|
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
THE ANTI-NEWS: Women Endure; Men ProcureWhat’s a cuckold? A man who endures
his wife’s sexual affairs. What’s a woman who endures her husband’s sexual affairs? A politician’s
wife. Hillary isn’t the first wife to stay with her man through the government dinners, trips, and other traipsing of power
while amassing wealth. It’s a regular Rock ‘n Roll orgy for politicians who are not buff, lean and mean, or even
clean. All they have is power.
But what woman in her right
mind is going to vote for a battered wife to be president of the USA? That’s what Hillary is – a woman who stayed
with her husband, probably did Monica Lewinsky stuff with him, and recently, let him roam Europe to play around in someone
else’s backyard. What does Bill do? He emotionally batterers Hillary, affair after affair, public and private.
Even Jacqueline Kennedy probably found it easy not to funeral cry simply by thinking of Jack’s time with Marilyn Monroe.
If unfaithfulness in a spouse showed on
a politician’s face, like the physical beatings of abused women and children around the world, who in their right mind
would even bother to vote for anyone? Why aren’t the NOW feminists clamoring for these battered women’s freedom?
The women themselves aren’t. Few political wives seem willing to walk away from D.C. power, money, prestige and other
benefits women crave and know their only access is through marriage. So should these, and all women, accept their husbands’
philandering (too bad it’s not philanthropy)? So, is marriage simply prostitution with a pretty name?
The great Sexual Revolution of the 60s with Birth Control and Abortion knocked marriage
off its pedestal. Women working trampled marriage. Then American men stopped marrying when they got the
milk for free and hid behind so-called fears of the “C” word.
This isn’t only an American phenomena. Japanese women stopped marrying once they
earned their own salaries. In other Asian countries, divorce rates skyrocket once women were able to work. In Arabia, although
men can legally take a second, third and fourth wife, often an educated first wife will divorce her deceptive, greedy husband.
Civilizations have taken thousands of years
to create the idea of ‘marriage’. Since time immemorial, men have had more power than women, and this is reflected
in marriage, marriage laws and realities. But the bottom line, when all the talking is done is what one of my lovers said
to me: “Sure, I expect you to put up with my other women, but if you were unfaithful to me, I’d
drop you in a second.”
So what in the world is Hillary Clinton still doing with Bill? Their mutual neurotic dance of self-destruction.
Do we really want THAT in the White House?
Wed, March 12, 2008 | link
THE ANTI-NEWS: Academy Award Nominating – Good business for bad moviesWhen I have to
drive more than two hours one way to see a movie, I relish the experience. Not when I saw Sweeny Todd. Helene Bonham
Carter is prettier to look at than Johnny Depp in Sweeny Todd but watching Depp repeatedly cut throats, then blood
flow, looking like mini-waterfalls, is a bit much. (For the blood-spurting throats, I covered my eyes.) The London set seemed
reminiscent of Paris in Moulin Rouge. I wasn’t sure that Depp and Carter had taken singing lessons or if they
were Vanilla/Manil-ing. I didn’t bother to see the credits, so sickened was I
by wasting my time and money on this ‘award nominated film’. Since I drove more than two hours, I thought I would try my luck with another Academy award nominated film:
No Country for Old Men. I kept waiting for someone to say that line amid the murder and mayhem and planning of murder.
The only great scene in this film was when the bad drug guy in the big, clean, city skyscraper got blown away in his office.
Both films had good acting and slick productions. Other than that, both films were violent Americana without much plot
saving graces to justify the on-screen murders. Back
in 1980, I interviewed a BBC representative who was importing Dallas for UK television. He had said, in his typical
British Empire way, ‘We give the people what we think they need’. The American way? ‘We
give the masses the lowest level of entertainment they will buy.’ As usual too, men account for most of the acting roles
and production people in Sweeny and No Country. Perhaps both movies were made for men, to allow their need
for bloodshed to be experienced vicariously rather than in the streets? Around the world, America sells violence and people buy it. Who are the Americans to
condemn South America for its cocaine sales or Afghanistan for its poppies? Not only does the USA enter countries and kill
people in undeclared wars worldwide, it also breaks banana workers backs with devious police actions that ignite civil wars.
If a violent thought is the domino for even 10% of
resulting violent actions, and the human mind has serious problems distinguishing between a real image and a TV/movie image,
who has more responsibility for bringing violence into the world: Hollywood and the Pentagon? Or South American and Afghan
drug trade? “Democracy comes
at a price,” Bush would probably say. The price? Violent mass entertainment and real mass murder.
Wed, March 12, 2008 | link
Saturday, March 8, 2008
We Need That War in South America!Too bad the South American
war has been cancelled – for the moment. Haven’t had many declared wars nearby since the War on Poverty and the
War on Drugs. A South American war ought to liven up TV coverage. Maybe Bush will allow the nitty-gritty Vietnam-like blood
and guts reporting for this war since none of ours are officially involved (that we know of). Venezuela with its oil, is making
many UN countries unhappy, Ecuador is a major cocaine exporter, and Colombia is another drugacracy so the Oil vs. Drug Wars
would help the New York Times and other news media hire back lots of news employees – but
only Spanish-speakers, por favor. Wonder if they work in South America and file their stories in the USA, if they
need legal US driver’s licenses, immigration papers, and/or passports? Would US drug prices rise or plummet? What would
all the financial advisers who get their highs from bonuses and lines do? Fly private planes south for refueling? A war close to US shores might galvanize
the consumer-materialistic US population to review their values. (Actually, what country isn’t materialistic?) Maybe
many will feel the need to participate and liberate somebody. Surely there is some abused or neglected indigenous group that
is ripe for democracy down there? Aren’t Amazon River tribes being genocided by those hungry tree and beef barons? Hot hormones of male
18 year olds who don’t want to war so far from home may volunteer for a nearby war in South America for the God-like
killing, and, of much greater appeal – cheap women and cheaper drugs – all you can get, consume, pay for –
a Vietnam paradise for horny young men, tired of demanding North American women. Was Spain like that for
Hemmingway and Wolfe? The 1800s
Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo could be revived. It’s slogan updated to: “Give California, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, and Texas back to the Spaniards.” Or do the Hispanics get it? Will Blessed Virgin Mary bring star performance
to candle-bearing Spanish protesters in major cities throughout the US, demanding “Give It Back – all of
it!” The Spaniards’ descendants deserve it. They were the original settlers
who threw out the Native American Indians and built churches so a person could travel from one end of their land to another,
with welcomed hospitality each night. Maybe they’ll settle for the US Dollar going bilingual, like many world currencies:
English on one side, Spanish on the other. Does that need Congressional approval? Change of constitution? Or just some money-grapping,
vote philandering politician to sign a paper? Too bad we can’t Bobbit some of those Hill people.
Voting them out of office doesn’t seem quite enough, IMHO. Thus Capitol Hill would
love a local war in the south to deflect American attention at its own weakening world position. Might create some job openings,
for Spanish-speaking American residents (legal or illegal).
Sat, March 8, 2008 | link
Monday, March 3, 2008
THE ANTI-NEWS: PRINCE HARRYSo
Prince Harry is now a man? He’s killed 30 men (or women and children, not specified). He’s
been bloodied. Now there’s a real man in Buckingham Palace that can lead the British people as his namesake once did. Wait a
minute. There may be a mistake. A dyslexic British clerk may have read 03 as 30, or 92 and switched it to 29, then rounded
it off. The number 92 is just too high – can’t have Prince Harry too bloody. Maybe he did body-torso
shots and his comrades in arms did the head shots? Maybe they let the Prince do the wash up kills of already shot guys, like
military mercy killing? Or perhaps he did kill 29 or 30 or 92 and the leak to the Net was done on Queen
Elizabeth’s orders because rumour had it that dear Prince Harry was getting a bit too fond of bloodletting – you
know, the old male: I kill, therefore I am God high that is known to be more effective in creating
killing machines than crack cocaine or metamphetamines in creating addicts. (Heard killing is even better than great sex.) Harry
gets to come home with blood on his hands, the anguished death of sons who were once princes to their mothers and fathers.
Too bad he was in a country where all the women are locked up. Otherwise, he may have returned home with
a taste for exotic physical pleasures other British Empire keeping excursions have bestowed upon generations of British soldiers/killers. Maybe
he killed 60 women and they only count as 30 men? If he is an actual lady killer, woe to whoever marries him. Or
maybe he’ll be another royal ripper? How could he avoid killing a civilian? Maybe a child? Since his kills were probably
not hand-to-hand combat, who knows? And how in the heck are body counts done - per gun
or per soldier? Do the soldiers count all the dead bodies (even those who died from shock, heart attacks and flying debris)
then divide by the number of soldiers nearby? Or do the soldiers cut off souvenirs from the dead to verify their own manhood?
Or were dear Prince Harry’s guns loaded with silver bullets and the Queen’s Emblem like stores get to use?
If he used a machine gun, the kind drug soldiers use around the world, maybe he got 30 kills in just a few minutes
and then he’s not so totally messed up with post-traumatic-stress or the Church of England’s “Thou shall
not kill” rule. (They still do have that rule over there in England, don’t they?) Maybe
his presence was leaked ‘cause he caught a taste for Afghanistan’s opium? Hey, if 90% of the world’s heroin
comes from Afghanistan, why didn’t US President Reagan’s war on drugs, “Just say No” reach over there?
It’s not like a bunch of vicious Colombians muscling in on the Italian Mafia’s cocaine deals in the 70s…..
Maybe there was and is some vice-presidential opium connection going on? Don’t see many Afghans in America pushing opium.
Opium was the drug of choice Brits even went to war with so they could sell it (free trade and all in the British
Empire) – the Opium Wars of the UK versus China a few years ago. I guess Prince Harry
is now more a man than President Bush Jr. who didn’t do much in the National Guard. Or is a man measured by the number
of women he slept or (*(*&^) over? Then, maybe Bush Jr. has outdone Harry on that one.
Mon, March 3, 2008 | link
|