How "Moonbats" Do Apoplexy. (It's SOO Cute!)

A truly FINE rant found on Democratic Underground via a Twitter recommend.

It starts off like this:

Fuck you. No, I'm not joking. I'm sick of this bullshit.

I'm sick of the way you've corrupted the public discourse. The way you've made it acceptable to hurl any insult you like at public officials. The way you blame us for the current atmosphere of hatred by accusing us of starting it with hating Bush. Like Bush didn't come on the heels of eight years of your tireless efforts to destroy Clinton by any means necessary, like Bush didn't give us good reason to complain. A couple of posters on a website compared Bush to Hitler and you've used it as free license to compare Obama to Hitler 24/7 and I'm sick of your hypocrisy, where it's acceptable to say shit about Obama that you would have had an apopletic fit (and did) if anythign remotely similar had been said about your guys. Keith Olbermann calls Cheney a fascist when he was actually using fascist tactics and you think that gives you the freedom to call Obama a fascist, socialist, Marxist constantly for no reason at all. Fuck you and your bullshit false equivelancy.

And then there's this part in the lower middle that I wish I'd written ...

I'm sick of you praising pure evil. You're letting Dick Cheney be the standard-bearer for Republicanism. Dick Cheney, a man so nakedly evil that even his friends call him "Darth"; a man so callous that Lex Luthor would recoil in terror; a man who probably has dismembered hitchhikers in those man-sized safes and kills plants by his mere proximity. Fuck you.

And then it concludes with this:

Fuck you, you scumridden shitehawks, you make me sick. Just fuck off and die.

EDIT: To remove my brief descent into sexist language. Apologies to anyone who saw it.

Prophet 451, you are so KYUUUUTE!!!!!!!!

Bullshit Baffles Brains? Maybe not forever.

The bullshit is so deep out there that hip waders aren't enough. You need a dry suit and a self-contained air supply. Let's show what toxic waste is doing to people...





It's not often that you see Bill Moyers get upset. Heck, it's not often that you see Bill make an unconditional statement. Bill is just sick to death of the bullshit.




Canadians are getting fed up with their health care system being demonized. The bullshit fear-mongering annoys us. It makes us cranky enough to make definitive statements. This is how a Canadian says "You are so full of shit."

It's done politely - and it burns all the worse for that. But, sweet John A. McDonald, how attached to your ignorance must you be to believe so many stupid things simultaneously, oh Right Wing Umurikins?

And lest you state that it's none of our business - you morons are flushing the hemispheric economy down the toilet. Health Care Reform is critical to rebuilding a robust middle class with a flourishing diversity of small businesses, which, by the by, is one of the reasons Canada is not actually circling the drain right now. It's not the result of "socialism" - not alone. It's at least as much due to some hard nosed Conservatism, of the "grounded in fiscal reality" variety of conservatism and not of the "there's a homo nigger commie with a tube of flouride toothpaste under my bed" variety.

Hell, over at MSNBC, John Harwood just doesn't care any more. As far as he's concerned, there's just no word for stupid better than "stupid."


H/t The Joshuablog for all these videos. (Follow him on Twitter - he collects such nuggets quite reliably)

I really understand the impatience.

Is it too much to ask of you nutbars to come up with an INFORMED opinion?

Ron Paul has done so. William F. Buckley did. Pat Buchanan does. Whatever I or you may think of their opinions is immaterial - their positions are arguable, and each of them is well known and justly famed for being willing and able to assert them. Not one of them has to "cut the mike" of anyone in disagreement. They can mix it up. They can bring it.

They are based in reality, fact and reason; they don't resort to the argument from authority, they are - legitimate - authorities in their realms.

But your average wing-nut would be hard pressed to explain in their own words how and why Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul differ on, say, campaign finance reform, much less come to an informed decision as to which was the more persuasive argument.

And that makes said wing-nut's opinion bullshit. It's crap, and you should ignore it, for truly, they have pulled it out of their ass.

I treat that handful of bullshit in exactly the same way I would treat an offering of crap pulled out of a toddler's diaper, for the exact same reasons. It's unhealthy and the only sane response is to commit an act of sanitation upon them. I will certainly not celebrate it as an artistic expression. It's poo. And it doesn't belong on my walls.

When I see a public-policy debate - ANY public policy debate - and everyone on the one side is being fairly sensible, while everyone on the other side is flinging poo and flaming straw men, then the odds are very good that even if I can't follow the argument on it's merits, the sensible-sounding side is more likely correct than the one losing it's water into it's shoes.

Pick your social media outlet of choice, and you will see exactly that sort of consensus developing on a wide range of issues, from health care to drug policy to prison reform to foreign policy, all against the backdrop of shrill whining about how "unfair" it is to be "dug down" for calling Obama a "Socialistic Fascist."

You see, when you say that, you reveal a complete ignorance of socialism, fascism and Obama's on-record policy statements and legislative history. It's not that you are being dug down for criticizing Obama. You are being dugg down for being fucknuts. You are uttering nonsense with such total conviction that ignoring you is only sensible thing to do.

It's impossible to usefully argue with someone who believes that a provably false idea is just as good as a provably true idea if enough other stupid people agree. Wishful thinking - and that's the kindest way to put it - is no basis on which to run a country. Or deploy armies. Or make really important economic decisions.

It's really not that difficult to inform yourself, to develop an expertise about an issue that matters to you, and then develop an intelligent position from any reasonable political perspective. Therefore, an intolerance of stupidity and conspicuous impatience with aggressive, loutish behavior is - well, I'd commend it more were it not so long overdue.

For myself, here's a discussion over on digg that I think illustrates the point. It's about the "radical" proposition that we should just legalize all "illicit" drugs, and then regulate them, according to our models for alcohol and legal drugs.

Quickly skim and evaluate both sides. One side makes quite sound-seeming arguments that you can fact check - and the other side makes accusations, appeals to authority and moralistic predictions that, if they were actually true, would have come true with the repeal of Prohibition.

And, far more in line to the general thrust of what I write, these comments often reveal a chilling indifference to the impact of policy on individuals; they show a heartless, mean-spirited and cruel mindest. Truthout just ran a rather good piece on that very point.

A right-wing spin machine, influenced by haters like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter, endlessly spews out a toxic rhetoric in which: all Muslims are defined as jihadists; the homeless are not victims of misfortune but lazy; blacks are not terrorized by a racist criminal justice system, but the main architects of a culture of criminality; the epidemic of obesity has nothing to do with corporations, big agriculture and advertisers selling junk food, but rather the result of "big" government giving people food stamps; the public sphere is largely for white people, which is being threatened by immigrants and people of color, and so it goes. Glenn Beck, the alleged voice of the common man, appearing on the "Fox & Friends" morning show, calls President Obama a "racist" and then accuses him of "having a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." [2] Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh unapologetically states that James Early Ray, the confessed killer of Martin Luther King Jr., should be given a posthumous Medal of Honor, [3] while his counterpart in right-wing hate, talk radio host Michael Savage, states on his show, "You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see - how do you like that? - a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children." [4] He also claims that Obama is "surrounded by terrorists" and is "raping America." This is a variation of a crude theme established by Ann Coulter, who refers to Bill Clinton as a "very good rapist." [5] Even worse, Obama is a "neo-Marxist fascist dictator in the making," who plans to "force children into a paramilitary domestic army." [6] And this is just a small sampling of the kind of hate talk that permeates right-wing media. This could be dismissed as loony right-wing political theater if it were not for the low levels of civic literacy displayed by so many Americans who choose to believe and invest in this type of hate talk. [7] On the contrary, while it may be idiocy, it reveals a powerful set of political, economic and educational forces at work in miseducating the American public while at the same time extending the culture of cruelty. One central task of any viable form of politics is to analyze the culture of cruelty and its overt and covert dimensions of violence, often parading as entertainment.
Underlying the culture of cruelty that reached its apogee during the Bush administration, was the legalization of state violence, such that human suffering was now sanctioned by the law, which no longer served as a summons to justice. But if a legal culture emerged that made violence and human suffering socially acceptable, popular culture rendered such violence pleasurable by commodifying, aestheticizing and spectacularizing it. Rather than being unspoken and unseen, violence in American life had become both visible in its pervasiveness and normalized as a central feature of dominant and popular culture. Americans had grown accustomed to luxuriating in a warm bath of cinematic blood, as young people and adults alike were seduced with commercial and military video games such as "Grand Theft Auto" and "America's Army," [8] the television series "24" and its ongoing Bacchanalian fête of torture, the crude violence on display in World Wrestling Entertainment and Ultimate Fighting Championship, and an endless series of vigilante films such as "The Brave One" (2007) and "Death Sentence" (2007), in which the rule of law is suspended by the viscerally satisfying images of men and women seeking revenge as laudable killing machines - a nod to the permanent state of emergency and war in the United States. Symptomatically, there is the mindless glorification and aestheticization of brutal violence in the most celebrated Hollywood films, including many of Quentin Tarantino's films, especially the recent "Death Proof" (2007), "Kill Bill" 1 & 2 (2003, 2004), and "Inglorious Bastards" (2009). With the release of Tarantino's 2009 bloody war film, in fact, the press reported that Dianne Kruger, the co-star of "Inglorious Bastards," claimed that she "loved being tortured by Brad Pitt [though] she was frustrated she didn't get an opportunity to get frisky with her co-star, but admits being beaten by Pitt was a satisfying experience." [9] This is more than the aestheticization of violence, it is the normalization and glorification of torture itself.

Personally, while I applaud Truthout's treatment of the issue, I don't see this as a new phenomenon. I see it as simply becoming more and more obvious. It used to be that the sadism was cloaked a bit more, a rationalization or two presented for the viewpoint - but the Authoritarian brutality celebrated in Hawaii 5-0, Kojack or the Dirty Harry movies was aimed for the very same, visceral target; the idea that all of the "moral failures" of society could be resolved with the right amount of pain applied to the right target.

The difference is that these days, the need to justify the urge seems to have worn threadbare. Hurting people and reveling in the suffering of others has become normalized, and not without a lot of help from supposed Christians who really ought to know better. In this transcript of an interview with Max Blumanthol, author of the newly-released Republican Gomorrah, lays much of our current sociopolitical problems with torture, violence and outright depravity at the feet of James Dobson, of Focus on the Family.

Where did Dobson’s fortune come from? How did he erect this empire? It came mainly from one book, which I quote from extensively in my book, Republican Gomorrah­Dare to Discipline, which is essentially a manual for corporal punishment, for beating your child. In this book, he says pain is a marvelous purifier that a child should be­that pain goes a long way with a child, that pain should be dispensed sufficiently enough to make a child cry, but then the child will crumple to your breast, and you should welcome the child with warm, open arms. This is a recipe for sadomasochism. And sadomasochism, as I discovered in­ [lost chunk in rush transcript]

JUAN GONZALEZ: And he saw himself originally as the antithesis to Benjamin­Dr. Benjamin Spock.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Dr. Benjamin Spock, who tells you to basically pick your child up and cradle it. And, you know, I mean, I was­you know, for whatever it’s worth, I was raised along those guidelines. When your child’s crying, you pick up the child.

By creating a belt-wielding army of millions, Dobson created the next generation of Republican shock troops, who are more radical than before. And sadomasochism­I know this sounds a little strange­is what defines the essential character, you know, that­this is what­at least what I’ve discovered­of the Republican follower of today. They’re sadistic in that they want to lash out at deviants, at people who are weaker than them, homosexuals, immigrants, foreigners, socialists. At the same time, they’re masochistic. They are followers of a higher cause, of a strong leader, a magic helper like Dobson or George W. Bush or the macho Jesus archetype that they worship. And this is what defines this movement.

So many of the people that Dobson has been able to get close to and work with in the Republican Congress and in American culture have been viciously abused as children. And he understood that by advocating violence against children, deliberate violence, he was creating this sensibility, which would produce a radical generation of political followers.

Tom DeLay, for example, who Dobson converted from Hot Tub Tommy, a dallying, philandering, no-name legislator in Texas, you know, who lived in a house that was nicknamed “Macho Manor,” Dobson converted him into this hardcore­you know, into “The Hammer,” the man who whipped the Republican Congress into shape and turned it into one of the most radical congresses in history.

Ted Bundy, who I write about extensively in my book, Republican Gomorrah, who is the most notorious serial killer in American history, Dobson helped convert Ted Bundy on death row into a born-again Christian and then got the final interview before Ted Bundy was executed and sold tapes of this interview to raise a million dollars for his political empire and to generate national renown.

Unrestrained sadomasochistic lust does not translate into sane public policy. It doesn't create a workable society. Those who take delight in the suffering of others and who see punishment of the weak this as part of the definition of a powerful State are made incapable of making rational, ethical decisions either on their own behalf or as rational participants in a democratic society, if for no other reason than this - in order to create the pain to revel in, you must become indifferent to the absolute cascade of bad outcomes that will surely pile up to the point where society shatters. For there is no earthly reason to expect that people will generally put up with such crap.

They WILL resist, they will retaliate, and there can no reasonable expectation that they will be as stupid about going about resisting authority as Conservatives have been in justifying it's cruel excesses.

The right wing answer to this, of course, is to call for a theocratic state. There are words for that sort of thing... but frankly, "Stupid" is more succinct.

Erotic writer "Bridget Keeney" outed as South Carolina Republican.

Here at Graphictruth, any day that I have the journalistic duty to link to outright pornography is a good day.

When the reason I must do it is that the author of said hardcore fapfesting textviles is a right wing, social conservative who presumes to tell other people what their publicly educated children must and must not learn while home-schooling her own, it is not just a good day, it's a frigging good day. Via Fitsnews: (H/T The Progressive Puppy)

S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford may be an amateur Romeo, but it looks like he’s got nothing on his appointment to the S.C. State Board of Education.

Kristin Maguire, an Upstate evangelical and one of South Carolina’s most respected social conservatives, has been one of the governor’s closest education policy advisors for years. She’s also Sanford’s appointment to the S.C. Board of Education, which last year elected her its Chairwoman.

What else is she?

The prolific author of hardcore erotic fiction on the Internet, according to documents provided to the governor’s office earlier this summer and later obtained by FITS.

Maguire, a professed Christian who home-schools her four children, declined to comment for our story but did not deny that she had previously frequented websites that feature such X-rated material. Maguire believes that a former friend is leaking the information to the media in an effort to ruin her political career.

Fitsnews states a number of other allegations about Maguire's personal behavior, and if true, it might provide some insight into Governor Mark Sanford's ... well, let us call it "Leadership Culture." Indeed, one might wonder if as much a product of such a culture as an instigator.

I'm not writing this in order to publicly humiliate another right-wing sexual hypocrite. I honestly don't like humiliating people, even when it directly serves my point.

But I don't think she IS a hypocrite. I think her politics, her choice of career and possibly even the apparent hypocrisy of being on the board of education while at the same time choosing to home school her children arises directly out of her own sexuality. Moreover, I don't think it's difficult to discern it from her own pornographic musings, which is what makes it newsworthy. "It goes to motive, your Honor."

Lauren's Masturbatory Musings by bridgetkeeney © 04/18/03

...

He reached up to loosen his tie as he walked to his desk. Sitting in the middle of the blotter on his desk was his 'Man of the Year' statue with an envelope leaning against it. He picked up the envelope and sat in his chair. He recognized the bold 'P' on the front as Lauren's writing. While he withdrew the two folded pieces of paper, his eyes rested on the statue, pleased that Lauren had reminded him of their passionate times together.

This past week had reminded him how important she was to him. Years of marriage and busy careers had seen them drift into a complacency in their relationship. If anyone had asked him two weeks ago how his marriage was, he would have replied 'good'.

After Lauren came to his office bringing dinner and dressed to kill last Tuesday, he would have said 'great'. He would never be able to look at his award again without getting a hardon, picturing her frigging her clit while fucking herself with it deeply.

Let us pause and meditate on this. She used his "man of the year" statue as a sex toy. And bragged about it. To him.

Only in fiction does that end well, with garlands of flowers and cakewalks through the streets of Baghdad and all of it "Bareback" - you know, sans condoms and/or body armor. You see, not so much a hopelessly mixed metaphor as illustration of a psycosexual spectrum disorder.

I'm starting to think that all the outrage over Monica Lewinski and Bill Clinton and oral sex and cigar moistening was not so much outrage as complete failure to commit intelligible pornographic speech.

It's not the man she has a relationship with, it's a symbol of a man's success and power in the corporate world. Oddly, he's flattered, but wank-story characters are always flattered at the attention, for cardboard ordinarily gets little love. But the author permits herself no greater depth - as she projects herself into her fiction - than her faceless, but famously-endowed sex partner.

"I love to have my meat in your cunt, Lauren," you said as you thrust deeper into me. "Do you like when I fuck your cunt, Lauren?"

"I love when you fuck me, Paul. There is nothing better than your hard cock in my desperate cunt." "Whose cunt is it, Lauren?"

"It's your cunt, Paul."

Her cunt belongs to him. And "him" is just a symbol for Male Power Incarnate. Do I HAVE to draw theological parallels here, or can we say, in the words of digg, that "obvious observations are obvious?"

It's hard to even think where to begin to conceptualize the thrust and depth of this fuckup. I can understand why it's tempting to not think about it.

Indeed, Mommy insists that you WILL not think about it. And she will get on the Board of Education so nobody else can, either, despite the fact that this is a prime example of what happens to people who do not think about the root causes of their actions and who refuse to admit responsibility for the outcomes.

Let me quote my wife, in the moments in which I or someone else manages to unconsciously reveal Total Catastrophic Thought Failure.

"Oh, HONEY!"

She manages to covey the recognition that one has committed a cognitive act not at all unlike a sudden failure of toilet training, but without any sense of attempting to shame the puppy.

There is deep sympathy for how very humiliating the situation must be for the poor creature - and she will go get a towel. Further, should the puppy be blessed with thumbs - as Kerstin is - she will hand the towel to the puppy, with the expectation that it do something more productive that attempting to pretend that it did not happen. Sadly, Kirstin has tried to pretend it didn't happen - by deleting every instance of her writing but two - thereby proving that she had access to the author's account.

That's not an actual cover-up, it's even worse than a failed cover up. There was an allegation these writings were yours, but it was all gossip and conjecture - UNTIL they were deleted. Now it's not just gossip and conjecture, it's a fact in evidence.

But I do understand why you tried.

Because your porn says far more about you than you would like everyone knowing. This is true of everyone who writes porn, myself included. Actually, it's true of anyone who writes anything about anything that is deeply, emotionally and viscerally meaninful. It is immensly personal and revealing.

Our only choice (other than not writing at all, as would have been prudent) is to reveal ourselves consciously and by choice, rather than simply letting the unconscious direct access to the fingers.

The only difference between thee and me, dear girl, is that I don't publish stuff I cannot afford to admit having written. Long ago, it seems now, I had to confront the distinction between the porn I liked and wanted to make and what I would have liked to believe about myself if I could pretend that someone else wrote, drew and enjoyed the porn I created and consumed. At some point, I actually considered what that said about me, and then I spent some quality time with me working on those aspects that I really could not live with.

As a direct result of that gobsmack, I have spent a great deal of time considering the role of porn in our society and the social ends it all to often serves. But I've never before seen such a literal, direct and vivid illustration in the public domain as this and I don't think it's overly hyperbolic to call it a "Gift from God."

At some point, you see, Kristin got the idea that her role was ... well, exactly what she described. She was a vessel for the seed of powerful men. The yin to the yang of Power. And the opposite of Power, well, that must be powerlessness. Sexuality and social ethos, all tangled together.

But, wait, that's not actually the PROBLEM. That happens to us all, to some degree. People who say their sexuality and their politics and their world views are entirely separate are lying to themselves. And, ideally, all these things should inform and empower one another.

Nor is this worldview her fault. If, as I suspect, she was raised from birth to never EVER think about what such urges mean (other than to think of them as Sinful Temptations,) she could hardly contemplate how they biased her life path. You see, we always live in ways that allow us to meet our needs, and we do what we have to do in order to get there.

But it should be no surprise though, that unthinking behavior leads to thoughtless actions that lead in turn to all KINDS of unforeseen outcomes.

Nope, the problem, Kirstin, is that you were thinking with your crotch. That's what happens when your crotch says something and you pretend not to hear it. It does the best it can, under the circumstances. You see, our survival needs, the things that really matter to us, our own selves, our very personal self image, our well being, well, those are tied very directly to our sexuality. When something makes you instantly hard or wet - aside from being hot, it's fucking important. Pay attention - and then meet that need as intelligently and as effectively as possible.

Why? Because if you pretend it didn't happen, you will meet that need thoughtlessly, impulsivly and without much regard to the harm it does to other people. That will piss them off and they will hurt you back. And if you STILL won't think about that, well, then your stupid hindbrain starts to think that the hurting and hurting back is all part of the fun.

So it's important to understand what your pussy is saying. Your flatcat really gets off on being penetrated by the symbols of power.

Why do I say that? Well, I didn't. YOU did, dear. You see, in erotic, or really, ANY literature, the "hook" for a story is important. And the hook for this clearly establishes an erotic attachment to power. Not people, hell, not even penises. The first sex act mentioned, the one that triggers this little erotic reverie is a sex act with the symbol of a male's power - which you then react to by worshiping with your reproductive orifice.

I note something else, which I have noted in other Right Wing Porn - said worship is not real if there is any barrier between vessel and seed. To what end does opposition to condoms and sexual education arise from sexual, and not religious preference?

Now, I could write a book on the symbolism in these two stories. I could advance or criticise particular expressions of it, I could explain the essential ethics needed to live with kinks such as you have, but NONE of that has any point when are acting with no conscious understanding of what it is that makes you wet to your knees, and I expect that you don't. There's some serious dissociation happening here, and my gut tells me that the very flaming obviousness of the symbolism involved is not so much in aid of masturbation as a desperate attempt by your subconscious to gain your attention.

Seriously. Honey. Have you actually READ what you wrote?

Do you still have copies of the other files? If you do, I think you need to go back and re-read them, and discuss them with someone you genuinely trust.

You have arranged your entire life to get reamed by powerful SYMBOLS of male power, probably in competition with other Stalwarts of Family Values such as yourself. And at the end of the day, the bearer of the prize for the state championship of dick-sizing, the top dog in the state - runs off to fucking ARGENTINA, rather than partake of the local, desperate, aching, self-defined "cunts" such as yourself.

Why? Well, in reading his own words, I was struck by how important it was to him that she treated him with whatever degree of sincerity was required to achieve her ends, as an actual person. Respect. Not for his position, or his power, but for him.

Governor Sanford got to the top office in his state, having done whatever it took to gain power in that state and within his party. This is the public pool he played in. He won the game - he looked around, and saw the array of prizes. His just and due reward, according to this value set that you, honey, so viscerally and clearly express.

And he ran away screaming, burning every bridge behind him. Apparently, he did not wish to be the train that pulled into your station or an item of Continental Cuisine.

Now that I think about it, I think better of him for doing it. There is much to be said against how he bailed, it was hurtful, sad and messy, but still, a more honest and honorable thing than it seems at first. Think of it as an example of something that could have been done better.

And please understand, I'm not criticizing your professed values or your brand of politics. This is not due to what you have to say about education, or homeschooling or health care reform. I can't, for we both know that those things are merely means to an end. Camouflage. Hunting blinds. It has the same, identical semantic content as Larry Craig tapping his foot in the bathroom stall.

It's a means to an end. Gaining power to use on people for the sake of personal, psycosexual satisfaction.

If your deepest need is to be fucked with a pillar of the community, that's what you have to do to get yourself around such a cold, hard and unforgiving tool. Meanwhile, said pillar of the community bearing person is doing exactly the same thing, to get all that perky Soccer-MILF action.

And none of that has anything to do with politics, left, right or center. Politics is about the responsible use of power in furtherance of common, rational, ethical, goals, goals that can be expressed and explained in actual words, justified with real numbers, defined in predictable outcomes. That understanding of what the process is and what it's actually for has become somewhat rare on the Right.

I'm not saying that the Republican Party of South Carolina is nothing more than a self-referential circle-jerk. I don't have to. We are at the point where reasonable people should be demanding outright documentation that it is NOT that. But that will not happen so long as "Not Thinking About It" is damn near a plank in the republican platform.

My question is, WHY is it so important to not think about it? Why were you so carefully taught to never examine your own most basic, most visceral motivations? I mean, girl, you WROTE that porn! For what it is, it's not badly written. There's some craft there, and whatever else might be said about it, I think we can understand that in your words, we have a glimpse of the authentic you.

Want to know what I honestly think of the you it shows?

Oh, honey. We have some work to do. But there's something worth working with. Let us consider the arc of your career. There's much that can be criticized - but considering the self-imposed cognitive handicaps, not bad. Honestly, not bad at all.

Now, here's your towel. And, honey... I think you need to let your kids go to school. They need a wider variety of reality checks than are currently available.

Oh, and that "former friend" that leaked this information in order to "sabotage your political career?" You owe them a huge debt moral and ethical debt you owe for them pulling you out of that pool before it drowned you and you should call them up and thank them. Sincerely.

And given the sort of person they may well be, it will just totally fuck with their heads.

Consider the sort of people you've been calling "friend," in order to get to where you were - hell, consider the sorta guy that you defined as the default target of your aching maw of need.

Now that circumstances have made "not thinking about it" literally impossible - I hope and, indeed, expect you will be thinking about mindfully meeting the needs your sexuality imposes upon you in an ethical way, in accordance with Biblical principles.

I assure you, it's possible. Actually, it's a lot easier. The "not thinking about it" makes avoiding causal and painful pitfalls rather difficult.

"Paul set down the letter and swallowed hard. His rigid cock throbbed against his thigh. He picked up his phone and buzzed his secretary. "Rachel, cancel all my appointments for the rest of the week. An urgent family issue has come up."

That's the last paragraph of "Lauren's Masturbatory Musings."

The irony, it burns....

PS: More of her work can be found here, on a web archive of Literotica.com of a time in the past before the files were deleted. I'm sure more PDF files are being made as I type. H/t to porn obsessed internet geeks via Fitsnews.