We'll miss you guys for your week off...but really, how much time off does one require from re-posting other people's online videos? ;-P

Start Day

9:00 am - Coffee in hand, sitting down to work

9:10 am - Three videos posted, taking a break

9:30-11:30 am - Wow, YouTube has a lot of stuff!

11:30-2:00 pm - Lunch

2:00-2:10 pm - Post remainder of videos, take a break

2:30-4:30 pm - Find some videos to post tomorrow

End of Day

That sound you're hearing is an ambient undercurrent of jealous rage directed at your vacation proclamation.

Have fun!

“hope[s] the strip proves to be as predictive as it is consistently lame.”

What's neat is that we know what he means.

However, it is telling that we've gotten so accustomed to ridiculous spin and double-speak that our brains just jump to the translation without considering the actual meaning of the words in order.

Stupid language. Always meaning stuff.

1) If Bounds thinks the strip is consistently lame, and he hopes its predictive power matches that consistency, then he wants Obama to win.

2) If Bounds wants McCain to win, then he's hoping that the strip is actually not predictive. He hopes it's as reliably true as the strip is reliably lame...which it shouldn't be in order for his statement to in any way support his candidate.

But we automagically understand after years of destructive conditioning that he must not like Doonesbury and wants his candidate to win. So we cut him some slack.

That's neat. Scary, but neat.

Letter 1:

Hi Camille! I find your witty, erudite, post-feminist letters to be amazing. What is the secret to your genius and how do women like myself become more like you? Also, I was thrilled to learn that, like you, my alcoholism has no correlation with drug use. Bottoms up!

Letter 2:

I found your observations on Sarah Palin to be both astutue and accurate. How else will women realize their potential unless they sacrifice their right to choose, eschew intellectual growth, and learn to appreciate the empowering debilitation of red stiletto heels?

Letter 3:

Like you, I am no fan of victims. Especially dead victims. When will the tyranny of the post-mortem over the living be broken? I for one think all murder victims should be subject to cross examination, regardless of the national toll zombie-ism might bring.

Letter 4:

My husband and I were having an argument as to whether all cylindrical vegetables represented a patriarchal bias in the vegetable kingdom when a question came to mind that only you can answer: How awesome is it to be Camille Paglia? My husband and I, who are not Camille Paglia, believe it could be either very awesome or incredibly awesome.

Letter 6:

Note to self - You need to pick up the mail, buy some milk, and find five contrarian views to troll Salon readers with that would make Christopher Hitchens blush. Additional note: Don't get this mixed this up with your other reader letter concepts.

It turns out this is true.

Yes, I'm oversimplifying the myriad number of ways dominant groups (based on race, gender, class, sexual orientation, physical appearance/capability, mental acuity, favorite sports team, you name it) use language to reinforce their dominance. However, what is common is the intellectual awakening that these words only have the power we infuse them with. A meaningless power that grows through acceptance of a false immutability ascribed to the ultimately liquid nature of language over time.

Stay with me, here.

When I moved to Australia at the age of thirteen, I learned a heckuva lot about language. As others have pointed out, much like the UK, cunt is, more often than not, a friendly greeting than derogatory...but it did go both ways thanks to the damn thing being so fun to say. It really does roll off the tongue.

What actually mattered was the context in which a word was used and the intent with which it was delivered. In this case, the word is secondary, its inherent meaning superseded by what the speaker or writer brings to it.

So, sticks and stones (the context and intent) may indeed hurt me, but the words never will.

What that brought to light in my barely teen brain was that language cannot be directly equated with civility. In fact, quite the opposite. I began to notice that the cleaner tongued an individual was, the more potential demons ran amok in their world view...when they could be coaxed to reveal it.

This leads to a challenge to the whinier of you lot:

When was the world more civilized than it is today?

The nineteenth century and earlier are right out...as the wholesale exploitation, enslavement, or extermination of cultures was the norm (not to mention the day to day ignominy suffered by women, the mentally challenged, homosexuals, and on and on). Beyond that, one in the 1800s could go to a carnival to witness the freakiest anus you ever did see or procure the whore of their choice. The twentieth century had its own share of horrors and the twenty first will no doubt be no different. However, I wouldn't want to live in any other time and I doubt any of you would be able to handle the reality 1950s much less the 1940s or 1930s.

Not that the world is anywhere near a perfect place now, but nostalgic illusions of gentile civility are usually supported by willing omission or ignorance of our baser pursuits throughout time. Thank all that is good for actual historians keeping us honest.

The common thread throughout all of history has been the presence of those decrying our declining morals, while supporting policies of violence and intolerance that speak more loudly than any combination of vowels and consonants.

I would have related violence and intolerance to sticks and stones, but I think my pretense quotient has been filled for the day.