The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Clearly They Move Into Higher-Order Pornography, i.e. Politics

Posted on | January 28, 2012 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

Forbes collects quotations from people in the pornography ‘industry’, and what a sad chuckle it is. Now, as a social conservative, I favor expressions of the human condition that drive individuals toward mature, happy, fruitful end states. Sexuality is a beautiful and powerful aspect of the human condition.

Step away from the hormones and the money for a moment. It’s an artificial point: lust and loot drive a lot of behavior. Furthermore, the abstract question of whether pornographic ‘thespians’ are more or less happy than any other population segment is a tough one. Sure, you can do some surveys. I can tell you that I would find the notion of being in pornography rather hellish. But then, I’m a romantic, in addition to a social conservative. And treating sexuality like, say, dry cleaning, as I expect these ‘professionals’ do, fails to inspire.

No, these garden variety whores are likely to venture into politics, I reckon. Progress means destroying first the notion of private property, then privacy itself. If vibrant life in the womb doesn’t have rights, why do people retain any upon exit from the womb? Is it really ‘fair’ that people get to decide what they eat, and with whom they swap fluids? Think of the vast capacity for employment when pornographers regulate sexuality and reproduction. Ginsburg will be so happy.

OK, I creeped myself out. Remaining dispassionate while figuring out dependent care flexible spending accounts is already too much sodomy for my day.

via Insty

Category: Culture, Uncategorized

Comments

12 Responses to “Clearly They Move Into Higher-Order Pornography, i.e. Politics”

  1. ThePaganTemple
    January 28th, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

    I can tell you that I would find the notion of being in pornography rather hellish.

    I’m sure you would, and so would your audience. You could always go for a comedic version though. You could call your first film “An Admiral, A Guy In A Fedora, And A Girl With Bangs”.

  2. smitty
    January 28th, 2012 @ 12:41 pm

    Wow, I link your Hillary Clinton post, and this is my thanks? 😉

  3. Russ Emerson
    January 28th, 2012 @ 1:35 pm

    Q: How do you make a hormone?

    A: Make him wear a condom to work.

  4. Anonymous
    January 28th, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

    We have pictures posted of Mark Levin’s hugely successful Book Signing of Ameritopia at Tysons Corner Mall in Northern Virginia.  Check them out here…
    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com/2012/01/pictures-mark-levins-tyson-corner-book.html

  5. AngelaTC
    January 28th, 2012 @ 2:26 pm

    I have to wonder  – how do you reconcile a firm belief in private property rights while supporting our psychotically  aggressive foreign policy?

  6. ThePaganTemple
    January 28th, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

    Simple. We own the best weapons.

  7. Anonymous
    January 28th, 2012 @ 5:02 pm

    Because our foreign policy is concerned, by definition, with governments, not private citizens.

    For example, Iranians may be individually lovely people, but as long as they aren’t rebelling against the government of whackjobs that claims to speak for them, they’ll collectively share in that government’s fate.

  8. smitty
    January 28th, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

    (1) I haven’t beaten my wife all week, i.e. you have to define ‘psychotically  aggressive’ before parking any agreement on my head.
    (2) You need to explain carefully how we taper off from what you call a ‘psychotically  aggressive’ foreign policy. It’s a post-WWII feature, and you can’t just flip a switch from the status quo to non-interventionalist ideas, for example.
    (3) Having been through ‘those’ areas a little bit, if it comes down to a zero-sum game, I’m content to ensure that the fisticuffs occur over ‘there’. As Mustaine noted, “Peace sells, but who’s buying?”

  9. smitty
    January 28th, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

    Excellent point. But terrorism, by virtue of technology, does put the private citizen on at least a momentarily level playing field with a government.

  10. ThePaganTemple
    January 28th, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

    Smitty, Angela is what I will call nicely, in her case, a Paul supporter. She doesn’t seem to be a booger-eater (9/11 Truther), but when one starts tossing around terms like “psychotically aggressive” the finger might be getting dangerously close to the nose.

  11. smitty
    January 28th, 2012 @ 6:13 pm

    I freely admit to supporting Ron Paul’s domestic ideas. The Constitution is libertarian in character, period.
    If you’ve watched the last couple of debates, Paul has been veering to the center (for him) with his military/defense spending nuance.
    It’s interesting, to say the least.

  12. ThePaganTemple
    January 28th, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

    I tend to agree with him on his foreign policy too, I just think he takes it way too far. That’s especially true in regards to the Middle East, particularly Iran.