Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘pornography’

Update:  Pornography of meat is defined, below.

Cruel wife and I went to celebrate Valentine’s day tonight.  It beats fighting the crowds.  It was sixteen years and two days ago when I asked her to marry me and she’s regretted it every day since.

We went to eat Thai food.  She got scallops/shrimp with cashew nuts, three stars out of four on the spiciness meter.  I got the Talay Thai (shrimp and roughy), with the heat pegged at 12 out of four stars.  They know me there and turn off all the safety features and just bring me what I ask for.

The waiter who delivered it was wincing/cringing.  His eyes were watering as he set my plate down.

To be fair, it was the second-hottest thing I’ve ever eaten.  My burps are corrosive enough to hurt my throat.  My guts are still in a state of upheaval.  Four hours later Cruel Wife kisses me and says “You’ve still got chilies on your lips – it burns!”  It physically hurt to eat it but I finished it.

****

Damn it.  I got one friend recently diagnosed with cancer and another still in surgery hopefully to get out of there into the ICU soon.  Update:  Out of surgery and looks to be doing fairly well – at least as far as cell-phone pics go.

Do you have to win some kind of lottery to have two very close friends in dire straights in one week?  Geez.

****

On my way here – I am doing a steampunk poster using chilies – I ran across a book title.  I’d like to not post what it is actually about but instead see what kinds of guesses you have.  Mine were sort of in the ball park but one planet over.

The Pornography Of Meat

Here you go…

The author of The Sexual Politics of Meat returns with an emotionally charged volume based on her traveling lecture-slide show. Adams, a crusader for the rights of women and animals (or, as she calls them, “nonhumans”) charges that both have long been portrayed as consumable, mouth-watering slabs of meat, and she provides graphic backup for her argument in the form of advertisements, signs, photographs and illustrations (e.g., “Strip Tease,” reads a billboard for a steak house).

Basically this is another nut who imagines that humans and animals are interchangeable and utterly equal across the board.

Women are more than just mouth-watering slabs of meat!  I give you some examples…

Excuse me while I find some napkins.  Anyway, did I clearly make my point?

You know how I know that the author’s PoM book is a pile of steaming crap?  Reviews like this one:

“Even readers who do not share Adams’s views should find themselves challenged and perhaps even enlightened by this unique work.” — Library Journal, May 15, 2003

Anytime someone says that a book will “challenge” me, it is a sure bet that it’s utter bullshit.  “Challenge” means that it’ll be a struggle not to toss it in the garbage or in the nearest wood-burning stove.

****

ps – if you want to use up 98 minutes of your life in a fruitless attempt at finding some new concept, deeper meaning, or a cheap thrill – do rent “Eden Log“.  That is 98 minutes that you will NEVER get back again.

I would rather suck the marrow out of my own living bones with a steel straw than subject myself to that again.

Read Full Post »

You’ve probably heard my assertions that free speech should really be construed to apply to political speech and that local governments should be allowed to set the obscenity/decency standards for their region.

If you let local governments – state, county, city – establish decency standards then the odds are pretty good that standards will be set that represent the will of the people in a given region. Almost everyone agrees that certain behaviors are inappropriate and laws are enforced to ensure that – and the correctness of those laws is dictated by the prevalent attitudes regarding what constitutes porn. Examples would be vile swearing and harsh language in a public place where there might be a lot of kids, not being allowed to drop trou in a grocery store, and performing disgusting sexual acts in a public walkway (unless you are in Berkeley, apparently).

But then, we have individuals who, for lack of a better way of putting it, cross way way way over the line of 99% of the people out there and claim it is ok and protected.

The trial in question is centered around distribution of materials that have topics: combining sex and excretory material, animals, misogynist sex, and other “things”.

“It’s the most extreme material that’s ever been put on trial. I don’t know of anything more disgusting,” said Roger Jon Diamond _ Isaacs’ own defense attorney.

The case is the most visible effort of a new federal task force designed to crack down on smut in America. Isaacs, however, says his work is an extreme but constitutionally protected form of art.

“There’s no question the stuff is disgusting,” said Diamond, who has spent much of his career representing pornographers. “The question is should we throw people in jail for it?”

Isaacs, 57, a Los Angeles advertising agency owner who says he used to market fine art in commercial projects, calls himself a “shock artist” and says he went into distributing and producing films about fetishes because “I wanted to do something extreme.”

“I’m fighting for art,” he said in an interview before his federal trial got under way. “Art is on trial.”

He plans to testify as his own expert witness and said he will cite the historic battles over obscenity involving authors James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence.

One of his exhibits, he said, will be a picture of famed artist Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain,” a porcelain urinal signed by the artist in 1917.

Diamond said Isaacs also will tell jurors the works have therapeutic value for people with the same fetishes depicted on screen.

“They don’t feel so isolated,” Diamond said. “They have fetishes that other people have.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061002449_pf.html

So the question the lawyer poses is “should we throw people in jail for it”? Absolutely, if it violates laws on the books.

Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at University of Southern California, said such prosecutions were rare until the creation of the U.S. Department of Justice Obscenity Prosecution Task Force. Child pornography cases are handled by a separate unit.

“The problem with obscenity is no one really knows what it is,” she said. “It’s relatively simple to paint something as an artistic effort even if it’s offensive.”

This is utter BS. People know darned well what obscenity is. Where did the idea that one could do horribly obscene things and call it “art” come from? Why should “art” be protected? Is there something special about “art”? As long as you have people that make statements like “no one really knows what it is” you can pretty much fly in the face of common reason and prevailing attitudes via short-circuits and end-runs. And there are plenty of tools willing to step up to the plate.

But it gets better…

In an unusual twist, the trial is being presided over by the chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Alex Kozinski, under a program that allows appellate judges to occasionally handle criminal trials at the District Court level. Kozinski is known as a strong defender of free speech and First Amendment rights.

This came to light on Wednesday (thereabouts). Now we learn more about our dear Judge Kozinski, who apparently was loathe to recuse himself because he now had access to more of his kind of “art”.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, granted a 48-hour stay in the obscenity trial of a Hollywood adult filmmaker after the prosecutor requested time to explore “a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a . . . sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here.”

Source: LA Times

Kozinski had things to say to a reporter, surprisingly:

In an interview Tuesday with The Times, Kozinski acknowledged posting sexual content on his website. Among the images on the site were a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. He defended some of the adult content as “funny” but conceded that other postings were inappropriate.

Ah, the same type of argument used by Pete Townshend when arrested for having child pornography… he was researching a book. Ah. Yes, that’s it. Perhaps Townshend could merely say that he was researching for a book on “art”.

To be fair, Townshend was not alone:

British police have arrested 1,300 people, including a judge, magistrates, dentists, hospital consultants and a deputy school headmaster, as part of Operation Ore, a crackdown on people who view child pornography on the Internet. Fifty police officers also have been arrested, and eight of them have been charged with offenses.

The argument could be made that Townshend was legitimately researching a book. However, given the sensitive nature of the entire issue, contacting the police would have been prudent.

Back to our judge… many prospective jurors requested to be excused because of the subject matter. The part that is truly damning about this judge is that he did not recuse himself and while not lying, did a damn fine job of deceit:

Several prospects marched up to the judge’s bench for private conferences when he told them that the films also involved violence against women. They, too, were excused, as were several who cited their religious beliefs.

Asked how long they would have to watch the movies, Kozinski told them it would be about five hours and “I will be there watching with you. This is part of the job we’re doing.”

Such sacrifice.

Read Full Post »

There is a gentleman in the blogosphere who could use your help. He is having some setbacks in his adoption of two girls, because of paperwork not properly done by his lawyer in the beginning. I should say “Setbacks” (capital “S”). It is costing him lots of time, money, and even his physical well-being. Tough row to hoe. So if you are able, whether it be kind words, donations, prayers… He could sure use it.

Stachiu’s Place is here

~~~~~~~~~~~~

A topic that makes my blood boil, my vision goes red, and I growl…

Why would you put limits in a library for viewers under 18, but not for over 18 and make it so lax that you can view lots of good ol’ fashioned smut and more?  Is a public library the forum to be viewing pornographic materials?  I supposed it will be the day that DisneyWorld shows Wanda Whips Wall Street.

This frightening ****er. was caught, thank God.

There are some scary liberals out there that think freedom of speech (which originally meant freedom from persecution by the government for political speech) means that people have a free pass to engage in whatever kind of sick thing suits their fancy in a public library.

Prior to this in Tulare County, California – a librarian, Brenda Biesterfeld, was fired for calling the police after observing a man browsing… wait for it… child pornography in her library. She is trying to get her job back and compensation and is now being legally represented by Liberty Counsel.

Amazingly, her records were altered after she was fired, to show “plausible reason” why she was appropriately let go.

Liberty Counsel even obtained a performance evaluation given Jan. 15 by Judy Hill, the supervisor who fired Biesterfeld, stating she was performing satisfactorily.

Even while her case continues, Biesterfeld was honored by city officials in Lindsay and the Family Friendly Libraries, which gave her a Gold Star Award for her actions.

It also was Hill who, when police made the arrested and confiscated the computer, told officers they had no business enforcing the child pornography law within the library, according to reports.

Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and Families, a prominent pro-family leadership group, said he also was working to build support for the librarian.

“Our goal is to get Brenda’s job back, to institute a new library policy that has no tolerance for obscenity and child pornography, and to send a nationwide message that child predators will not be allowed to ‘do their thing’ in libraries,” he said.

Thomasson said the local battle has significant national implications.

“We’re also defending children nationwide,” he said. “You see, the American Library Association, which is the controlling influence over libraries nationwide, views pornography and obscenity as ‘intellectual freedom.’ Because of this, many libraries in the U.S. allow child pornographers to use their Internet system undetected and unreported. Is it any wonder why child molestation has become so common?”

According to the association’s own Web page regarding intellectual freedom and censorship, it is not the work of a library to protect children from material that is “legally obscene.”

(from the article mentioned above “This Frightening ****er”) Credit given to WND.com

Does anyone hear echoes of a liberal at some point saying “but it’s for the children…“? Well, if everything is for the children, why is this not a HUGE issue? The most innocent in our society aren’t getting real protection where it is desperately needed.

And yes, you heard it right… pornography and obscenity is “intellectual rights” within a public library, and gosh, police have no business enforcing the law in a library.  How many perverts executing a “manual override” in the library are reading American Scientist whilst casually browsing porn.

Can someone please respond and tell me why chemical castration is not allowed in cases where rape or child molestation occurs?

~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comic Relief ~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know, with friends like this, who needs dire enemas?

Obama backs away from Rev. Wright, Claims he’s wrong

And Wright keeps a-followin’ him. Saunter on over to Richard Miniter’s site for a real eye-opener. Heh heh heh heh. Sorry, guess this wasn’t the comic relief I thought it would be. Many thanks to Ace of Spades who originally posted on this topic and provided great links.

Read Full Post »