Brien, Kira Reed, Julie Strain, Monique Parent 

    2) As a kid, you wanted to grow up to be a….?

    First a policeman; then, when I got deep into music, a band director.

    3) What is one of your role models?

    Nelson Mandela….gotta admire someone willing to suffer so much personally to liberate an entire nation.

    4) Favorite band/artist?

    I was raised on 70s funk and "The Elements" (Earth, Wind, & Fire)…but my heart and soul gotta stick with Olivia [Newton-John].  

    5) You seem to love the drumline action…do you play?

    Sadly, no….I was actually more of a woodwind specialist in college, and I never quite made it to get my degree for whatever reason.  Still, I’m big on marching bands (especially the high-stepping "showbands") and I just like d-lines that can execute and entertain.

    ——————————————————————————-

    All right….who wants to play along??  As Beyonce would say: "To the left, to the left….."

     

    This Blog Is Now A No-Prude Zone!!

    If I could find a way to put this on the sidebar, this would be my new theme photo for the blog….except perhaps with a dog replacing the ferret (Sorry, Paul):

     

    Much love to Susie Bright for granting me permission to repost that effin’ brilliant motto…and by all means, do take a visit over at her kick-ass blog and venture in on the spicy debate she’s having right now on the issue of tagging "suggestive" content as "NFSW" (Not Safe For Work).  She sees it as more of the same old sexual censorship; many commenters tend to disagree and defend it under the guise of protecting workers from getting fired for sexual harrassment. Just read and decide for yourself.

     

     

    The Passion of the Coultergeist (Or….Bait Liberals as “Fags” By Day; Back Gay Porn Stud Rightists By Night

    It would be so easy and so righteous to get into a frothy rage over Ann Coulter’s latest venture of "Mouse Davis Syndrome"* regarding her CPAC conference "faggot" smack against John Edwards…but other liberals do that so very well.

    But, when same basher of gays (and liberals and Democrats assumed to be such) is caught with her hands down the pants of former gay porn stars turned fellow wingnut rightists (figuratively speaking, that is)….well, that catches your eye kinda quick.

    Turns out that one of the invitees at the very CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) confab where St. Annie got off her blast (and who even happened to score a nice portrait of him with her) just so happens to be a pretty well endowed ex-Marine turned "conservative" columnist…..who managed to star in gay male porn films and even do escorting.

    The consolidated version of the complete story, courtesy of Joe.My.God., with an assist from the lovely-but deadly Troll Killa known better as Sabina Becker:

    If you are familiar with Cpl. Matt Sanchez, you probably know him as the handsome 36-year old Columbia University junior and USMC reservist who recently made the rounds of right-wing talk shows like O’Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, where he received praise for coming forward and complaining about his treatment at the hands of Columbia’s "radical anti-military students" who called him names and mocked his military service. Sanchez was then feted at the CPAC conference where Ann Coulter made her "faggot" remark. Sanchez wrote an op-ed piece on the Columbia experience for the NY Post and began a blog and MySpace page chronicling his media exposure.

     

     

    Now, if you’re like me, you might think, "Hmm, 36 years old and he’s a junior in college and only a corporal in the Marines?" Odd, but not totally implausible. But Sanchez’ face tinkled a few gay bells out there in fairyland, and last night I began to get emails letting me know that his rather late appearance on the Ivy League scene was because Sanchez has had a lengthy career in gay porn, working under the names Rod Majors (NSFW) and Pierre LaBranche, starring in such art films as Jawbreaker, Donkey Dick, and Glory Holes Of Fame 3, where his "11-inch uncut monster cock" earned him a devoted following.

    Oh, swell…..another Semper Fi Gung-‘Ho of the Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert school.

    Oh, but it gets even better…turns out that Senor Sanchez also, like Gannon/Guckert, did some escortin’ on the side, too. The Joe.My.God. entry includes links to his escort page and his Amazon home page where he reviews several gay porn vids, among other things.

    To give him credit, though, Sanchez has been a bit more honest and open about his gay porn sex life than most righties; he has done countless interviews and even blogged about his life as a gay porn stud and the consistency of being a right winger and a gay man.

    But this really isn’t as much about Matt Sanchez as it is about ‘Da Coultergeist" slamming Democrats as gay while consorting with gay male porn stars.  Question for Annie: Aren’t you being more than a tiny bit hypocritical or cynical about blasting liberals for their "evil acceptance" of the "gay lifestyle" even while you defend the right of ex-gay pornsters and prostitutes?? Is it really the "gayness" of John Edwards that you hate that got you to get off that blast…or is it more of the same Democrat/liberal bashing that you are inevitably known for?? Or….perhaps, you really, really do want to get yourself some of that uncut 11" wood for yourself and "turn" Mr. Sanchez out into a "normal" wingnutter?? (Not that I as a sex rad libertarian would oppose your personal right to lust after him and his dick, mind you, Ms. Annie; but it seems kinda hypocritical that you would deny regular gay folks who don’t share your wingnuttery the same rights of consensual lust-seeking under the guise of  "defending Chirstianity".)

    And what of the many "conservative" fundie Christians who follow your every word and who may feel more than a bit betrayed and wronged that you are willing to consort with the hated enemy of all things holy and moral…you do know about the latest proposal by the head of the Southern Baptist Convention ruling committee about intervening in the development of preborn fetuses to block the supposed "gay gene", do you?? 

    But, then again, it’s not as if Annie hasn’t been know to run her mouth and shoot from the hip..only this time, the political climate has changed to the point that people are a bit less forgiving of such talk. Enjoy your final descent downward into ignobility, Coultergeist…it seems that your 15 minutes of fame is just about to expire.  Maybe you could put all that energy attacking Democrats to better use…..like, say, seeking better dates or a proper hairstyler??

    [*"Mouse Davis Syndrome" is in honor of football coach Darrell "Mouse" Davis, who was the founder and inventor of football’s high-flying "Run-and-Shoot" offense which thrived and then died in the college and professional ranks during the late 80s and early 90s. The "syndrome" is my tribute to those who tend to let their mouths run a bit more than usual and who occasionally shoot their own feet when doing so. It is no reflection on the actual offense, which I actually tend to favor…being such a radical and all.]

    Note #2: Please not that the last post contained no references to Annie’s supposed "mannish" looks or her "gender-bending"; in my view, her noxious right-wing Repub ideology and her reputation as a fascist bomb thrower are more than sufficient for derision. Her gender identity is her own business and nobody elses.

     

     

    In Memoriaum: Miss Molly Layeth ‘Da Smack Down Upon Camille Paglia

    I’m not sure that I can ever do justice to the many kind tributes to Molly Ivins — journalist, progressive populist, humorist, feminist, and all around badassssss who left this mortal world almost a month ago – but rereading this particular essay flambeeing right-wing cultural critic/Ayn Rand wannabe Camille Paglia brought back such great memories that I felt the need to share it with the rest of ‘ya.

    A grateful thanks to Avedon Carol of The Sideshow for pointing me to the column, and to Erich Schneider for having the forethought to save the original Mother Jones column and post it on the Internet (via his Caltech home page).

    Erich’s original posting was done in 1990s Newsgroup syntax; I have altered it slightly to fit more modern standards.

     

    From _Mother Jones_, September/October 1991, pp 8-10
    (Italics are indicated like _this_.)
    Impolitic, by Molly Ivins.
    I Am the Cosmos
    
    Austin, Texas --- ``So write about Camille Paglia,'' suggested the
    editor. Like any normal person, I replied, ``And who the hell might
    she be?''

    Big cheese in New York intellectual circles. The latest rage. Hot stuff. Controversial.



    But I'm not good on New York intellectual controversies, I explained. Could never bring myself to give a rat's ass about Jerzy Kosinski. Never read Andy Warhol's diaries. Can never remember the name of the editor of this New Whatsit, the neo-con critical rag. I'm a no-hoper on this stuff, practically a professional provincial.

    Read Paglia, says he, you'll have an opinion. So I did; and I do.

    Christ! Get this woman a Valium!

    Hand her a gin. Try meditation. Camille, honey, calm down!

    The noise is about her oeuvre, as we always say in Lubbock: Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. In very brief, for those of you who have been playing hooky from the New York Review of Books, Ms. Paglia's contention is that ``the history of western civilization has been a constant struggle between ... two impulses, an unending tennis match between cold, Apollonian categorization and Dionysian lust and chaos.'' Jeez, me too. I always thought the world was divided into only two kinds of people --- those who think the world is divided into only two kinds of people, and those who don't.

    You think perhaps this is a cheap shot, that I have searched her work and caught Ms. Paglia in a rare moment of sweeping generalization, easy to make fun of? Au contraire, as we always say in Amarillo; the sweeping generalization is her signature. In fact, her work consists of damn little else. She is the queen of the categorical statement.

    Never one to dodge a simple dichotomy when she can set one up, Ms. Paglia holds that the entire error of western civilization stems from denying that nature is a kind of nasty, funky, violent, wet dream, and that Judeo-Christianity has been one long effort to ignore this. She pegs poor old Rousseau, that fathead, as the initiator of the silly notion that nature is benign and glorious and that only civilization corrupts.

    Right away, I got a problem. Happens I have spent a lot of my life in the wilderness, and also a lot of my life in bars. When I want sex and violence, I go to a Texas honky-tonk. When I want peace and quiet, I head for the woods. Just as a minor historical correction to Ms. Paglia, Rousseau did not invent the concept of benign Nature. Among the first writers to hold that nature was a more salubrious environment fro man than the corruptions of civilization were the Roman Stoics --- rather a clear-eyed lot, I always thought.

    Now why, you naturally ask, would anyone care about whether a reviewer has ever done any serious camping? Ah, but you do not yet know the Camille Paglia school of I-am-the-cosmos argument. Ms. Paglia believes that all her personal experiences are Seminal. Indeed, Definitive.

    She credits a large part of her supposed wisdom to having been born post-World War II and thus having been raised on television. Damn me, so was I.

    In addition to the intrinsic cultural superiority Ms. Paglia attributes to herself from having grown up watching television (``It's Howdy-Doody Time'' obviously made us all smarter), she also considers her own taste in music to be of enormous significance. ``From the moment the feminist movement was born, it descended into dogma,'' she told an interviewer for New York magazine. ``They stifled any kind of debate, any kind of dissent. Okay, it's Yale, it's New Haven in '69, I am a rock fanatic, okay .... So I was talking about taste to these female rock musicians, and I said the Rolling Stones were the greatest rock band, and that just set them off. They said, `The Rolling Stones are sexist, and it's bad music because it's sexist.' I said: `Wait a minute. You can't make a judgements about art on the basis of whether it fits into some dogma.' And now they're yelling, screaming, saying that nothing that demeans women can be art.

    ``You see, right from the start it was impossible for me to be taken into the feminist movement, okay? The only art they will permit is art that gives a positive image of women. I said, `That's like the Soviet Union; that is the demagogic, propagandistic view of art.' ''

    Well, by George, as a First Amendment absolutist, you'll find me willing to spring to the defense of Camille Paglia's right to be a feminist Rolling Stones fan any hour, day or night. Come to think of it, who the hell was the Stalin who wouldn't let her do that? I went back and researched the '69 politburo, and all I could find was Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and Gloria Steinem, none of whom ever seems to have come out against rock music.

    I have myself quite cheerfully been both a country-music fan and a feminist for years --- if Camille Paglia is the cosmos, so am I. When some fellow feminist doesn't like my music (How could you not like ``You are just another sticky wheel on the grocery cart of life''?), I have always felt free to say, in my politically correct feminist fashion, ``Fuck off.''

    In a conversation printed in Harper's magazine, Paglia held forth on on of her favorite themes --- Madonna, the pop singer: ``The latest atavistic discoverer of the pagan heart of Catholicism is Madonna. This is what she's up to. She doesn't completely understand it herself. When she goes on Nightline and makes speeches about celebrating the body, as if she's some sort of Woodstock hippie, she's way off. She needs me to tell her.'' I doubt that.

    Bram Dijkstra, author of a much-praised book, Idols of Perversity, which is a sort of mirror image of Sexual Personae, said that Paglia ``literally drags the whole nineteenth-century ideological structure back into the late-eighteenth century, really completely unchanged. What's so amazing is that she takes all that nineteenth-century stuff, Darwinism and social Darwinism, and she re-asserts it and reaffirms it in this incredibly dualistic fashion. In any situation, she establishes the lowest common denominator of a point. She says, `This is the feminist point of view,' and overturns it by standing it on its head. She doesn't go outside what she critiques; she simply puts out the opposite of it.''

    ``For example,'' Dijkstra continues, ``she claims, `Feminism blames rape on pornography,' which is truly the reductio ad absurdum of the feminist point of view. Of course, there are very many feminist points of view, but then she blows away this extremely simplified opposite, and we are supposed to consider this erudition. She writes aphorisms and then throws them out, one after the other, so rapid-fire the reader is exhausted.''

    Tracing Paglia's intellectual ancestry is a telling exercise; she's the lineal descendant of Ayn Rand, who in turn was a student of William Graham Sumner, one of the early American sociologists and an enormously successful popularzier of social Darwinism. Sumner was in turn a disciple of Herbert Spencer, that splendid nineteenth-century kook. Because Paglia reasserts ideas so ingrained in our thinking, she has become popular by reaffirming common prejudices.

    Paglia's obsession with de Sade is beyond my competence, although the glorification of sadomasochism can easily be read as a rationalization of bondage into imagined power, a characteristic process of masochistic transfer. Dijkstra suggests that the Sadean notion of the executioner's assistant is critical to her thinking, though one wonders if there is not also some identification with de Sade the Catholic aristocrat.

    Paglia's view of sex --- that it is irrational, violent, immoral, and wounding --- is so glum that one hesitates to suggest that it might be instead, well, a lot of fun, and maybe even affectionate and loving.

    Far less forgivable is Paglia's consistent confusion of feminism with yuppies. What does she think she's doing? Paglia holds feminists responsible for the bizarre blight created by John T. Molloy, author of Dress for Success, which caused a blessedly brief crop of young women, all apparently aspiring to be executive vice-presidents, to appear in the corporate halls wearing those awful sand-colored baggy suits with little floppy bow ties around their necks.

    Why Paglia lays the blame for this at the feet of feminism is beyond me. Whatever our other aims may have been, no one in the feminist movement ever thought you are what you wear. The only coherent fashion statement I can recall from the entire movement was the suggestion that Mrs. Cleaver, Beaver's mom, would on the whole have been a happier woman had she not persisted in vacuuming while wearing high heels. This, I still believe.

    In an even more hilarious leap, Paglia contends that feminism is responsible for the aerobics craze and concern over thin thighs. Speaking as a beer-drinking feminist whose idea of watching her diet is to choose either the baked potato with sour cream or with butter, but not with both, I find this loony beyond all hope --- and I am the cosmos, too.

    What we have here, fellow citizens, is a crassly egocentric, raving twit. The Norman Podhoretz of our gender. That this woman is actually taken seriously as a thinker in New York intellectual circles is a clear sign of decandence, decay, and hopeless pinheadedness. Has no one in the nation's intellectual capital the background and ability to see through a web of categorical assertions? One fashionable line of response to Paglia is to claim that even though she may be fundamentally off-base, she has ``flashes of brilliance.'' If so, I missed them in her oceans of swill.

    One of her latest efforts at playing enfant terrible in intellectual circles was a peppy essay for Newsday, claiming that either there is no such thing as date rape or, if there is, it's women's fault because we dress so provocatively. Thanks, Camille, I've got some Texas fraternity boys I want you to meet.

    There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity. Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, ``Poor dear, it's probably PMS.'' Whereas, if a man behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, ``What an asshole.'' Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia, Sheesh, what an asshole.

    No one like her; and very few to replace her, too.

     

    An Open Letter to Carolyn Hoffman

    [This is in response to the email that she sent to ‘Da Queer Bitch this morning, to which QD posted on her site. Since QD is currently occupied and could not reply directly, she asked if some of her allies would counter with a response. One look at the email was enough for me.

    Since her private email was not revealed, I will treat this as an open letter.]

    Ms. Hoffman:

    To say that I was totally whelmed by your attempt to counter Queer Dewd (formerly known as Bitch | Lab) on the issue of pornography and women is an understatement. I do understand and appreciate your passion in defending your views about how porn apparantly is so dangerous to women…even as I totally disagree with your findings.  Unfortunately, it seems that in your zeal to publish antiporn agitprop…I mean, state your case, you seem to have missed some basic facts…which I will, at your indulgement, now expound upon.

    First off…I totally respect and will not criticize you for stating your previous experiences as a adolescent facing the scrutiny of young boys….teenage years can be such trouble for most girls, especially with the raging hormones and all the open leering that boys often do.  However, to target Playboy pictorals as the main source of such attitudes is, to say the least, a stretch beyond imagination. What’s to say that a Sears catalog featuring women in intimate apperal, or a scantily clad (but not naked) pinup of a rock starlet in a bikini or halter top, wasn’t enough to feed into their developing lusts?  And while their behavior with you (especially the teacher who boasted about having his turn) was certainly at the least boorish and disrespectful (and, especially in the case of the teacher, crossed the line of ethics into outright sexual harrassment and probable statutory rape), it only proves that some boys will carry their lusts a bit over the line of mutual respect and mutual consent.  Attacking and censoring Playboy or even hardcore porn will do nothing to cure that; reporting such behavior to the proper authorities for immediate action would be far more effective.

    Also, Ms. Hoffman…what would you say about the many young girls who don’t have as much a problem with consensual groping as you do?? (Note I said "consensual", meaning that they willingly seek and approve of such activity.) Would you say that those girls who choose to engage in such sexual activity for their own personal pleasures should have the same assumption of protection from nonconsensual acts and autonomy of free will as those who are put off by such activity?? Or are you likely to dismiss these girls in the classic antiporn radicalfeminist ideology as mindless victims of "patriarchy"…or merely, total "sluts" and harlots who feed the worst in men and boys?? One look at your letter reveals the answer to that question pretty quickly.

    Next up…you drop names of various antiporn activist spokespersons (Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, et. al) whom you assume that QD needs to read to reveal "the truth" about how porn so degrades and damages women.  All fine and good for agitprop…but a bit incomplete for genuine study and analysis, which requires a bit more open and diverse point of view than what you would allow.  And it would also be a bit wiser, Ms. Hoffman, if you managed to check your sources a bit more; I’m sure that you do know that Bob Jensen is not only "a former porn user", but also an self-outed (yet self-hating) gay man whose strategy of humiliating and demonizing men not just for the collective sins of individuals, but merely for having erections and thinking about sex in the unapproved radfem way, has been revealed countless times. (This is especially cogent given the fact that you decided to impose your spam…ahh, I mean, your email…on the owner of a site (Queer Dewd) that openly embraces the type of homoerotic images that Jensen would say causes great harm to women.

    Then we come to your vivid and quite explict depictions of what apparantly goes on in "typical pornography"…though, I tend to wonder how you got such experience that you can describe with such pinpoint accuracy what goes on in the making of porn films..but that’s irrelevant for this issue. To wit, this accounting:

    Can you explain and defend all of the typical pornography I have seen including now on porn blogs that rate this sick damaging sexist woman hating degrading dehumanizing sh*t like they are rating songs,that describes women as sluts and bi*ches being fu*ked hard,and pounded banged,and slammed by huge monster co*ks,and videos called This Bi*ch Hates Facials? You see she’s a bi*ch that has to be taught a lesson because she feels like most women do that it’s degrading and disgusting to have men ejaculate on her face,and she’s seen as a bitch because all of the women in porn are portrayed as loving it! So they ejaculate on her face to spite her! And another video describes a woman f*cked so hard in the a*s until she screams,another has a stepfather who video taped his stepdaughter f*cking herself,another is a slut getting a facial in public,another is a slut getting slammed by 2 huge c*cks in her own home after she puts her 2 children to bed,other videos are throat f*cking and sluts gagging on huge c*cks,a whore sister getting f*cked hard etc etc.

    Great prose, Ms. Hoffman..but probably a bit off.  You see, those promos for such porn sites tend to be a bit more hyperbolic in the rhetoric than usual..that’s just a hook to attract potential comsumers; nothing more or less. To take them so seriously as promos for rape is, to say the least, sophistry on your part.

    Now, I don’t deny at all that there are attitudes amongst some porn consumers (and a few producers) that women who enjoy facials or anal sex or sex with more than one man (or woman) at once is inherently degraded and humiliated…but that is not so much a byproduct of porn than it is the classical antisexual attitudes put forth by mainstream culture to control and regulate women’s sexuality.  Far more likely, however, is the view that a "slut" who likes sex many different ways should be praised, even worshipped, for accepting both her and men’s desires…and that she remains a full human being deserving of respect even after engaging in such "degrading" activity. It may have escaped your mind in your rage, Ms. Hoffman, but there are indeed women who really do like and openly seek the type of sex you decry as "demeaning" and "degrading", and there are men who truly do enjoy that kind of porn, yet continue to give the full respect and humanity to women.  But I guess those views don’t count too well with you, since the only women allowed to appear in your mindset are those who are "prostituted" or victimized by porn.

    Finally, Ms. Hoffman, some suggestions for alternative sources of material (since you are so willing to offer sources of your own to educate the unwashed masses…even those who really don’t need it such as QD):

    "Caught Looking: Feminism, Pornography, and Censorship" by the Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce
    "XXX: A Defense of Pornography" by Wendy McElroy
    "Defending Pornography" by Nadine Strossen
    "Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality" ed. by Carol Vance (in particular, Gayle Rubin’s essay "Thinking Sex"
    "Whores and Other Feminists" ed. by Jill Nagle (especially Nina Hartley’s essay "In The Flesh")

    And of course, no real analysis of pro-sex feminism would be complete without a visit to Nina Hartley’s forum..in particular the "Off Topic" and "Porn and Porn Performers" sub-forums, where such issues are discussed with regularity.

    Now, perhaps listening and reading perspectives which run contrary to your own antiporn agitprop might hurt your brain initially from previous underuse….but on the whole, it will be all the better for being exposed to the real world, and to engage in actual discussion.

    In the meantime, Ms. Hoffman, may I kindly and respectfully request that you use a bit more public and less obtuse method than harrassing emails to opponents of your philosophy to get your point across?  It really doesn’t do your side much credit when you call for "open debates"…while simultaneously intimidating the same opponents.

    With that, I bide you a great day…and I welcome the discussion.

    Anthony Kennerson
    Lafayette, LA
    http://redgarterclubwebsite.com/SmackChron_Blog/index.php (My SmackDog Chronicles blog)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Intermission: A Fun Book Meme

    While I await to post Part 2 of my dissection of the Sex-Fascist known as Stephanie Cleveland; I stumbled upon yet another one of those classic Internet "chain letter" memes that spring up often for fun and laughs.  Since I didn’t have the courage to respond when Kevin (aka The Thin Black Duke) at Slant Truth tagged me on his last meme; I will use my Mulligan and crash in uninvited for this one….since even a ‘Dog like me can do this one.

    Here is the challenge for this meme, as Kevin stated it:

    1)  Pick up the book that you are nearest to.
    2)  Turn to page 123.
    3)  Locate the fifth sentence in that page.
    4) Copy the three sentences that follow.
    5) Tag three more bloggers to do the same.

    Well, a ‘Dog’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.  Here’s what I find on the three sentences following the fifth sentence of page 123 in the book I’m currently browsing:

    But remember who checks in to teaching hospitals: mostly folks who are poor.  I, for one, am decidedly uncomfortable with a health care industry that uses the less fortunate as guinea pigs.

    You’ve heard of "recovered-memory syndrome," no doubt.

    The source??

    Carol Queen, "Just Put Your Feet In Those Stirrups", in Real Live Nude Girl: Chronicles In Sex Positive Culture (2nd ed.)

    What does that have to do with sex-positivity, you ask??  Well, Doc Carol was riffing on the bone ignorance of most medical practictioners on the subject of sex.  Go find the damn book if you want to read more..or better yet, go to her most  excellent blog.

    OK..for the tag, I choose……RenEv, Belledame, and Da Bitch.  Bring it like you know how, ladies.