She, Madonna, keeps saying that Lady Gaga stole all her stuff. How can you steal a rash? Certain things you can’t steal.
AND,
She wasn’t showing off her nipple [in Turkey], she was showing off her ankle bracelet, at her age. I know the doctor who did Madonna’s fine body: Irving Schwartz. He did her and Kathy Bates.
Joan Rivers is brilliant. The Madonna-cum-Gaga claptrap is a rash. The one entertainer has accused the other younger version of herself of stealing her two-chord hump-along ditty. Both have been richly rewarded for the hideous bedroom noises they emit. To be honest, equally unintelligent, I think Gaga is slightly more talented, if that’s saying anything.
But, as a studio musician explained to me, this T & A line-up (Talor Swift, the Britney Spears of country music is included here) would be reduced to embarrassing grunts, out-of-tune yelps, and bedroom whispers, if not for the Auto-Tune, the “holy grail of recording,” that “corrects intonation problems in vocals or solo instruments, in real time, without distortion or artifacts.”
UPDATE (June 15): SENSUALITY VS. VULGARITY. To Nick’s sharp Comment-Section observation: Are men still able to distinguish true sensuality from vulgarity? Back in the day, women knew how to exude the first quality. It invariably involved a hint of something, not a show of all you had. You just know that being in bed with Gaga or Madonna is the most frightening experience for a man. And, you can be sure that they fake IT. Sensuality involves the ability to transcend yourself; these creatures are pathologically narcissistic.
“Had a rare video surfaced in which a black toddler was being brutalized by agents of the Transportation Security Administration, President Barack Obama would have enough solidarity, and some to spare. ‘If he had a son, he’d look like the boy whose breeches were breached by adults who should know better.’
I don’t wish the homegrown terrorists of the TSA to become equal-opportunity offenders; I want Congress to call off these attack dogs, now.
Still, I am unconvinced that when they travel, black women, tots, and geriatrics are subjected to the same invasive searches as are whites.
My own experience this month was uneventful. I was spared the rogering I’ve endured in the past, thanks, I believe, to the advice of WND’s Commentary Editor: wear loose clothing. A young TSA agent waved me by.
I did see a tall and handsome TSA worker working-over a little old man (aged 80, perhaps). The agent was black; his victim Caucasian. It looked as though the former was examining the hunched old man’s colostomy bag. It took the agent forever. He appeared to be enjoying himself.
I lingered as long as I could, to bear witness. The cruel ordeal was still underway when I left the scene, some 15 minutes later.
Dare I say it? The girl who—no doubt by fluke—did not violate my constitutional, fourth-amendment rights to be free of “unreasonable searches and seizures” was Caucasian.
A previous flying experience saw me subjected to—what are the odds?—the ministrations of a large African-American woman, who summoned me with a crooked finger for a pat down. In no time at all, her giant digits were on my chest and between my legs.
Amassed online is a critical mass of images in which TSA workers, often minorities, are feeling up and humiliating the most vulnerable members of white America—kids, old men and women, often infirm and incapacitated.
Twenty one and a half percent of TSA employees are black, and 13.1 percent Latino. At 10.5 percent and 10 percent respectively, the equivalent representation of aggrieved groups in the private sector merely mirrors their numbers in the larger population (serving, no doubt, to keep litigation at bay).
Moreover, like most federal agencies, the TSA is known to provide sheltered employment to a segment of the population which Sibel Edmonds, a courageous whistle blower, has described as “low-level, incompetent, scandalous, molesting, abusive, and in some cases criminal people who have been creating one scandal after another.”
TSA action is immortalized in countless YouTube clips. …”
If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive libertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.
UPDATE I: The serious Japanese are Laughing (and it takes a lot to make them chuckle):
UPDATE II (June 2): To the repulsive David B, in Comments:
My rational, sane readers know my writing as the kind that cleaves to reality, is objective, and objectivist. Aesthetics, art, music: These are aspects of the culture that I comment on at length. This is nothing new. I’ve commented on my idea of female beauty and manliness. These, like my concept of what constitutes good music, are absolute. These assessments exist irrespective of what I find sexually attractive or politically desirable. I thought Jackie Kennedy was spectacular as a woman. Does that mean I am attracted to her? Does that imply I’m a Democrat? What nonsense. The Don Draper character in “Mad Men” is good looking, objectively speaking. Does that mean I want to jump his bones? Iman the model in lovely. And black.
Crass, stupid racialists see the world through their narrow prism of politics and race. They are postmodernists, in this sense, reducing objective reality to subjective likes and dislikes that serve their personal ego-related and political needs.
I’ll repeat the reality I observed at the Newark airport recently: The black gentleman I observed assaulting the helpless, ancient white man was tall, fit, well-groomed and good-looking (in the sense that he could have obtained employment with a modeling agency). Do these objective observations mean I was attracted to him? How stupid can you be?
Did I despise him for his actions? You bet.
His actions, more than anything else about him, condemned him as a man and human being.
An anonymous sage said that “expectations tend to be self-fulfilling”: Expect nothing and you’ll get nothing. In the West, if kids so much as dial 911 in an emergency, they are decorated for bravery. So, it’s hardly surprising that evincing narcissism, self-adoration and bad taste has been elevated and recast as heroic, honest and gritty.
Purely from an aesthetic point of view, Julianne Moore has no business playing Sarah Palin. I thought the idea of film was mimicry—be as true as possible to the reality portrayed (that was, admittedly, before activism replaced acting). Moore is unattractive, an attractive version of Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York.
Moore, moreover, looks like she suffers Flat Head Syndrome or Plagiocephaly. The head at the back is flat, the forehead slopes, the mouth—the entire face—is unbelievably weak. The eyes are lifeless. The hair is okay. That’s all. As for her acting; she’s merely passable.
Whatever your opinion of Sarah Palin, it is undeniable that she is a beauty, who has become better looking with age. Her head and face are beautifully shaped. Her jaw is well-sculpted. Her brow is lovely. The nose: wonderful; the eyes alive. I’m not a fan of her political appearances, but in physicality, Palin is stunning. What’s more, hers is a strong face. Moore’s is a weak mug.
See for yourself.
The beauty:
And the beast:
UPDATE I (March 15): George, about the linked tribute to Moore’s eyes (she ain’t a beautiful woman): This is an airbrushed, well made-up image. Most women can look good under photo-shop. And if you want the greenest, most glorious eyes that never needed falsies and eye-shadow, I would think Vivien Leigh was your lady. Here is that goddess in the masterpiece, “Gone With the Wind”:
I took it down to Moore’s cranium; her badly shaped head and weak face. The skin is nothing to write home about either. Sarah has a glorious skin. You can scrub Palin’s face clean, and yes, as all woman who wear make-up will tell you—you will not recognize her. But you’ll still see a fine bone structure. Moore happens to be a scumbag, who made such disparaging comments about Palin’s vacuity that one would think she, Moore, were some brainiac herself. Palin has mastered the intricacies of energy production and policy, to which I have always thought she should have stuck. Moore is a left-liberal scumbag who can’t think beyond leftist sloganeering. Nothing like her insipid face to remind one why Hollywood left-liberals are always and everywhere the enemy. On the other hand, Kardashian is a plain, apolitical idiot, but the girl has wonderful eyes, and glorious hair and skin. Just being objective about aesthetics here.
What is wrong with the men on this blog? Can’t you see the passion and life in the eyes of the two, non-Moore women? Can’t you see the dead, fish-eyes of The Moore?
UPDATE II: Posted below is a prime example of The Cranium. The chin; that forehead. Oy! Awful!
UPDATE III (March 16): My thoughts EXACTLY, Nick! Jodie Foster is a classic beauty and a good actress. Those strong featured; the eyes. To die for. Have you seen her in “The Brave One”? Unbelievable.
