Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
dogu44
Published Letters: 315 Editor's Choice: 9
Did she buy it like Rupert Murdoch? Have you been commanded to watch her? If you're fed up with Paris why don't you just turn the station to something worthwhile. If everything you find worthwile is so filled with news of Paris Hilton, maybe the problem lies with you...you wouldn't be alone..and "the media" is counting on you to watch so it can sell you the wonderfull health of "corn syrup and water" and "viagra" and SUVs and...well, you get the picture...cuz it's everywhere.
As long as a non-violent, non-threatening person like Paris (or Scooter Libby or Martha Stewart or Joe Blow (especially non-white Joe Blow) is put in jail for something someone should be fined and made to do public service for, none of us are really immune from being threatened with jail...and you know why jail is unpleasant...because it is a form of torture. We keep it crappy and abusive presumably so it is a deterrent...you can see how well that works. It's the living definition of insanity.
Save your anger for stuff that matters. The media doesn't care if you like it or not...they only want to sell you stuff and have shown consistently there is nothing they wont do to keep your attention. Stop being such a dupe and soon Paris will go away. In the mean time let's start taxing the before profit revenues from these abusers of the airwaves and cable in order to pay for campaign finance..there's an issue that should make you upset but one that the Media (controlled by Paris, really?) won't even allow to be discusse on their oxygen sucking PR machine which proffers itself as news.
Thanks for that insightfull commentary on the the Mitchell Brothers.Keith. Like almost anyone who lived in SF and was involved in anything from art, to freedom of speech, collective representation in the work place, to environmentalism, the Mitchells were well known and I no doubt bumped into 'em at various functions or just walking to work past the O'Farrell.
I prefer the word "eroticism" to "porn" in hopes to retrieve the concept from the hopeless clutches of the anti-sensualists who seem intent on dictating our morals via legal concepts having more to do with our ancient past rather than the modern human who we are becomming.
Was it Vonnegut who said the definition of porn is "someone elses erotic art"? If he didn't he probably could have, and I can't help but think the Mitchells would agree. cheers.
This strikes me in a couple of ways. Number one...it's a deflective device to draw attention away from the very serious issue of sabotage and employee satisfaction among government contractors, which as anyone who's ever worked with or for the feds knows is a huge pain in the ass and absolutely likely to generate this kind of dangerously irrational act...like postal employees on juice...so, let's not look under that rock.
Secondly, this seems to be just another skirmish in the manic obsession for health and social hygene. Oh, it's all so rational until it becomes a force that destroys people's lives...so in an interest to keep one person's little monster-offspring from ever encountering drugs which are primarily used to feel good and are NOT created by big pharma, we have laws about 'em which cause the destruction of countless other lives as people are tossed into the obscurity of that system of legalized torture (our prison system) in order to teach us all a quickly forgotten lesson about "sin" and learn nothing about public health. So much for the freedom to pursue one's own kind of happiness.
It's obvious that no astronaut ever endangered the mission by being drunk and the media is having a field day by equating astronauts having a nip, with their own experiences where reporters can be totally blasted at the neighboring bar and still put in an appearance and actually create a product that must be the result of a intoxicated mind...which explains a lot, come to think about it, about why our media is a travesty and having extended the first ammendment to protect the rabid greed and ideological sociopaths at our major outlets and even the whitehouse's press department, is the shits.
Consistent with our leaderships current state of understanding about the science involved in any issue, the AG's perspective is one that sees abberant sexual behavior as a kind of moral decay; in short, a sin.
Make no mistake, some sexual behaviors are so abhorrent to us that across all cultural boundaries they are reviled and despised...but then again, there are others for which our sexual instincts and highly socialized primate brains are able to integrate into normal functioning members of our society. But the troublesome behaviors as defined by law and recognized by their crossing boundaries that we have both as a result of instinct and cultural influences exist. Where does this behavior come from? Recent research indicates an organic source, such as brain damage, or chemical imbalance, possibly controlled by one genes and ones environment. If we continue to deal with abberant sexual behvavior as sin, relegating it to the dark recesses where we administer punitive torture, we'll be very slow to realize the truth of how this behavior arises and more importantly, how to begin the task of eliminating it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
