Mr. Pitt Sinks the Hook

William Rivers Pitt of Truthout has quite a knack for setting up a story.

The Scum of the Earth

Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, GOP luminaries Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh have once again waded into a catastrophic tragedy with all the care and concern of hammerhead sharks unleashed into a fish tank full of orphans. 

As I sit and flick between channels, it's impossible to avoid the images of disaster and human anguish - and yet, these two men, who are without shame in guiding the souls of Conservatives into a handbasket destined for hell, these two men see this disaster as merely another opportunity to press partisan positions.

It does have the advantage of clarifying the nature of the partisanship.

If you are black, if you are poor, if you genuinely need help, not merely a tax break, if you belong to the wrong faith - a faith that buys no gold mines and blood diamonds for Mr. Robinson - then the sooner you die and create a real estate opportunity, the better.

This is the manifestation of their republicanism we saw first in Katrina and now we see it in completely unalloyed odium toward Haiti. Because, after all, Haitians are not citizens. Not even a modicum of false compassion need be displayed. It's completely without apparent consequence to them to display their soulessness.

Mr. Robertson, Mr. Limbaugh, yes, their IS evil in this world, and yes, it's clear that some people have made pacts with the devil. But Mr. Robertson, please keep your intra-union disputes out of the public eye. It's distasteful.

Monetizing The Base!

If Canter and Segal were Republican consultants ... well, they were almost certainly Republicans.

GOP.am is brought to you from the dim and shameless corner of the Republican tent, the one where all the grafters and fast buck artists congregate to discuss the profit-making opportunities of various Multi-Level Marketing schemes and the various "can't fail" make money fast schemes they are marketing for a new, low, low price.

The problem is that if you spend most of your day pandering to the magical thinking and  bases instincts of the lowest-information consumption units, you might find yourself slipping into the unintentional hilarity zone.

I can almost visualize the thought process - if I may cheapen the term for the sake of irony. It goes something like this:

1. Target a group that wants a "seal of approval" before they read anything.
   
2. Tell everyone in that group that they can use this logo-attaching service to make it easy to pass around The "RIGHT" sort of links in their tweets and chain emails.
3. Take up 20 percent of the screen for ads and a "donation" button that probably skims a healthy "service fee"
4. PROFIT!
   

 The magical thinking part comes in here. You see, for this - scheme - to work, it would have to somehow be entirely different from most other URL shorteners, ...it would have to have a massive overhead of People Who Make Sure That The Link Is Really Conservative.

No computer can do that reliably - it requires extremely sophisticated software and remarkable, Google-scale computational power to even make a reliable guess.

So that would get rid of the PROFIT part. But wait, we are magical thinkers. We don't need to really do that - we just need to make it look like we did! And that will work because only Real Conservatives would WANT to use a gop.am url!

Now, if there were any lights on over at the GOP - and by lights, I mean organic computational facilities capable of passing a Touring Test.

But if they were such facilities - someone like this would likely deactivate them before they could do anything.


 Yep. The stupid has gone viral - and the stupid won't take their shots.

The Stupid, It Burns!

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.

"Illegal Aliens" - The Truth is Out There!

Did you know that there are people who really, actually think that President Obama's Grandmother forged his birth certificate so that he could be president one day?

No, really. (And they say this is the "real" one!)

But then, the question arises. Who must she be that she would know that she needed to DO that?

Now, wouldn't it be fun to show up at one of those pinhead teaparties or the new "hassle a congressman" events wearing this? Sometimes satire, ridicule and mockery is the only appropriate response.

Illegal Alien T-Shirt by webcarve See other Birther T-Shirts

Teaching kids that Uncle Fred might be a pedophile is "unprincipled?"

High Ideals and No Principles by Thomas Sowell on National Review Online: "What is called “sex education,” whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities."

Were that true, it would be a damning allegation. It's a shame that the once respectable NRO seems to have abandoned the principle of basing opinions upon facts presented honestly in the light of respectable and honorable Conservative perspective.

Here's what Obama was actually suggesting:

When Obama's campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers "age appropriate" for kindergartners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"

In addition to local schools informing kindergartners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an "opt out" provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about "inappropriate touching," according to Obama's presidential campaign. Despite Obama's support, the legislation was not enacted.

So, I'm forced to wonder aloud - as I have, all to often when these memes come up - as to how such harmless and frankly needful information could be considered destructive and harmful to families?

Could it be the "inappropriate touching" part?

Look - I know how utterly snide and insulting that sounds. But I'm not saying it in order to score political points or shoot across the bow of anyone's "Culture War" gunboat. This observation comes out of almost two decades of involvement in abuse and survivor's issues. Bluntly, I'm the product of something that (though my specific memories are unreliable) would, both by the patterns of cracks in my psyche, point toward something for which the term "inappropriate touching" would be an understatement of truly mythic proportions.

And of the people I know who's shatter patterns resemble mine, it's almost a cliche' to observe that the shattering occurs within a family context that justifies it's abuse via authoritarian belief structures, generally with some religious trappings.

I can count on the fingers of one thumb the number of polyfragmented, traumatized, dissociated and disordered multiple personalities that did not have such a background, absent something like autism or a particularly hidious scholastic enviroment. Lucky me, I hit the trifecta and despite my inherent conservative biases, it's real hard to ignore such compelling evidence without engaging in levels of denial that are truely and literally insane.

Further, my wife was a special educator for twenty years and has a parallel observation - that in her suburban schools, it would be common for two to three children to disclose (out of classes of 25 to 30) some form of abuse whenever the issue was brought up - often through a reading assignment. Oddly enough, such books are very high on the list of books conservative and religious groups would like to see banned.

As a person who's dedicated much of his adult life to figuring out how things can go so badly wrong within the confines of family and church; institutions that both claim the right, duty and ability to shape children so that they "do right," I have come to the conclusion that our national fetish for preserving "innocence" of children is, sadly, just that.

A fetish.

And whether or not that fetish is personally sexual in any particular person, all persons that buy into and support it add to the cover it grants to Republican Pedophiles.

It seems that the authoritarian conservatives - and far too often, the religous authoritarian conservatives - are easily seduced by the idea of proving their power to themselves and to others by sexually exploiting those with less power, while sexually disenfranchising all those who are not in power. In the most brutal and literal sense, the Authoritarian sees power and sexual abuse - rape, to not put too fine a point on it - as being both the expression, the reward and the natural right of the alpha male.

Now, this understanding is cloaked in culture and shrouded in denial, to the point where conservatives may think that they are being completely honest in making what they think as principled objections to what they see as interference in family matters, and the right to determine what sort of information regarding sexuality is appropriate to their children.

But I see nothing in what Sen. Obama was advocating that would actually be a threat to that - assuming the matters were handled appropriately. And meanwhile, the "abstanance only" movement is more than willing to trade in misinformation and outright lies about the consequences of premarital sex, contraception and abortion.

So if this is a principled position, it's a principle that admits that it's ok to decieve "for the greater good," to bear false witness, to install toxic fear and shame as an acceptable price for the prevention of "sinful behavior."

Having spent far too many years hip deep in the consequences of such stupitdity, both personally and in support of the weeping consequences of being forced to face the price and consequences of surviving their childhoods in abusive and almost universally religous conservataive families, I call bullshit.

And Thomas Sowell is either bullshitting himself or trying to bullshit you. Either way, it's another reason to vote for someone with a realistic view toward the costs and benefits of early information and age-approprate education about maintaining appropriate sexual boundries, both in and out of one's own family.