Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts

Friday, July 1, 2016

A Drive-In To Diversity?

How B-movies and exploitation flicks of the 1970s helped the masses embrace multiculturalism. 


By: Jimbo X
JimboXAmerican@gmail.com
@Jimbo__X

The term “multiculturalism” gets thrown around a lot these days. Alike all dogmas and doctrines, its definition is loosely-defined and what it entails, precisely, fluctuates a great deal from person to person. That said, the basic premise of the ideology is that it’s communally beneficial for everybody to respect the racial and cultural background of everybody else.

Now, for all of us Gen Y and Gen Z kids, that kind of thinking is almost second-nature. Well, duh, of course you are supposed to respect the belief systems and customs of people different from you. Why in the world wouldn’t you? Alas, such a mentality is still a fairly new concept in the American consciousness, which really, remained until very recently – and in some parts of the country, still remains – locked into ethnic enclaves.

There has been a lot of conjecture as to how “multiculturalism” became an ingrained, if not wholly expected, aspect of the American condition. Obviously, the demographical changes over the last 50 years almost necessitated it, as did the expansion of international trade. Some have said it is an aftereffect of neo-neo-liberalism – with its detractors accusing it of being a Trojan horse for globalization and hyper-political-correctness – and others declare it the end result of rapid technological breakthroughs (the internet being the most obvious example) flattening the “global village” into a much more interconnected place.

But me? If anything, I’d credit it to something a little less obvious – namely, the proliferation of B-movies in the 1970s.

“You mean to tell me that grindhouse and drive-in movies from the Watergate era represents the birth of the American multiculturalism movement?” you may be asking yourself. I know, it’s an absurd premise. Regardless, the fact remains that few cultural movements had as much influence on the public’s perception of diversity as the rise of the often-foreign and always-independently-produced non-Hollywood cult flicks of the disco decade.

In 1975, there was no Internet. Nor were there any smartphones or streaming services like Netflix. For crying aloud, you didn’t even have cable television or VCRs yet. And since the network programming back then was heavily censored to comply with the FCC’s super-strict guidelines, pretty much the only place you could see (relatively) uncompromised moving images was at the local picture show – and whatever they were showing was pretty much your only unfiltered media window to the outside world.

While the local cineplex was treating you to mainstream stuff like The Towering Inferno and The Aristocats, those who ventured to the local B-venues – namely, the scummier in-town, non-chain-operated movie houses and especially the drive-in theaters – saw something completely different. Through a deluge of cheap-o productions and even cheaper acquired films from overseas, the  non-mainstream-movie-going masses witnessed a mini-cultural revolution, screening hundreds and hundreds of off-the-beaten-path flicks furtively celebrating the pro-diversity, ultra-progressivist ethos that epitomizes current U.S. culture.

With the elimination of the Hays Code in 1968 (a downright puritanical film production protocol that greatly limited what could be shown on screen), the floodgates immediately burst wide open with all sorts of artistic, poignant films with declarative sociopolitical messages that weren’t previously allowed in the medium. Overnight, visually graphic films with mature plotlines like Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider and The Wild Bunch became the new Hollywood standard, while outside-the-mainstream filmmakers now found themselves with free rein to pretty much show as much simulated sex and violence in their films as they’d like.

While this certainly allotted more thoughtful and provocative mainstream films like Last Tango in Paris and A Clockwork Orange, the relaxing of MPAA standards also proved a boon to indie filmmakers domestic and abroad. This was especially true for those who targeted the often content-starved drive-ins and grindhouses, which would screen just about any set of 35mm reels mailed to them.

America’s first flirtations with multiculturalism as a social construct wasn’t in the hallowed halls of academia or even the rapidly liberalizing mainstream Hollywood industrial-complex (which was seeing its gung-ho patriotic propaganda from stars like avowed racist John Wayne displaced by more morally relativistic and culturally critical films like The Deer Hunter and Dog Day Afternoon.) Rather, it was through all of those abstruse and obscure movies that served as the second half of many a drive-in and arthouse double feature, which not only gleamed real insight into the non-white world, but gave many people of color their first shots at financing, producing, directing and distributing their own works.

For most American filmgoers, their first encounter with international cinema wasn’t the critically acclaimed films of Bergman or Fellini. Rather, their introduction to non-American filmmaking came in the form of bloody Italian slasher flicks like Suspiria and The Twitch of the Death Nerve, Japanese kaiju flicks a’la Godzilla and Rodan and Hong Kong chop-socky masterpieces starring Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan – all the kinds of flicks ignored by chain theaters and lovingly embraced by B-movie venues. 

Modern black cinema didn’t begin with the works of Spike Lee, or even the films of Sidney Portier. Rather, the starting point for true African-American filmmaking began with drive-in baiting fare like Shaft, Superfly, Cooley High, Blacula, Ganja & Hess and especially Sweet Sweetback’s Badasssss Song, which was marketed with one of the greatest taglines in the history of the motion picture: “rated X by an all-white jury.

Think feminist and LGBT cinema started in the mid-1980s? One of the first U.S. movies directed by a woman to get any kind of wide release in the waning days of the Hays Code wasn’t some artsy-fartsy, pro-women’s lib screed, but rather, Stephanie Rothman’s campy, exploitative vampire opus Blood Bath in 1966. Beating her to the punch by two years was acclaimed filmmaker Shirley Clarke, whose 1963 drive-in potboiler The Cool World is now considered not only one of the greatest proto-blaxploitation films ever, but is deemed “culturally and historically significant” by the National Library of Congress’s National Film Registry. And where would American LGBT cinema be without the pioneering efforts of B-movie aficionado John Waters, whose groundbreaking late ‘60s and early ‘70s films Pink Flamingos and Mondo Trasho made their marks not in the bohemian galleries of Manhattan, but the grimy, rundown theaters and dilapidated drive-ins flanking the north Atlantic countryside?

Years before mainstream Hollywood film got on board The Silent Spring-spawned environmentalism bandwagon, low-and-no-budget shlockers like Day of the Triffids, Frogs, Kingdom of the Spiders, Piranha and The Prophecy were already indoctrinating viewers with the virtues of ecological sensitivity. And literally decades before the namesake became an inescapable academic construct, drive-in fare like The Last House on the Left and I Spit On Your Grave were getting down and dirty exploring – and criticizing – America’s “rape culture.”

That’s to say little of the genre classic that furtively explored deep, complex sociopolitical matters that mainstream film at the time didn’t have the guts to address, like rural racism (Night of the Living Dead), post-traumatic stress disorder (Deathdream) and the interwoven nature of cyclical poverty and the drug trade (The Harder They Come.)

Even the films that occupied that intersectional “safe space” between studio-backed populism and low-culture indie sleaze in the grindhouse era had a tendency to promote more progressive, anti-traditionalist values. Perhaps the ‘70s most iconic action movie star was Tom Laughlin's Billy Jack, an anti-racist, make-believe-Native-American “pacifist” who walloped bigots and spread the gospel of new-wave leftism in a series of three surprisingly lucrative films throughout the decade. Even the filmography of Burt Reynolds – the veritable John Galt of 1970s American cinema – carried a proud anti-establishment theme. Years before Black Lives Matter activists were doing it, the great mustachioed one was already criticizing mass incarceration and police brutality in drive-in hits like The Longest Yard and White Lightning.

While the double-dose of Jaws and Star Wars paved the way for mainstream cinema to strike back with less subversive and far more profitable box office rejoinders in the 1980s – which, as David Sirota observed in his book Back To Our Future, sort of swung the cultural gong back towards the side of conservative traditionalism through flicks like First Blood, Red Dawn and Top Gun – the exploitative, yet surreptitiously socially aware offerings of the drive-in age nonetheless reverberated much longer than expected. The influence of 1960s and 1970s grindhouse aesthetics and themes is evident in the work of celebrated contemporary directors like Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Harmony Korine and Takashi Miike, and it’s hard to find any critically acclaimed indie flick nowadays that doesn’t at least obliquely pay homage to one of its spiritual forerunners from 40 years ago (all of the shoutouts to the works of Herschel Gordon Lewis in Juno immediately spring to mind.)

So is it really accurate to say B-movies from the Watergate era are responsible for the proliferation of today’s pervasive, pro-diversity ideologies? On the surface, it may seem to give way too much credit to a medium usually thought of as hardly anything more than trashy entertainment. But again, each film represented a tiny inoculation of a non-majority culture, giving us just a pinch here and there of a different worldview and perspective on the modern American experience. Little by little – be it Carwash, Penitentiary, Caged Heat or The Slumber Party Massacre – we learned just a wee bit more about the cultures outside of our own purview, of the customs and beliefs and lifestyles of those superficially different from us. While mainstream filmgoers were – and to a certain degree, still are – receiving a steady diet of white, hetero and male, the drive-in and grindhouse film faithful were experiencing a greater easel of the human condition and a broader array of philosophical concepts all the way back in the heyday of bell bottoms and burning draft cards.

Sure, it’s absurd to think that today’s multiculturalism ethics – taught in schools, mandated by employers and considered a virtual social code of conduct as sacrosanct as what’s actually printed in our law books – arose from stuff like Infra-Man and Hell Up in Harlem, but without such early intercultural cinematic experiences, just how successful could the first diversity initiatives have been as heralders of today's ubiquitous multicultural Tao? Although sometimes hokey, risqué, perplexing and maybe even offensive, those 35mm introductions to different cultures and different schools of thoughts nonetheless got us thinking outside our own narrowed perspectives and looking at the world, and those around us, through less ethnocentric lenses.

The old B-movies of yesteryear let us see “the other” as something more than alien or exotic, in the process helping us understand different ways of life and thought and illuminating a larger, clearer portrait of humanity as a whole...

... yes, even when the pro-diversity message was sometimes sugar-coated with rubber monsters, kung-fu fights, gallons of fake blood and ample – if not downright gratuitous – nudity.


Thursday, May 26, 2016

Book Review: 'The New Thought Police' by Tammy Bruce (2002)

It's just another meandering, hyper-conservative screed against the so-called "liberal agenda" ... written by a gun-toting lesbian who was once the head of one of the largest chapters of the largest feminist organization in the U.S.? Hmm ... maybe we ought to pay attention to this one


By: Jimbo X
JimboXAmerican@gmail.com
@Jimbo__X

Perhaps the most remarkable cultural upheaval I've witnessed in my lifetime has been the slow transvaluation of the American free speech dilemma. Up until very, very recently, the First Amendment discussion in the United States has almost exclusively revolved around instances of liberal progressives fighting against the nation's super-traditional arch-conservative tastemakers. We can cite the landmark Supreme Court rulings by heart now: Tinker v. Des Moines, New York Times Co. v. United States, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Texas v. Johnson - all narratives in which "the man" and his outmoded, prejudicial ways were steamrolled by the wave of the future, the more forward thinking, secular-progressive of the species. Granted, the "good guys" don't always win - see Miller v. California - and periodically, there have been a few First Amendment challenges from those to the right of Attila the Hun - see Brandenburg v. Ohio - but by and large, the greater cultural narrative shines through the high court dockets like a highlighted object in The Sims. Slowly, but surely, the collective psyche has drifted away from the old-school, patriotic, Protestant-work ethic mentality and embraced its ideological opposite - that being, the new-school, anti-theist, pro-multiculturalism Tao. 

Now, that isn't to say that this takeover is inherently a bad thing. Indeed, having to live in a theocratic, super-prudish society that equates any dissatisfaction with governmental actions with communist sentiment sucks just as bad as living in one where a bunch of hyper-offended, leftist nut-bags accuse everything and everyone of being sexist and racist. The frank reality, however is that - not unlike the nerds who killed off all the jocks in Massacre at Central High and slowly found themselves establishing their own hierarchical constructs of oppression - really, all we are seeing is the exchanging of the whips so the other side can take turns flogging the despised political other. Instead of a bunch of empowered, bigoted dudes who watch John Wayne movies persecuting diempowered hippies who smoke dope and give each other tie-dyed hand jobs at Grateful Dead concerts, for the forseeable future, it's going to be empowered transgender flag-burners and virulently anti-racist Yale Law School grads who think anyone who uses the term "illegal immigrant" should be sentenced to death beating the living - and legal - shit out of all the disempowered people who think homosexuality is a sin and that they ought to be able to pray in schools and hold up signs at Tea Parties stating that, yes, they do indeed dislike them some Muslim peoples

As much as some want to ignore it, today, the freedom fighters on the front line for the First Amendment aren't your liberal super-heroes like Lenny Bruce or George Carlin or Eugene Debs. Instead, the people really making a stand for free expression - and telling the government to fuck off for trying to tell us what to think and feel - are those guys who hold up signs saying "God Hates Fags" at dead soldiers' funerals or protest abortion clinics by holding up giant posters of disemboweled fetuses (which, from my observations, always kind of look like either gummy bears or half-eaten spaghetti dinners.)

Of course, the big problem with the free expression debate in modern day America is that - while there is at least the illusion that there are barriers in place to prevent the feds from silencing you - there is absolutely no legal safeguard in place to prevent the masses from ripping those with unpopular opinions to shreds. Since they can't technically imprison you for going against the herd consensus, the great contemporary leftist brain trust has instead developed a neo-McCarthyist approach that seeks to not only exile those with antithetical opinions from participating in the public sphere, but to prevent them from earning a paycheck to support themselves and their families. As influential as the racist, xenophobic, hive-minded John Birch Society types of the 1950s may have been, they would have been in awe of just how deeply their 2010s counter-parts in the liberal think-o-sphere have embedded themselves in the national conscience. Even if you strongly disagree with the pillars of modern liberalism - diversity is great and has absolutely no scientifically-verified negative repercussions whatsoever, America's borders should be open because it adds to the prosperity and richness of our culture, embracing LGBT identitarians and reshaping national policies to give them unparalleled civil protections from criticism is absolutely necessary, etc. - odds are, you are too afraid to ever admit it in public or on social media. While it is perfectly fine and dandy for your colleagues to spout off about how great gay marriage and transgender bathrooms and affirmative action is, you know that if you ever said something that criticized or questioned their belief systems, it would fuck you over hard. Your coworkers and peers would brand you as a racist or a sexist or a homophobe - the 21st century scarlet letter - and you might even lose your job. Shit, I've talked to more than one person who supports Donald Trump 100 percent, but they won't tell anybody because they are afraid that will automatically get them labeled as prejudiced. Try as the may, the commie-hunting queer-haters of the Eisenhower never had as tight a stranglehold on the American consciousness as today's reactionary leftists, whose dogma is probably about four or five years from becoming the cultural mainstream.  

To the uninitiated, this whole "social justice warrior" stuff is a relatively recent phenomenon. Of course, the real roots of SJW-dom stretch back to at least the mid-1970s, with the proliferation of this little thing called "political correctness" (fun fact: the modern use of the term was coined by democratic socialists as a derogatory way to describe the official Stalin-era communist party line, if you ever wondered.) Although it lay dormant for most of the later half of the decade, one could feel the movement slowly sinking its way into the bedrock of the social conscience, even during that uber-Patriotic, kitsch-as-kitsch can epoch in American history called "The Post 9/11, Pre-Obama World." 

What makes The New Thought Police such an interesting little tome - besides its author's unique blend of conservative idealism and quasi-progressive identity politicking - is that it was released right in the middle of the modern day SJW movement. Published  in 2002, the book came out in that weird interphase where everyone knew what affirmative action was but things like "intersectionality" and "cisgenderism" were still a good decade away from becoming conceptualizations bolted into our youth's minds like rainbow-hued rivets. As such, the gloriously anti-P.C. screed at times almost feels like an ominous warning from way back when that we should have listened to but didn't because we were all too busy with American Idol and the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie. 

Following a foreword from Dr. Laura (boy, THAT doesn't make the tome feel archaic or nothing), Tammy Bruce introduces herself as "an openly gay, pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, liberal, voted for Reagan feminist," which is probably the first time any of us have heard at least four or five of those identity qualifiers uttered in the same sentence. Oh, and did you know that Ms. Bruce - now a Washington Times columnist and periodic Fox News talking head - served as the president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women from 1990 to 1996? Well, she did. 

Tammy makes her hypothesis pretty clear early on in the book, alleging the contemporary left is guilty of using "perpetual victimization" narratives and "P.C. codes" to maintain political and cultural power. She then chides the lefties for being perpetually offended about EVERYTHING, stating "opinions, in and of themselves are not harmful, regardless of the subject or conclusion." 

From there, she wastes no time at all before harping on organizations that claim to "represent aggrieved minorities"  like NOW, GLAAD and the NAACP, stating that their "protection" of particular interest groups is really just a ploy to take down any contrarians who disagree with their authority. This in turn creates a dreadful "spiral of silence" that fool special interest groups into believing they have more social clout than they really do - the trick, Bruce postulates, is for advocacy organizations to make it look like they are making some progress with their agendas, but never enough, naturally, to make them obsolete as activist organizations.

As a result, Bruce suggests that many Americans now find themselves gripped in the paralyzing fear of offending "protected groups" - consciously or unconsciously. Liberals today, she continues, have completely abandoned the Lockean classical liberalism for a dogma utterly obsessed with identity politics, sustaining "victim" status and fostering an "us vs. them mentality." Instead of rallying behind "equality of opportunity," they now campaign for "equality of outcome," and rather than promote personal rights, they are now infatuated with the sanctity of group rights

She takes a brief detour to dissect some of the more popular 20th century liberal-progressive icons. She refers to Betty Friedan as a communist and trudges up the trifecta of "anti-capitalist" MLK advisers (Hunter Pitts O'Dell, Stanley Levison and Bayard Rustin, for those of you out of the loop.) She brings up the fact that Rosa Parks was already an NAACP officer before her famous protest, and how the organization didn't rush o the aid of two African-American women - Claudette Calvin and Mary Louise Smith - who made earlier stands against Montgomery's bus policies. Focusing the discussion on slightly more modern figures, she chides the secular progressives for tearing apart Cruz Bustamenta for accidentally saying "nigger" at a Coalition of Black Trade Unionists speech and John Rocker for his string of somewhat insensitive comments to Sports Illustrated in 1999. "It's not really the use of a term, it's what you're thinking when you use it," Bruce says of the omni-offended - and bordering on impossibly metaphysical - liberal M.O.

In a chapter on the ills of groupthink, Bruce explores the discrepancies in how the media covered the murders of Matthew Shepherd and Daphne Sulk, reminds us that just 17 hate crime homicides were recorded in 1999, that the cable news complex royally fucked up in their coverage of the Columbine Massacre and gives us a quick primer on the work of Irving Janis and a few case examples from a peer-reviewed periodical called the Cultic Studies Journal (which I really need to subscribe to, it seems.)

This segues nicely into a lengthy passage on homosexual lobbyist hypocrisy, which is prefaced with a rather spiffy quote from Animal Farm - "once in power, the oppressed will become the oppressor." Our author describes in great detail how GLAAD has taken Lord Acton's maxim about "absolute power corrupting absolutely" to heart, eschewing the character-building exercises of yore for nonstop character assassination attempts today. She discusses the organization's role in the harassment of Dr. Laura - including how she ironically received death threats for "not being tolerant enough" - and wonders why they don't go after non-Christian-conservative homophobes like Eminem. "The left doesn't want you tolerating anything they won't tolerate," Bruce sums it up. 

If you think that's a knee-slapper, just wait until you get to the chapter titled "Misery Merchants," which gives the NAACP the old what-fer. Bruce recounts the Tawana Brawley debacle from 1987 and that one time Alton Maddox accused Robert Adams of masturbating to photographs from the (totally fabricated) crime scene. She accuses black interests organizations of promoting what she deems "a victim industry" which propagates racial division and hopelessness with the endgame of "holding onto the money, power and prestige that comes from leading the supposedly downtrodden." She then elaborates on Dick Armey's assertion that the organization practiced "racial McCarthyism," drones on for a bit about Jesse Jackson's union collections and proclaims that by making people uncomfortable discussing race and constantly ripping open the wounds of the sins of the past, we are guaranteed to never get past the painful legacies of historical racism. She cites a few studies with some surprising findings (for example, she mentions one RAND report that determined 51 percent of those arrested in the 1992 L.A. riots weren't black, but Hispanic, and a 1997 JCPES national survey that indicates two-thirds of blacks in America have "moderate to conservative" political leanings) and brings up the words of Walter E. Williams, who once declared that African-Americans' political leanings were more alike Jerry Falwell than Al Sharpton and that Jesse Jackson's platform more closely resonated with old white hippies than poor, inner-city blacks. Then there's some stuff about "aversive racism" and the 1990 eight circuit case U.S. v. Weaver and the holding "facts are not to be ignored simply because they are unpleasant," but eh, it didn't make that much of an impression on me, frankly.

As you would expect from the former head of the largest NOW chapter in the nation, Bruce clearly holds some grudges against the late second wave/early third wave feminist ideologues. After chiding the Steinem types for their less-than-secretive ties to socialist organizations, Bruce goes on a long tirade about how so many feminist groups gave confirmed spouse abuser and unconvicted double murderer O.J. Simpson a free pass because he was black and raises some questions about why exactly federal "tobacco control" grants were given to NOW during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Go ahead, make your own cigar-in-the-vadge joke now, you low-fruit-grabbing motherfuckers. From there, Bruce tackles the touchy topic of multiculturalism, describing it as a code word for "moral relativism" and an ideological structure that encourages Balkanization and shields minorities from accepting self-responsibility for their own actions. Rather than create a more "inclusive society," she makes a very solid argument that multiculturalism actually has the OPPOSITE affect, instead rewarding ethnic enclaves for self-segregating and promoting the abstract conceptualization of a collective culture over their own individual values and aspirations (and by golly, wouldn't you know it, independent research from the guy who wrote Bowling Alone verifies pretty much every negative thing about "mandated diversity" Bruce posits here.) Don't ask me how, but this section somehow ends with some commentary on the Kennewick Man and why it's bullshit that "ebonics" is categorized as an official ESL subject in certain school districts out on the Left Coast. 

The sections on the media and academia are pretty much what you would expect - lots of pissing and moaning about Dan Rather sticking up for Gary Condit during his 2001 missing-intern scandal and that one time a bunch of black kids stole 14,000 copies of The Daily Pennsylvanian because they didn't like what one of the articles had to say. There's also a great section where Bruce talks about just how much power advocacy groups have over the media, and how in many situations, special interest organizations pretty much put words in the mouths of newspapers and news sites by feeding them pre-packaged "stories" expressing some sort of manufactured outrage or grievance. As someone who has worked in media\public relations his entire career, I can firmly attest to just how common an occurrence this is - to the point I have seen entire press releases published as factual news stories with a reporter's byline on it, even though every word was penned by someone on the activist organization's payroll. 

Whether in the classroom or in the entertainment biz, Bruce says the liberal war machine modus operandi is the same - silence differing opinions, squelch public debate and punish all those who foster dissent against the supreme, totalitarian ideology. After talking about something called "Cuntfest" (fun for the whole family, I presume!), she describes how the leftist machinery pushes a peculiar racial narrative to children as young as elementary schoolers. "It can never be too early to teach white kids the importance of self-censorship when it comes to issues of race, and to infuse black and Hispanic kids with a victim mentality that they may never be able to shake," she writes. 

So far, so good, right? Well, at the very tail end of the book, Bruce just has to up and derail the entire thesis by concluding her tome with a chapter about the necessity for activism. Yes, after spending 200-plus pages describing how collective identitarianism is destroying civility, she opts to wrap up The New Thought Police with a section describing the "success" of her protests against book stores selling copies of American Psycho (uh, what was she saying about freedom of expression earlier?) and how great it felt to that one time she got Dan Ohmeyer's interview with O.J cancelled. As insightful and entertaining as the book is, alike a lightning fast stallion that trips up 200 feet from the finish line, you can't help but be disappointed by Bruce's premise-defeating finale, I am afraid. The book concludes proper following a suggested reading list that includes the likes of Andrea Dworkin and Hannah Arendt and a preview for her 2003 treatise The Death of Right And Wrong - which, yeah, appears to be pretty much the exact same material as this book, only slightly reworded so as to contractually fulfill the author's three-book deal or whatever sort of arrangement she had back then. 

So, 14 years since The New Thought Police was released, what sort of intrinsic value does it retain? Well, a lot of the material is supremely outdated, but it is nonetheless pretty hard to not comb through it and feel a sense of spooky prescience. Back in the heyday of Pepsi Blue and Eight Legged Freaks, who'd ever thunk that Bruce's then-hilarious-paranoid-sounding musings would eventually come to represent our shared societal norms? Well, this gun-toting, Reagan-voting lesbian feminist was way ahead of the curve, and in much the same way you can't help but be awestruck by the uncanny soothsaying of something like Camp of the Saints, this vaticination of this one will really give you the heebie-jeebies.

Now, is Bruce's book a revelatory, ideological masterwork on par with, say, Ideas Have Consequences or The Closing of the American Mind? Well, no, but unlike a lot of books with political agendas from the early 2000s, it still seems fairly relevant and contemporary. It may not be something that will change your life or your way of thinking - indeed, it pretty much espouses stuff we've heard a million billion times before, albeit a good decade and a half before it became the beckoning call of the reactionary post-W right - but if you can pick up a copy at a used bookstore at a reasonable price, it's probably worth the investment. 

Considering how astoundingly well Bruce predicted the modern Generation Y diversity-at-all-costs mentality at least 10 years out, I suppose just one question remains - will The New Thought Police seem so remarkably oracular another 15 years from now, too?

Call it progress (or regression, if you are on the other side of the aisle), but something tells me Tammy's tome is going to sound stunningly sibylline for a LONG time to come, unfortunately. 

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Propaganda Review: "Pages of Death" (1962)

It's a long-lost anti-porn screed featuring a former Heisman Trophy winner and two dudes doing their best Joe Friday and Bill Gannon impersonations. It's not quite Reefer Madness, but it's still some pretty out there stuff. 


By: Jimbo X
JimboXAmerican@gmail.com
@Jimbo__X

Generally, I tend to feel that we, as a collective, simply don't appreciate the vast access to information the Internet has given us. 

Think about the World Wide Web today, from the perspective of someone living in 1994. Let's say you want to watch a movie. Any movie, in the whole goddamn world. Well, all you have to do is click open your browser and in less than a minute (depending on how fast you can type), you're instantly streaming it. If it's not on Netflix or Amazon Prime, it's probably on YouTube or Dailymotion. And if that doesn't work, you can always hit up the torrents, where not only can you find the obscurest of the obscure media, but sometimes, mainstream, first-run Hollywood productions before they even hit theaters ... for free. 

As for Mr. or Mrs. 1994? Unless that movie is at the local video store, he or she is S.O.L. Missed that brand new episode of The Simpsons last week? Well, too bad, motherfucker, because unless you taped that sumbitch on a VCR, you won't be able to see it again until it's re-aired six months later. Want to watch something REALLY old, like a football game from five years ago? Just forget it, man, just forget it.

In that, the Internet today is nothing less than a miraculous techno-heaven. The very same SNES and Genesis games people paid $80 for 25 years ago can now be played without owing anybody a penny on your phone. Want to hear a song - ANY SONG - from 30 years ago? You probably only need to click your mouse three times, and there it is. Sites like The Internet Archive store literally MILLIONS of pieces of media - from classical literature by Booker T. Washington to the SNK arcade game Beast Busters - and you can access it anywhere, anytime, sans ANY kind of financial cost. 

With so much freedom of information - I still can't get over the fact that I can watch fucking International Guerrillas anytime I see fit - perhaps it is only fitting that today's kids foster a fascination with the unobtainable. Indeed, there are entire wikis dedicated to so-called "lost media," which is basically all the old movies, video games, TV recordings and music that AREN'T available on the Internet, for whatever reason. Whether something old and forgotten is worth experiencing is irrelevant - in a world where everything is so accessible, that which isn't linkable suddenly becomes highly coveted. 

Which brings us to Pages of Death, a 1962 anti-porn propaganda flick that, in all sincerity, should have been LONG forgotten about decades ago. 

At just 27 minutes in length, the film is hardly anything more than an extended commercial for the Citizens for Decent Literature, a Catholic anti-smut group formed by Charles Keating - yes, the very same Charles Keating of the 1989 Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal that only cost U.S. taxpayers a good $3 billion and triggered a mini-recession

Conceptually, the film is very much in line with stuff like Reefer Madness, only with the hysterical anti-weed agenda replaced by a hysterical anti-porn agenda. Long considered lost to the ravages of time, a bunch of archivists in Oregon recently unearthed a fairly in-tact version of the flick, and yes, it is every bit as over-the-top and absurd as you'd hope for. 

Because without that "city dump" sign, I would have had
no idea what that garbage-strewn wasteland was
supposed to be. 
Our narrator is Tom Harmon. Never heard of him? He played college and pro football back in the day (he even won the Heisman Trophy in 1940) but he's probably best known for being the father of actor Mark Harmon. You know, that one guy from NCIS? Not ringing a bell? Ok, how about the guy who played Ted Bundy in that old TV movie The Deliberate Stranger? Still got nothing? All right, he was the teacher in Summer School - yes, that old '80s flick with the two guys who really love Texas Chainsaw Massacre and that black dude who was in the bathroom for three months who still got an A on his final exam. NOW you know who I'm talking about. 

Anyway, Tom is sitting at a desk, showing us a photograph of 11-year-old Karen Fleming. He lets us know that her parents THOUGHT they could keep her safe ... then, she turned 12. 

So, we jump into your stereotypical, post-WWII, pre-Vietnam happy suburban home. Mom is worried Karen isn't home for dinner, but dad, in typical dad fashion, assuages her by saying she's probably hanging out with her school chums or something. 

This leads to a montage of mom and dad making phone calls, as they get more and more distressed. Enter a pair of investigators wearing matching brown jackets, who ask the parents all the usual missing person questions. Mom starts freaking out and the investigators ask for a photograph.

The investigators then pay a visit to Mr. Baker, the proprietor of a drug store who squints a lot and makes a lot of off-handed jokes - so, essentially, he's a prototype for the bicycle shop owner from THAT episode of Diff'rent Strokes. He tells the police detectives the only other kid who was in the store earlier besides Karen was Paul Halliday, who just so happens to be the son of George Halliday, "a big wheel on the city council." In passing, Baker scoffs at the investigators for rallying behind a failed anti-"obscene" literature ordinance. 

As expected, the investigators then visit the Halliday household. Cue this J. Edgar Hoover-tastic quip from one of the detectives: "We asked for a city ordinance to help clean up some of the smut that Baker and those other guys are peddling to the kids, but according to Halliday, we attacked the free enterprise system, we tried to legislate morals, interfere with business and destroy the freedom of the press." And as a result, he continues, "any kid with a quarter and a four cent stamp can order girlie mags in the mail."

Daddy Halliday lights up a smoke and tells the detectives they ought to be out catching criminals instead of trying to turn the city into "A nine o' clock town." Enter Paul, your stereotypical pre-desegregation, squeaky-clean-looking all-American honky teenager. Cops shows him Karen's picture and he tells them he doesn't know who she is. 

The investigators return to the Fleming residence. They tell Karen's parents they really can't do shit at this point. Then the phone rings. The colonel is on the other end of the line, and he informs the investigators that Karen's body has been found in the city dump. And yes, the detectives do indeed travel to the dump themselves to make sure she's dead, and yeah, she's dead as a doornail, all right. 

The investigators visit one of Karen's former teachers. She reads one of Karen's old papers, talking about how her communion was the happiest day of her life and how she was really looking forward to growing up and becoming a teacher and that her home life is great and that she really likes meatloaf and kittens. The teacher says she hopes the investigators find her soon - to which one of the investigators replies "we already have." Unfortunately, it wasn't followed up by a ominous "DUN DUN DUN" sound effect. 

So we return to the Hallidays. Mrs. Halliday says she hopes the cops find the man ... no, THE BEAST ... that killed that poor girl. The investigators then barge into Paul's room, which is adorned with wooden panels, pendants, a globe with a hat on it and, most interestingly, a pair of tar and gravel-matted shoes. His mom remarks that his room has never been this messy before and that for some strange reason, he has just lost any interest whatsoever in doing homework.

The investigators say they need to take a closer look, and apparently, in 1962 you didn't need a warrant to do that. They pop open his drawer, and what do you know, the dude has a treasure trove of porn in there, including publications with such lurid monikers as Scorching Sex Stories, Shows All Tells All, Home of the Stripper and Night of Horrors ... although that last one may actually be called Night of Whores, these actors really aren't the best at enunciating. The detectives continue to root around in Paul's private belongings, uncovering additional film strips and slide. "This is strictly hardcore stuff," one of the investigators remarks. 

In walks daddy Halliday. The cops show the parents all of Paul's spanking off material. Mom and dad remain in denial. "This is the kind of stuff you'd find in skid row," quips the father, because fuck poor people. One of the cops corrects him: "nope, now it's something you can buy ANYWHERE."

I can only imagine the rest of the contraband consisted
primarily of assorted lotions and bathroom tissues
of fluctuating ply and absorbency. 
The cops start grilling Paul. They want to take a look at his car. Then they show him the dirt and gravel caked shoes. At that point, he breaks down and confesses to murdering the young girl. He keeps saying he "didn't mean to," and he doesn't know why. "I think we do, Paul," shouts one of the cops, who then angrily throws down one of smut rags. 

Back to Baker's shop we go. The owners says he is glad Paul was caught, adding you really have to keep an eye on those quiet kids. One of the detectives tells Baker the stuff he is merchandising to kids is too strong for hardened criminals, and all that shit is perverting an entire generation of American youths by convincing them love and lust are the same thing (which, uh, might actually be the film strip's first quasi-valid point.)

"You got your murderer," Baker tells the cops. "Yeah, one of them," the cops riposte. Cue a close-up on another kid with a buzz cut, chewing gum and reading a mag that may or may not prominently feature titties. 

We go back to Harmon, who says THAT kid very well could be the next sex crime murderer in your neighborhood. He says that although Karen is fictitious, the movie is based on a real murder committed by a sex-crazed teenager who had his brain fried by too much porn. And that letter the teacher read earlier? That's an actual composition read by the real-life victim. (Of course, there is no way to prove any of that to be factual, but let's just go ahead and presume it is a bunch of bullshit due to a lack of evidence.) The same tragedy can befall YOUR CHILDREN, he states, citing a statistical rise in sex crimes in tandem with smut mag sales (more on this assertion in just a bit.) Harmon informs us that J. Edgar Hoover - notorious racist, fascist and probable transvestite - recently said that porn is making madmen faster than they can build jails. 

Anywhere from 75 percent to 90 percent of all "obscene" literature ends u with kids, Harmon continues. However, he said the $1 billion a year racket can easily be thwarted by city ordinances, and if you want to stop the masturbatory peril in your community, all you have to do is write a letter to Citizens for Decent Literature, and they'll tell you exactly what you need to do. 


Making things even more hilarious, I'm pretty sure the address today is now home to a medical marijuana dispensary

More of an infomercial than a film, it's pretty easy to see why Pages of Death was so easily forgotten. I'm not quite sure what the print run of the movie was back in 1962, but I can't imagine too many copies of the movie ever getting out there. Indeed, the film more or less disappeared from the face of the Earth for a half century, before being "rediscovered" by the Oregon Historical Society in Jan. '16

As for the organization behind the film, Citizens for Decent Literature, they actually trucked along all the way up until the early 2000s under the name Citizens for Decency Through Law, which according to the Wikipedia, grew to 300 chapters and more than 100,000 members nationwide at its zenith


As something of a precursor to the Moral Majority, the CDL and their ilk were instrumental in goading the Supreme Court of the United States to establish a new definition of what constitutes "obscenity" in the landmark 1973 case Miller vs. California, which revolved around an unfortunate mail order smut peddler who got arrested after sending brochures to a restaurant in Newport Beach that, well, wasn't too keen on all that nudity. 


Interestingly enough, the three-pronged "Miller Test" remains the default definition of what "obscene" material is in the U.S. to this day, despite being an incredibly vague standard prone to a vast amount of subjective interpretation. Just how vague, you ask? Well, to qualify as obscene, something has to nail all of the following criteria: "an average person, applying contemporary community standards" finds the work is designed to provoke sexual excitement, the work itself depicts "sexual conduct or excretory functions" in a "patently offensive way," and taken as a whole, the work is sans any sort of "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." So yeah, it's hardly any better than Potter Stewart's infamous definition of obscenity in 1964's Jacobellis v. Ohio - "I know it when I see it." 


Needless to say, if the Dragnet wannabes from Pages of Death were aghast at all of that ink and paper debauchery in JFK's day, they'd probably blow a gasket after taking one peep at the virtually endless array of easily accessible porn all over the Interwebs. Alas, there's still plenty of debate raging about whether porn viewership makes people more violent and prone to rape, with most of today's hardcore anti-porn crusaders either the last vestiges of the Jerry Falwell/Focus on the Family mega-prude set or, ironically, their political opposites over in the radical feminist contingent


Alas, despite a whole bunch of conjecturin' on their parts, a 2009 literature review revealed that not only was there no correlation between watchin' smut and sex crimes, there actually appears to be an inverse relationship, with high rates of porn consumption syncing up with a lower likelihood of engaging in sexual assault. In fact, since the arrival of the Internet  and with it, that bottomless buffet of free cyber porn, the forcible rape rate has dropped by nearly half in the U.S., declining from a high of 42 rapes per 100,000 people in 1992 to just 26 per 100,000 in 2014. In short, pretty much everything the masterminds behind Pages of Death railed against appears to indeed be the very things that wound up preventing all of the nefarious sexual shenanigans they said would come about if jackin' off material was open and accessible to all. 

Granted, it is pretty easy to look back at the hysterics of the flick and laugh, but behind the apoplectic ranting and raving the film nonetheless represents a still-palpable threat to our First Amendment civil liberties. Remember, folks, there were people GOING TO JAIL and having their lives ruined for publishing nude photos at the time of Pages of Death, and even today, manufacturers of legit, non-CP works like Rob Zicari and Ira Isaacs are still being prosecuted for FEDERAL CRIMES. 

Even staunch free expression proponents tend to shy away from defending pornography, that unabashed vortex of sexism and misogyny and homophobia and machismo and stupidity that it is. Alas, if there right to produce and make money off scat videos and fake-rape simulations is squelched, we all lose in the grander scheme of things

Remember that line earlier where the detective criticized the city councilman for saying that anti-porn ordinances are attempts to "legislate morality?" Well, that's very much going on today, with free speech haters on the right and the left going after everything they don't like (which, strangely, almost always seems to be things that represent counterpoints to their own unquestioned ideology) in the name of family values or political correctness

Citizens for Decent Literature didn't give a shit about free expression, and neither do all those neo-conservative evangelical dingbats and gender-supremacist, man-hating hyper feminists. It's all about getting as much control as they can, to amass as much power behind their own rigid totalitarian dogma so they can force it down the throats of everybody else. 

And porn - that disgraceful, disgusting, degenerate anti-art form -  is a superb place to begin legislating their own group norms and ideals for everybody. After all, who in their right mind is ever going to come out and publicly defend Gang Bang Horse "Pony Sex Game" or 1001 Ways to Eat My Jizz?

As goofy and over-the-top Pages of Death is, it's fascistic, sexuality-shaming mentality still runs rampant today. And sadly, much as we did back in the 1960s, we're totally OK sacrificing a slice of our civil liberties - hinging, no less, on an abstract definition of what's "offensive" - in order to NOT appear sleazy or wrongheaded in front of tyrannical special interests groups. 

And in that, this long-forgotten piece of pre-Hippie agitprop remains a reason for all of us - no matter our political leanings - to be concerned. 

Sunday, November 15, 2015

This Week in Social Justice Warrior-dom

A fond look back at all the things that had ultra-P.C. jihadists OUTRAGED ... before they forget all about them in just a few days. 


By: Jimbo X
JimboXAmerican@gmail.com
@Jimbo__X

Category-five P.C. poop-storms rock Missouri, Yale

Last weekend, members of the underperforming Missouri Tigers football team said "fudge the state taxpayers and the free education they are giving us" and decided they ain't playing no more until U of M System President Tom Wolfe resigned. It's not that Mr. Wolfe did anything wrong himself, per se, it's just that, in the eyes of the the Concerned Student 1950 organization, he didn't do enough to address a series of regrettable racial incidents on campus - most notably, this one time a drunk white boy yelled the "n" word and an astonishingly bizarre (if not a bit suspicious) episode involving a swastika being smeared on  a bathroom wall in doo doo. After their first attempt to garner media attention ... I mean, attempt to achieve true social justice ... failed, the coalition of outraged African-Americans and lame white people who deeply yearn to experience what oppression tastes like decided to hold campus sit-ins, with demands including the president publicly "acknowledge his white male privilege," increase the staff and faculty minority quota and increase funding for a gloriously nondescript "social justice center" which, by their description, only seems to entail "social justice" for Americans of a very precise pigmentation. One student even went on a well-publicized week-long hunger strike as a symbolic statement against oppression - strangely, mainstream media all but ignored the fact that the "persecuted" student actually hails from a family of millionaires. Well, on Tuesday, both Wolfe and Mizzou Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin capitulated and resigned from their positions (with Wolfe being replaced by a black dude who admits that the main reason he got the job was because of his skin hue). Alas, the demonstrations continued even after the ousters, leading to some hilariously ironic incidents in which a coalition of irked students and staffers - including a screeching SJW whose entire academic career is built upon a bedrock of Twilight-inspired, third-wave feminism claptrap - physically attacked reporters and denied them their guaranteed First Amendment rights because their feelings were more important than the goddamn Constitution. Things only got more Orwellian from there; the Missouri Student Association started reporting false appearances of the Klan on campus, with at least one student freaking out to the point of hysterics simply because a blue pick up truck drove by her. And then, the university police sent out a memo to students asking them to report things to them that aren't actually crimes, with an "anonymous" user on Yik Yak getting popped by the popo for making some boneheaded (albeit most likely empty) threats online (that Yik Yak not only had that kind of data on an "anonymous" platform AND were more than willing to turn them over to officials is actually a lot more frightening - and resounding - than just about any of the racial boogeyman fears being bandied about on campus, actually.) But just you wait! The exact same thing is happening over at Yale, too, because student residence admin Erika Christakis had the AUDACITY to write a well-informed, logic-based email decrying the university's absurdly strict Halloween dress code policies, which was enough to arouse some students to demand that not only she be shit-canned, but her husband - who literally had nothing to do with the memo - be fired too, just out of formal association. To be fair, he did lay the proverbial smackdown on the "oppressed" Yale Ivy Leaguers, whose intellectual rebuttal to his impassioned spiel about constitutional rights was drowned out by people LITERALLY screaming that the point of education was to "make them feel safe" and not enrich them cognitively. Well, that, and LITERAL examples of assault, as demonstrated by a young woman who yelled and cursed over and over again at Mr. Christakis after he decimated her cockamamie ideological views. Now, a growing movement has emerged at Ithaca College, where disgruntled students - a majority of whom are African-American -- want President Tom Rochon on the unemployment line because people he had no control over used the term "savage" to describe a black woman at a panel discussion. The ongoing war on microagressions has even inspired its own hashtag (trust me, you will be seeing A WHOLE LOT more of this one in the upcoming weeks) which hopeless Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has already appropriated into his social media Wehrmacht (in turn, leading to an absolutely hilarious rejoinder from one Ben Carson.) In the past, I have drawn numerous parallels between the new leftist hyper-P.C. and McCarthyism, but seeing so much entitled rage borne of incidents that seem, at best, isolated, and at worst, completely fabricated, is beginning to remind me more and more of the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, when overzealous Moral Majority members started unfounded rumors of ritual child abuse, which wound up putting countless innocent people in prison for crimes that not only did they NOT commit, but never even happened at all. With a nonexistent burden of evidence, so many lives were wrecked, all because some unscrupulous ideologists wanted to promote their own B.S. politics and had no problems concocting a phantom threat to instill irrational fear into the hearts of the gullible. Stay tuned, readers: your campus, and your livelihood, might just be next.

Yes, there are indeed some terrible, terrible mothers out there

With all the jibber-jabber going on these days about "structural" and "institutional" oppression, we have a tendency to overlook the simple fact that one's home life remains the single greatest developmental influence - and predictor of failure - any of us will ever experience. So when mothers leave their children to fend for themselves while they go out clubbing, maybe we shouldn't be all that surprised when eight years decide to up and murder an infant, just 'cause. Nor, I fear, should we be shocked one iota when a "grieving" mom uses the GoFundMe capital from her slain child's to buy herself a brand new car, I suppose. 


Kent State play draws ire because MLK portrayed by white actor


The late, great Martin Luther King, Jr. once said he wished future generations judged men by the content of their character as opposed to the color of their skin. That inspired Kent State University director Michael Oatman to cast a white actor to portray MLK in a couple of performances of The Mountaintop, a play chronicling the last few days of the revered civil rights icon's life (via completely fictionalized events, it is perhaps worth noting). Well, that didn't set well with the playwright, Katori Hall, who is now forcing those who license the production to cast a black actor to portray King or else. And if you're wondering what the reaction would be if a historical Caucasian character was conscientiously skin-swapped during a stage production, for the sake of some abstruse political rationale? Well ... nothing, evidently

Glamour names person with penis 'Woman of the Year'

Valiantly overlooking thousands upon thousands of female scientists, researchers, businesswomen, human rights crusaders, lawyers, health care specialists and engineers, Glamour decided to name transgender man-slaughterer Caitlyn "the artist formerly known as Bruce" Jenner "Woman of the Year" alongside Reese Witherspoon (who, if I am not mistaken, is the same person who fought for women's rights to education in a super-oppressive Islamic theocracy where young girls who show off their ankles in public have industrial toilet bowl cleaner poured on their faces. I think.) Not every XX-chromosome-carrier out there is too keen on the selection, though. "To laud a man for living as a woman is to insult and patronize women who have borne and overcome incredible odds and achieved great successes because of their uniquely womanly traits," wrote conservative-but-still-technically-feminist  columnist Nicole Russell in The Federalist. "Now women don't even get to decide for ourselves what marks the best and most impressive qualities of our own sex? That feels ideologically oppressive."

Phi Kappa Psi suing the dog shit out of Rolling Stone

Hey, remember back in the day, when Rolling Stone published that story about a whole bunch of rapin' going on at the University of Virginia, which turned out to be a whole heaping' helpin' of B.S.? Well, the fraternity that had its reputation slandered something wicked is firing back, hitting the (not at all) venerable publication with a $25 million lawsuit, which is buttressed by an additional suit from an associate dean who is demanding $7.5 million because she was inaccurately portrayed as insensate to the (non-existent) rash of sexual assaults (not) happening all over campus. As a result of the cooked-up story, members of the frat were threatened online and their facility was vandalized numerous times - at one point, it even had "UVA Center for Rape Studies" scrawled on it. "In the most scurrilous traditions of yellow tabloid journalism, Rolling Stone published a devastating story it knowingly failed to verify, in reckless disregard for truth or falsity, or the essential safety, dignity and welfare of the organization or of those lives it was willing to crush with its defamatory article," the fraternity states in the suit. Huh ... that seems to sum up the new-wave, leftist, advocacy-journalism war machine in general, dont't it? 


Hooray for Infantilization!

The same week Slate railed against Kids Bopz for sanitizing pop music (apparently, it's a bad thing that kids aren't being exposed to double entendres?), The Atlantic celebrated the emerging "adult coloring book trend." Of Crayola's new line of "Color Escapes" products, scribe Julie Beck states "coloring offers that relief and mindfulness without the paralysis that a blank page can cause ... it's easier in the way that ordering from a restaurant with a small menu is easier than deciding what you want at Denny's, where you could eat almost anything." I am reminded of the ever-ominous words of Benjamin Barber in his 2009 tome, Consumed: "These avatars of consumer capitalism are seeking to encourage adult regression, hoping to rekindle in grown-ups the tastes and habits of children so that they can sell globally the relatively useless cornucopia of games, gadgets and myriad consumer goods for which there is no discernible 'need market' other than the one created by capitalism's own frantic imperative to sell."   

Study verifies atheist superiority because religious kids are less likely to give out stickers

In a widely cited study published last week in the journal Current Biology, researchers examining more than 1,000 elementary schoolers across six countries determined that the tykes of atheists were more "altruistic" than the offspring of the religious, on average, agreeing to give four stickers to other children compared to the Christians and Muslims of the world, who only averaged three giveaway stickers in a "dictator game"-centered experiment. Unfortunately, the study is hampered by numerous problems, including some extraordinarily random metrics (for example, only using maternal education level is an SES proxy), the use of an extremely sketchy "justice sensitivity inventory" to gauge children's "empathy" and the complete and utter lack of a nationalized data set (meaning the researchers never actually tell us what the results were, broken down  by each country.) That last one is a pretty big one, seeing as how they used two schools in the overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey and another school in the almost exclusively non-theistic China as counterweights to the much more ethnically (and religiously) diverse schools in Jordan, the USA, Canada and South Africa. Of course, those inconveniences are of little concern to liberal-tinged publications like The Daily Beast and The Guardian, who used the suspect findings of the study to flat out declare religious children "jerks" and "meaner" than their peers.

Retailers under fire for selling 'offensive' holiday apparel

Some folks aren't too happy with Target's decision to sell an intentionally hideous novelty sweater emblazoned with the words "obsessive Christmas disorder," because it makes light of those with mental illnesses - because as we all know, the primary intent of soulless retail giants is to subliminally marginalize those with oddly specific health conditions and NOT pander to the brain-dead, kitsch-centric youth culture by repackaging and mass marketing memes that were outdated three years ago. The same thing happened to Nordstrom recently, whose "Chai Maintenance" Chanukkah sweater has drawn fire from extraordinarily sensitive members of the U.S. Jewish community, who will no doubt spend the remainder of the holiday sulking over the ordeal instead of reflecting on the fact that 46 percent of their ethnic countrymen reside in households making more than $100,000 a year.

...and your weekly reminder that America might not be that bad of a place to live...

While the ISIS attack on Paris drew most of the international headlines, rest assured, there were PLENTY of other stories 'round the globe this week to make each and every man, woman, child in America thank their lucky stars they were born in the lower 48. Do we begin with Saudia Arabia, which just surpassed a 20-year-record for most government-sanctioned beheadings? Or how about Indonesia, where drug trafficking has gotten so bad that the government recently unveiled plans to sentence the worst offenders to an island surrounded by crocodiles, piranhas and tigers? And the next time anyone brings up how "awful" LGBT and immigrant rights are in the States, just remind them: South African natives are welcoming Ethiopian refugees to their country by incinerating them, while Kenya's abhorrent treatment of gays is so ghastly that some homosexual refugees are actually fleeing BACK to Uganda

...and lastly, a few headlines that speak for themselves...