Sundry Topics

I am in love with Ann Coulter. She can write well, and her writing style is everything I aspire to use. Her writing make me ponder which stuff she means and which stuff she thinks is humor. Her writing makes me wonder if she is really as dumb as her ideas are or if she has some sort of baiting process that she goes through. Either way, her writing style (JUST the style) is pure awesomeness. Though you have to wonder about her when she complains about liberals calling conservatives names as a primary attack force, then calling liberals anti-American. Yes, there are easy things to unravel, but there are things squirming beneath the surface that need unraveling too. She is just awesome, though I still don't agree with most of what she says.

Then, we go back to his place where I wash up and use Neosporin on my elbow, and rush out to see Michael Moore. We get there to a circus of people. We have pro-Palestine people giving trying to give Phil flyers, Borders striker people, anti-Michael Moore people (yay), pro Dennis Kucinich(sp?) flyers, this that and the other. We end up sitting in the balcony, and guess who sits near us. Yup, the ultra-conservative anti-Michael Moore people. Now, I agree with their signs "fictitious books and documentaries" "go to socialist France" etc, but their morals did not stand well with me either. They are anti-privacy type people, thus appreciating the Marriage Protection Week, saying marriage is only between a man and a woman. Yay for religious nuts.

Moore himself wasn't exactly my favorite person. He likes to ramble, and interject himself. One story he told was his Oscar night (which I had commented on his speech being the same as the IFC/Spirit awards the previous night in an earlier post, I think). He said he hadn't expected to win, thus didn't have a speech, and thus was basically condemned to give the same speech, which went over well at the extremely liberal IFC awards. They didn't go over as good at the more conservative Oscars, which we all know is constructed for mass consumption and mind control, even being so obvious as having 3 black awards in one year, but none for a long time before and not the year after.

Moore also was commenting many hypocritical statements. I wasn't a big fan of his to begin with, and I don't want him arguing for me now. His points could be quickly disproven by somebody with an ounce of conservative news knowledge. Not to mention his techniques are godawful. He is the liberal version of Ann Coulter. BOTH ARE FUCKING NUTS!!!!!!! First Moore said that he doesn't want a leader saying "I am personally against abortion, but I won't do anything to make it illegal." (Kucinich) And he also doesn't like the fact that he was pro-life until a couple of years ago. THEN, a bit later (read 5-10 minutes) he was commenting on how liberals are ready to accept switch players because we will forgive people, I believe in reference to General Clark. And that was just the major flaw I found. Some of his stories were hilarious if wrong, and Moore is nothing if not an entertainer. His chapter from God was blasphemous and wrong yet funny as hell, alienating many of the Christians and Catholics, I imagine. Comment heard behing me: "How sacreligious."

So, anyways, Moore was fun, and we ducked out around 7:40 because phil was tired, and I was tired of Moore. The questions were pretty asinine anyways. The conservatives had left during the God chapter calling Americans stupid. Sometimes I wonder if Ann Coulter has a point when she said that liberals are anti-American. First Moore says that the public is generally liberal, but they call themselves conservative, then he calls Americans stupid. *sigh*

Bisexuality as a safety factor?

I may not know much about homosexual culture, but I have a feeling that by 1972 gays were still relatively very oppressed and closeted.

Reading The Happy Hooker, she once had a client who was a 29-year old virgin. He had been in therapy for 12 years, for sexual whatever. BUT, the only sexual act he had performed was fellatio on a college mate, which he never admitted to his therapist.

But, the shrink had sent him to the brothel, where she showed him pictures of females havign sex with males and females, as well as naked men (maybe even men on men). When asked which he preferred, he said "'The men,' he said. 'I would feel much safer in a homosexual relationship because it doesn't represent such a big responsibility and obligation.' But he was turned off by the gay world in general--the gay bars, the faggot-looking drag queens at gay parties, and the heavy emotional involvement because homosexual affairs can be more dramatic than heterosexual ones after a while." (Hollander, 171) Then, she had mind-blowing sex with him, as he wasn't turned off by women.

To me, this is a significant statement, especially back in those times. To choose homosexuality when major oppression, shame, and fear was prevalent is an odd choice, especially for said reasons.

Of course, this also rings true as to why I chose bisexuality in the first place (now its because it is fun both ways). I used to be scared of women (which has developed into a healthy amount of anger aimed at weak people), and so chose homosexuality because of the easy relating, the understanding (thats a joke), and the ease of sex. Everybody knows that, in general, men are easier to lay at random than women. Though cases exist in both cases.

Another reason I tried men was because they were strong, mechanical, and not-helpless. Thus, I didn't relate to the gay culture like the afore mentioned storyboy. I still don't, to a point. I "get" quite a bit of it, but there is the overly-femme crowd whom I don't comprehend, much like the women.

BUT, I grew up in an enlightened family. We have a gay cousin somewhere in our wings, but I'm not sure exactly how he's related. He's definately of the flame quality though. The women in my family were self-sufficient, especially since my mom would fight with my dad over how to put together a computer or how to construct the basement. And not in that femme naive way. My mother lays tile, and one of my aunts is an electrician. I grew up in a family where only the one woman who married in (for every generation, one male will be born), as well as my half-sister who didn't show up until I was in 5th grade, would ever be considered helpless and not mechanical. Thus, my skewed world view.

So, now you're wondering why I haven't come out as bi? Well, its mainly because its somewhat easier than having my mother try to hook me up with girls so I won't go out with guys. Its also that I feel my mother would not understand the need for me to steadily see other men when I also like women. I think she knows, but she hasn't asked, so I don't feel like telling. If I was gay, then I would definately be coming out, but I am not.

Well, if that wasn't a side track, I don't know what was. :-)

Times haven't changed much in some people's eyes since 1972. Gays still have oppressive forces (see previous post), though not nearly as strong as it used to be, and a general ostrich syndrome pervades much of American culture. A forty-year difference between myself and the afore mentioned bisexual man and the same mentality prevails. Just some random thoughts...

Fuck Cultures or culture fucked? - A handbag of culture and news

Fuck Hispanics?
How come nobody told me that it was National Hispanic Heritage Month? And, thus, how come nobody is worshipping me? Yes, me, the resident Mexican. I found about this how? Oh yeah, on The N trying to find Daria. I run into a video of some Spanish singing chick named Thalia who is essentially the Spanish edition of Christina Aguilera, except she is more punk in her mode of dress. Yay for Hispanic pop, same as American pop...crap. (source: The N)

Fuck Hispanics and the low-riders they drove in. Fuck them and their lazy ass morals.

Fuck Gays?
Three interesting things came to light today. First is Rev. Fred Phelps, everybody's favorite anti-gay preacher, has decided to erect a monument to the murder of Matthew Shepard in his hometown of Casper, WY, which will feature sentiments along the lines of he was sent to hell on the day he died. Yay for complete bigotry, but, then again, this is the risk of public forum of free speech. And, he is able to do this because the Ten Commandments, one of my favorite pieces from the religion which I am supposed to be but am not (Catholic), is also displayed in a public park. (source: som_pos)

Second is that October 11 is National Coming Out Day. I better fucking be worshipped on that day as an out to everybody but the 'rents Mexican bisexual. I am a God. I am also a minority of a minority, ain't nobody looking out for my ass. - Chasing Amy. (source: upsidedownblue)

Third is October 12-18 is National Marriage Protection Week, according to George Bush. Marriage is a union between men and women EXCLUSIVELY according to Dubya. And, we must preserve it in this week of protection. While I agree with most of its sentiments, as marriage and long-term coupling is better for families and can have a better foundation for children, the whole exclusive bit kind of sucks. Especially since it is the day after Coming Out Day. Whee. (source: upsidedownblue)

So, fuck gays in more ways than one. Screw them all to hell.

Fuck Jews?
Tough Crowd tonight featured Lewis Black, Dave Attell and Stephen Colbert (mmm). But, two of tonights stories featured anti-semitism in weird fucked-up ways. One was the whole middle-east banning Barbie as a Jewish toy. Yeah, because most Jewish women are top heavy extremely thin blonde bombshells with blue eyes, right? But, lets ban them anyways. (source = Tough Crowd)

Also, the Egyptian Museum is sueing the Jews because they stole some gold from biblical times. Yeah. I'm not even going to say any more. (source = Tough Crowd)

Fuck Jews, and fuck the way they cause repressed anti-semitism to leak out.

Could this world be any stranger?

Political Assholery

It just so happens that I am seeing Michael Moore the same week I am reading Hunter S. Thompson, catching Ted Nugent's Surviving Ted, and watching a Bunuel film. All four are major politically charged people who say things using methods which invoke strong reactions from people.

Bunuel is the smoothest at this as he doesn't deal with any major political issues of the day, so much as he does broad political views, thus they can't be disproven factually. However, ideologically they are hard to take. When the DIA showed The Milky Way, a 27 year old religious man raged. An hour or so into the movie he ran up to the projection booth, stopped the movie and started ripping the film. The image on the screen? The stomping of a St. Christopher medal into mud. He felt this was a Catholic-baiting, anti-religion movie. Interesting reaction, when even the Catholic Bishops approved it for adults, though with reservations. Bunuel is angry and shows provocative imagery for his points.

Then, we have Michael Moore who also dabbled in film, as well as in writing and in speech giving. Moore is an ass, pure and simple. Its not just that I don't completely agree with everything he says, it is that he is a jerk in his mannerisms and his methods. Bowling For Columbine has a moment which essentially says "While I have been saying throughout the movie that the availability of weaponry is not the problem with violence in America as Canada has more firearms than us, I will stop K-Mart from selling bullets to stop violence in America." Hm. Its not the availablity thats the issue, but we'll limit it anyways...great points there Mike. He also has his whole impeach the president thing going, especially in his new book, or at least that is what he said in his release statement. And, his speech given at both the IFC/Independent Spirit Awards as well as the Academy Awards (it was the exact same fucking speech) was just pure assholery, though funny as hell. The difference between Moore and Bunuel is that Bunuel was a bit more subtle, and never really contradictory. Moore takes things to the Nth degree, and eventually, with confidence, stumbles over himself. He goes too far in many of his ideas, isolating alot of would-be supporters. Also, he chooses to alter facts (which he admits to), and has an extremely slanted world view (which isn't bad). He never gives the full picture, or even a correct one, just his picture. However, he is an extreme liberal, and has a liberal tone.

Along the same lines is the ultra-liberal, Hunter S. Thompson. He writes exactly like an ultra-conservative, making him the essential link in the circle of liberal and conservatism which my teacher was trying to convince us of in high school. I didn't believe him then, and only until I was reading Thompson's essays sis I think he was correct. I am reading his book: Generation of Swine, Papers from the 80s vol. 2. Among the first of the articles is The Hellfire Club. All of the essays in the book are approximately 2.5 pages. This article is no exception. It is Thompson articulating his disbelief about Swaggert and Bakker getting busted. His disbelief is more that they didn't do anything wrong in what they were doing, rather than the actions themselves. He then goes on to list past orgyastic clubs with famous members, including The Hellfire Club, which had Ben Franklin and The Earl of Sandwich as members. The problem with this, as is so easily pointed out by everybody not Thompson, is that Swaggert and Bakker were both preaching against sex and extramarital affairs. What they did was wrong in their own preachings, not necessarily the worldview. But Thompson all but ignores this aspect in the paper delegating it to the opening paragraph as "Are these TV preachers all degenerates?" Then goes on to say that they weren't even really immoral, and the headlines have been fouled up, much like a controversy concerning Gary Hart. But, much of his writing reads like Ed Anger from Weekly World News, only with more pinache. I love reading his work, but it is very very conservative style with ultra-liberal meanings. This, I believe, delegated him to cult status instead of the true fame which he deserved.

The conservative tone of Hunter S. Thompson is much like the tone of everybody's favorite carnivore: Ted Nugent. One of my favorite guys in the world because he represents everything Michigan for me. Ted Nugent pisses off people because he is confrontational with all of his conservative views. I may or may not agree with everything he has to say, but he doesn't give a shit. He's a balls-to-the-wall type. This weekend, I saw Ted Nugent's "reality" tv show on VH1. It was called Surviving Ted and was a self-contained 2 hour game show-ish thing. He had a bunch of various types, mainly liberals, from a gay guy to a vegetarian, live with him, and he steadily eliminated them. The vegetarian got pissed off because Nugent hunts in the wild and eats his prey (which is really good, and the animals don't really suffer according to him). Nuge told Darren, the homosexual, "I don't really approve of your lifestyle." At one point he had them go out on a pontoon together to democratically decide who would be the next to get eliminated, which he vetoed anyways. This guy is such an asshole its great. This is a man whom I would love to get to know better. BUT, all of my previous mentions, on top of everything he said on his morning radio show when it existed (back when 102.7 was cool), and his concert antics all point to political assholery. He is, however, the most upfront person. He'll say that you can be right just fuck off.

So, where am I going with this? I dunno. I just felt like pointing out the weirdness that pervades media. Especially subculture media. Why do I read it? Mainly because, even if I don't agree with what they say, they all have a very good sense of humor. They know timing and such which will make me laugh. I may get pissed off by the end of what they are saying, but I am laughing as well.