Thursday, November 29, 2007
I never thought I'd say this, but I will be participating in politics this upcoming election cycle. After swearing off The System, I decided last night to amuse myself nonetheless by watching the CNN YouTube/GOP debate. My original motivation was to watch Nitwit Romney get his magic Mormon underwear in a twist in the event he was questioned by the snowman. So sue me; until last night politicians were only good for entertainment value.
Then something happened - something quite unexpected. I found myself impressed, not by the over-handled, over-hyped likes of Fred Thompson and Rudolph Guliani, but by rep. Ron Paul, the geeky-looking former obstetrical doctor who was the only one with the balls to answer his questions directly.
Of course, the effect of this was that they just stopped calling on him. The media no longer sees itself as Objective Observer, but as King-Maker eager to make or break the person they deem fit to lead the U.S. of A. So it won't do to give too much attention to the man they fear won't play their game.
This was evidenced all the more this morning when, on CNN, an opinion poll had viewers giving Rep. Paul the highest marks by viewers. The bimbo commentator instantly implied that Paul supporters had flooded the call lines and skewed the vote. On Fox, which is nothing more than an extension of the GOP Circle Jerk, it was even worse. Their morning show idiots didn't even mention Paul.
If Paul is making the media that nervous with his talk of stripping politicians of power to tax us to death, pulling our big American nose out of countries where it doesn't belong, and returning more choice to the People, that's the man for me. And it should be the man for you, unless you want to spend the next eight years watching this nation being driven off the proverbial cliff.
Of course, this support comes at a personal cost, since it means I'll have to agree with that annoying little Vox Day, but for balance it puts me even more at odds with Bane, who refers to Paul supporters as Flying Monkeys. To that I can only say that once the wings actually break through the skin on your shoulders, it isn't so bad. And flying above the political landscape lends a much better view than the one you'll get on your knees blowing the likes of Rudy Giuliani.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Federal prosecutors have withdrawn a subpoena seeking the identities of thousands of people who bought used books through online retailer Amazon.com Inc, newly unsealed court records show.
The withdrawal came after a judge ruled the customers have a First Amendment right to keep their reading habits from the government.
Seattle-based Amazon said in court documents it hopes Judge Stephen Crocker's decision will make it more difficult for prosecutors to obtain records involving book purchases. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Vaudreuil said Tuesday he doubted the ruling would hamper legitimate investigations.
Crocker - who unsealed documents detailing the showdown against prosecutors' wishes - said he believed prosecutors were seeking the information for a legitimate purpose. But he said First Amendment concerns were justified and outweighed the subpoena's law enforcement purpose.
"The subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals without their knowledge or permission," Crocker wrote. "It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else.
Please don't be lulled into any false sense of security because this latest little federal spy expedition was thwarted. A government that wants this kind of power over its citizen isn't going to let some little pesky court order stop it.
I'm a compulsive book buyer, and have purchased and sold books on Amazon.com for years. This afternoon I went through a list of what I've bought or put on my wish list, and what kind of profile I'd fit based on my book purchases. It isn't pretty, so if you are one of the few people who have a pleasant image of me, please turn back now.
Over the last year, I bought at least a dozen books on ritual magick, several books of an sex or erotic literature, two wilderness survival guides (you know it's a genuine survival guide when the first page contains a warning that due to disease, the reader should only eat rats as a last resort), two books on archery, about ten adult and children's novels, including The Golden Compass, six books on sewing and handcrafts, five books on gardening, two book on Latin and three books catering to my inner anarchist, including the The Book of Lies and the Anarchist's Cookbook.
So I suppose to a literary profiler, this would make me a sex-crazed witch with anti-government tendencies, armed with survival and crafting abilities to be used in my impending war against the local law enforcement agencies, who will need backup once I start shooting hexes and arrows at them from behind the tomato plants. And that children's literature I bought? Pfft. That's just a cover that allows me to walk the streets undetected for What I Am - a pagan anarchist with mad sewing skills, a walking, talking threat to the Establishment if there ever was one. A threat that will only be realized when it's too late..
Now, I don't know what your reading profile would say about you, but you might want to take a look and remove that Bushisms calendar you put on your wish list. Or at least balance it with some writings by Ann Coulter or some other author in the GOP Circle Jerk. After all, it's what all the Good Little Soldiers are reading.
Besides, unless you're reading something wrong, you don't have anything to worry about? Right?....Right?...
Sunday, November 25, 2007
What can I say about Wes? Not enough, really. He's funny, smart, creative, extroverted, introspective, idealistic, witty, handsome, a bit hot-headed....of all my kids I'd say he and I have the most in common. We talk. A lot.
And that's good because this past year has been a tough one for him. In April he went through a pretty traumatic break-up and for awhile we were all worried about him. He genuinely loved the girl he'd been dating, so much that he refused to see the writing on the wall when things started to go south. After they split, Wes drifted a bit. Things had been so intense between him and Courtney that it was hard for him to go anywhere or do anything without being reminded of what he'd lost.
Wes has learned a lot over the last seven months, mostly about how to be alone and how to be OK with it. As weird as it sounds, that's not something a lot of people can do; not everyone is comfortable in their own skin. It's been very good for him, and I'm proud that he worked on that rather than jump back into another relationship just so he could have someone on his arm.
There's no shortage of girls wanting to date him, but Wes - having learned the importance of being selective - is learning how to balance attraction with the kind of necessary assessment that help avoid trouble in the long run. Because in addition to his other qualities, Wes is a hopeless romantic. When he says, "I love you," it means something, and he's looking a girl worthy of those words.
I'm really, really proud of him. He's such a great kid. And it's cool to see him not only grow into adulthood, but also act the part. What a cool guy.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Some of the surveys are way too intrusive to answer. Like I'm going to actually tell someone how many sexual positions I've tried. Those are usually the surveys that carry a chain-letter type threat at the end, something along the lines of: "If you don't answer this honestly and repost, you will die." People who fill those out because they are scared are just stupid.
Most people fill surveys out because they are bored. I'm rarely, if every bored, so I never filled one out. But this morning, finding myself finished two days early with what I figured was a weeks-long writing project, I faced a choice. Either fill out a survey or clean the house. Guess which I chose?
3 names you go by?
3. Vic (but only to Jamie and Howard, who are too lazy to say Victoria)
3 things you are wearing right now :
1. Big Harry Potter towel wrapped around my body. Twice
2. Smaller towel wrapping up my wet hair
3. Nothing else
*You must answer every question TRUTHFULLY
 Are you in a relationship of any type?
 Have you ever been given roses?
 What is your all-time favorite romance movie?
 How many times have you honestly been in love?
 Do you believe that everyone has a soul-mate?
I'd like to think that.
 What's your current problem?
The toy explosion covering the playroom floor and the five-year-old who thinks he's above cleaning up his own mess.
 Have you ever Had a Long Distance Relationship?
No...no, wait. I'm sort of having one now. I'm having an imaginary affair with Severus Snape. I guess that counts as long distance since Hogwarts is in Europe. But then again, the affair is in my head, which is attached to my body so maybe it's not long distance. What's up with the trick questions, anyway??
 Have you ever seen a friend as more than a friend?
 Do you believe the statement, "Once a cheater always a cheater"
I'd need a better definition of cheater. Some people cheat with good reason and I believe they can change. But some cheat recreationaly, because they're arrogant players or because they think they're entitled to have their cake and eat it, too. I don't think the second type can every change and why I might be casual friends with such a person I'd never have a relationship with one.
 How many kids do you want to have?
No thanks. Already had them.
 What are your favorite colors?
Green. And more green.
 Do you believe you can only have 1 true love?
I used to believe that.
 Imagine you're 79 and your spouse just died, would you get re-married?
No. I'd have a string of meaningless affairs. With younger men.
 At what age did you start noticing the opposite sex?
I think I was like ten or so. I had a crush on a boy named Mark Farrior. His mom was a biology teacher and so he considered himself an expert on all things, including how people "did it." One day in the schoolyard he told me that 'doing it' mean a man "put his wee-wee in a woman's pee hole." I called him a liar and hit him so hard I bloodied his nose and then gave up talking to boys until the following year. Later, when I learned he was sort of correct I felt bad. You think I should look him up and apologize?
 What song do you want to hear at your wedding?
Another wedding? How about "The Black Parade."
 Do you know someone who likes you?
 does more than one person like you?
I sure hope so.
 Are you currently in a relationship?
I already answered that.
Does any one give you butterflies?
(22) What music are you listening to?
"Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
AVON, MINNESOTA - In what is being hailed by the non-magickal world as a rare trophy, an overweight Muggle from the world's least magickal place - Minnesota - shot and killed Harry Potter's patronus earlier this week.
The white stag, which Potter had conjured to shield Muggles from political correctness, global warming, Internet addiction, celebrity obsession and a myriad other soul-sucking issues plaguing the non-magickal world - was unfortunate enough to end up in the gun sites of Mary Roakoz, who couldn't wait to alert the media about her accomplishment.
On this video, the unpleasantly plump Roakoz describes how she stalked and killed Harry Potter's protective guardian.
"I had to creep a little bit, probably about 40 yards to get to a good place where I could steady myself," she said, neglecting to mention that she has yet to fill in the 40-yard, eighteen-inch deep trench her slug-like body left in the ground.
Roakoz, when informed that the deer she killed was actually a Patronus, seemed unfazed. "I hope next time he'll conjure up a twinkie!" she said of the distraught Potter.
The fat white hunter plans to donate the creature to Cabela's where it will be stuffed an mounted next to the Hippogriff she shot last year.
And they wonder why we don't give them wands....
© 2007 The Token Hippie
Monday, November 05, 2007
This is porn. To some people, anyway. To me it's just a tasteful nude. In fact, that's how I found it, by doing a Google search for "tasteful nude." But to some people it's still porn. Because the subject's naked. But I don't think so.
Now this picture is a bit more pornographic, which is why I'm linking to it rather than actually showing it. It's not really nasty porn. It's more soft porn. But most people would define it as mildly pornographic, because it's more gratuitous than artsy.
This picture...well, I think most people would define this as porn owing to the full frontal nudity.
This one is questionable. It's a beaver shot - and a big nasty one. But still, it really depends on what turns you on.
This one is way pornographic. Don't click on it.
But it's amazing what some people consider pornographic, especially the True Christians ™ posting over at Vox Popoli. Most of Vox's readers come to him via a right wing site popular with True Christians ™.
Gene is a True Christian ™. Gene worries about my soul because I write erotica. She's vexed by it. Gene hates pornography, but she loves to talk about it, and brings it up even when I don't. Gene apparently thinks about pornography. A lot. Gene thinks this is an example of pornography:
Gene also likes to quote people who tell her how she should think about things. Here's what she says another True Christian ™ told her to think about the Michelangelo's David and other Evil Art Forms:
Ravi Zacharias said that he reconsidered the role of nudity in art when he heard the story of student Michelangelo being asked why he painted nudes. “Michelangelo replied that he wanted to see people as God sees them. His instructor then said, ‘But you are not God.’Zacharias is a great speaker if you ever get the chance to hear him. ...With desensitizing people with porn or violence through media and the arts, one can mistakenly underestimate the tragedy of the loss of wonder. "
Bone Head (yes, that's what he calls himself) is also a True Christian ™. Here's what he thinks this is an example of pornography:
Yes, that's right. You're looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. But when Bone Head looks at it, he doesn't just see porn, but gay porn. That's because he read somewhere that Michelangelo liked naked men.
So to True Christians ™ like Gene and Bone Head, taking your kids to the Sistine Chapel or to an art museum is the same thing as taking them to a peep show.
Gene and Bone Head think David and the Sistine Chapel are pornography. Smut. Filth.
Gene and I have had some interesting exchanges on race that I won't rehash. Let's just say that Gene had some unpleasant experiences in her childhood that have left her with a bit of a mistrust for people who don't look like her.
Gene's like a lot of True Christians ™ in that regard. They long for the good old days, when it was acceptable for True Christians ™ to Do Their Thing, which was often lynching people who didn't look like them or running about condemning people in God's name.
Sexual images don't excite True Christians ™, at least not in any way that they will admit. But I'd be willing to be that pictures of lynchings or people carrying sings proclaiming God's hate makes their hearts beat faster and sends the blood rushing to their naughty parts.
It doesn't do it for me, though. Sanctimonious hate is a turnoff to me. I just can't get into that kind of filth. But then again, I guess that's because I'm not a True Christian ™.