Nation Tries to Bring Sexy Back; Epic Fail
In case you didn’t find Norman Solomon whining about the media erotic enough, The Nation (AKA “The Never-ending Block of Grey Text”) has just started a sex column titled “Carnal Knowledge.” Written by JoAnn Wypijewski, the column “will explore sex as desire, as work, as play, as the screen against which America projects its fantasies and fears.” Why, that almost sounds interesting! I wonder what the first column, “The Shadow of His Smile“, is about?
In politics as in pop, legions of little girls jumping out of their panties can’t be wrong. That’s the vital lesson so far of Election ’08. I watched a throng of them in November 2006, teenagers in their short skirts and breathlessness, jumping and jittering, hands to cheeks, screaming for Barack Obama.
Sigh. For reals? I can’t say I’m surprised. Just disappointed. But wait, it gets worse. So much worse:
Those girls represented what they always have in America, a cultural longing. By ’07 even the boys were Obama Girls, and their parents were borne along on the energy, feeling young and hip and a little damp in the drawers themselves […] Like someone ground down by years in a bad relationship, America needed a seduction and, then, like the starlet on the crooner’s arm, the reflected shine.
Wow, projecting much? The column also compares Obama to Frank Sinatra, compares and contrasts his libido with JFK’s and opines on the significance of his “mingled blood.” See if you can read the whole thing without plugging your eyes out. Hat tip to Wonkette.
P.S. “Wypijewski” sounds like it should be the name of one of the sweathogs on Welcome Back, Kotter.
So edgy. Or something.
Nope. I have acknowledged the reality that there are shifts in the world, that we’re becoming more polarized as each year passes. And I not only exploit that for my own gain, but I use it against other people as well.
Sad? Nope. Insane? Fuck yes.
Well, that’s pretty fucking sad for you, innit?
Nope. I don’t think it’s tiresome at all. I think it’s a very apt statement about the polarized world in which we live.
Nate Gulley isn’t a perfect example of anything except a cynical, self-absorbed punk.
Don’t you think this whole Red Gang/Blue Gang thing is a bit tiresome, Sakaki?
The difference with the Red-Staters is that a lot of them are holding their nose and waiting for a while to see what will happen with McCain. They aren’t going to him with open arms and wet pants (Unless they’re over 75, then they just can’t help it.)
A perfect example of a Blue-Stater as I have described is, of course, Nate Gulley, who is so devoid of life in his brain that if someone smashed his head open with a baseball bat, that there wouldn’t be anything inside.
I won’t argue against the idiocy of the “Blue-Stater,” but I do wonder if that is an effective way to distinguish them from the “Red-Stater.” At least by quantity they seem fairly equal, I suppose it’s the quality of the idiocy that counts…
Obama did get me wet in the pants over the windfall tax issue back in the Obama v. Hillary days of so long ago. The reason being that he wasn’t advocating for the economically unfeasible fantasy of lowering the gas tax and implementing a windfall profit tax to make up the difference in revenue in order to lower gas prices. Point being, the dude may have mad blue state appeal, getting the Nation folks all hot and bothered, but he hasn’t let it limit him.
At least I hope (without audacity). In regards to Obama I’ve already came and cleaned up. Which sucks since it’s just now that the Nation’s genre of political erotica about Obama is coming into it’s full sauciness!
Braden, it’s because those in the blue states who follow politics and vote are usually void of any comprehension of the consequences of their actions. Specifically, one pure sign of this is the idea that taxing oil companies with a windfall profits tax will actually lower our gas prices. Blue Staters believe this, though it logically falls flat on it’s face.
In regards to Oblama (sic), most of these blue-staters are in a very similar vein as those who voted for John F. Kennedy back in 1960. Now, the difference between them is that while Kennedy had a military background (PT-109), and some actual knowledge about the office he was running for, Oblama does not. BUT, because he looks good and is not George W. Bush (who isn’t running, but all Blue-Staters seem to think he is [ala Clinton through Gore in 2000]), the idiots will vote for him. Including most of the great washed masses at the University of Oregon.
The Nation is the mouthpiece for the Blue-State idiots. Pure and simple.
Braden, they probably just vote like I do.
How is the concept of a president beign elected due entirely to sex appeal not horrifying to these people?