Category Archives: Celebrity

UPDATED: ‘You Can’t Steal A Rash’ (SENSUALITY VS. VULGARITY)

Aesthetics, Art, Celebrity, Music, Pop-Culture, Sex

So says Joan Rivers about Madonna’s oeuvre.

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.

UPDATE II: Just Another Mouth In The Republican Fellatio Machine (Ad Hominem)

Celebrity, Critique, Feminism, Individual Rights, Intellectualism, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Politics, Pop-Culture, Republicans

The column “Just Another Mouth In the Republican Fellatio Machine,” debuts on Taki’s Magazine today. Here is an excerpt:

“The symbolic thrust of Hustler’s crude, much protested, photo-shopped depiction of Rockefeller Republican S.E. Cupp is commendable: silence this siren of stupidity.

The Hustler make-believe image of Cupp was captioned incorrectly, describing the ‘conservative’ commentator as ‘someone who had read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side.’

Sacrilege. If S. E. Cupp has read Rand’s works, she has internalized none of it.

The problem with the product (or production) called Cupp is not that it is conservative and is being victimized for heralding conservative truths. This was the tired tack adopted by almost all the rightists who’ve rushed to Cupp’s rescue.

On the contrary. Cupp is no conservative. Like a lot of loud idiots, Cupp lacks a coherent ideology.

Dumb distaff abound on America’s news channels. Cupp is a leader of the pack, a luminary in the Age of the Idiot, rivaled only by Grand Old Party leading lights such as Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson (Bill O’Reilly’s circus clowns, aka the “Culture Warriors”), Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Carrie Prejean, Noelle Nikpour, and Dana Perino (the Heidi Klum of the commentariat).

Like these low-watt women, Lolita’s forte is to gesture wildly and grimace, while parroting talking points disgorged by every other Bush bootlicker before her. …”

… To find out why (in this column’s opinion) “‘Big Media,’ Left and Right, came together unequivocally to defend the dishonored S.E. Cupp (who has been honored for her vomitous prose on C-SPAN’s Book TV, and was called on to speak at CPUKE 2012),” read “Just Another Mouth In the Republican Fellatio Machine,” now on Taki’s Magazine.

It goes without saying that you should click to “Recommend,” “Tweet” and “Share” the Taki’s column. Or register your discontent at the Comments Section after the column.

UPDATE I: A reader at Taki’s writes this, which is completely true. I was thinking of exactly how O’Reilly avoids Coulter like the plague, because she can’t help but make him look unintelligent (I don’t think O’Reilly is stupid, and he can certainly be very funny, but he has nothing on Coulter’s intelligence, whatever else you think of her.)

“A completely TRUE article. I actually agree with every bit of it. CUPPCAKE goes on O’Reilly and I get the impression his avuncular patronizing of her means …he’s boning her. Coulter goes on, and Billo nitpicks at her like a grandma. He’s jealous of Coulter.”

UPDATE II: The one ad hominem leveled at me at Taki’s Comments Section is that I’m jealous of the Cupp creature (as if that constitutes an argument). That doesn’t square. Why would I be jealous of the half wit, but not of Coutler and Malkin (who are attractive and smart too, surely)? It shows you how far the ad hominem argument will take you. No where at all.

UPADTED: Porno Mom And Her Freaky Family (The Noble Savage Model)

America, Celebrity, Ethics, Family, Gender, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Sex

The following is an excerpt from “Mother’s Day Disturbia: Porno Mom And Her Sucky Kid”:

“Unseemliness” is how Charles Murray might call the May 2012 Time Magazine cover, genuflecting to modern motherhood in America. In “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,” the libertarian political scientist mentions the “collapse of a sturdy code” [of conduct] in American society, rendering the nouveau riche upper class indistinguishable in that sense from the ever-accreting lower class.

“Obscene” better captures the mien of the Madonna and child that brazenly stare into the camera—and at America. TIME’s cover-models are Jamie Lynne Grumet, 26, self-styled, “attachment” parent, and Aram, her chunky, garden gnome of a child. …

In any event, Aram is a real feeder, if you know what I mean.

Grumet junior is large for his tender age of four. His gaze is cunning, never cute. The miniature man already reaches up to his non-gnomic mom’s waist. To help Aram reach the prized pair—mom’s perky breasts—TIME’s artistic director has used a stool.

All the better to satisfy mom’s “maternal” urges, “Nudge nudge, wink wink. Say no-more, say no-more.”

One other tender touch: Porno-mom’s pelvis is tilted slightly in the direction of her gnome’s grubby hands.

At this stage, bullying would be the best corrective intervention this kid could hope for. In a better world—one in which propriety had not been pulverized—odious Aram would be taunted mercilessly at play school. Were he to make it that far, boob-boy is sure to be smacked about the head by a few manly college boys, later in life.

For now, Aram remains the play thing of bigger bullies, caught as he is in a maelstrom of mommy dearest’s making. Horrified, television spectators watched the advocacy for the onansim known as “attachment parenting,” with the fascination with which you’d watch maggots crawl in-and-out of a CSI corpse.

“A lot of people say, you know, you can’t really be intimate with your husband if you’re co-sleeping and … those are kind of myths, too,” vaporized Mrs. Grumet on NBC’s Today show, to the leering approval of the mad-hatter behind Jamie Lynne Grumet’s Method Parenting.

Dr. William Sears was on set to dispense Delphic advice to moms who don’t measure-up. “These are tools, not rules,” this tool of a doctor effused.

Viewers of this uniquely American vaudeville were assured by Mrs. Grumet that…

Read the complete column, “Mother’s Day Disturbia: Porno Mom And Her Sucky Kid,” now on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

Support this writer’s work by clicking to “Recommend,” “Tweet” and “Share” “Return To Reason” on WND, and the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT.

UPDATE: THE NOBLE SAVAGE MODEL. There is no way that what this “boob of very little brain” is doing is right. She has conditioned the boy to be a nuisance and a cling-on to satisfy her (possibly not maternal) needs.

Somehow people defer to Third-World women as a models to emulate. Why? Is it because backward is more natural? As I point out in my book, Into The Cannibal’s Pot, these women often breast-feed their toddlers even when they themselves are HIV positive, for fear of being stigmatized by their tribesmen and women. Is this model of magical, irrational thinking one that the morons of the western media are promoting?

Besides, in primitive, poor societies, what you see are women who are forced to let starving toddlers, who might weigh what a one-year-old western toddler would, hang on their shriveled breasts—breasts that yield very little by way of fluid. This “practice” is dictated, mostly, by starvation.

The Noble Savage argument is ignoble. It is no model for advanced, western societies. All Arguments from Primitive Cultures for the “onanism” of “attachment parenting” are plain pathetic.

Blending In With The Girls

Barack Obama, Celebrity, Conservatism, Hollywood, Intellectualism, Media, Pop-Culture

BARACK OBAMA IS. So says one of Bill O’Reilly’s resident junk-science experts. For once, Bill’s body language bimbo makes sense. In demeanor (and dentition), Obama is one of the girls. He’s blending in, said Tonya Reiman, down to the way he crosses his legs, lady like.

O’Reilly, who devotes a large part of the program to recounting his many appearances on mindless forums like The View—and is among the conservatives who considers batty Bawbawa Walters worth courting—pointed out that he seldom crosses his (very long) legs when he visits the ladies. And he always leans in aggressively.

No doubt, O’Reilly, who is über-manly, has swagger. Obama, more of a metrosexual, saunters.

Rex Murphy, easily Canada’s finest political writer, has furnished us with the best description of the Bill O’Reilly Show: “the Shangri-La of Socratic disinterest.”

O’Reilly is intellectually incurious, chronically so. For scary, however, nothing beats a president who knows the ins-and-outs of the Kardashians, the most rear-ended reality stars on American TV.

BHO has more than once demonstrated—and made excuses for—how closely he watches a family that is repulsive, freaky, morally rudderless, inappropriately sexual and depraved. In the past, he had also entertained the big-boned sister (please don’t me make Google her name) and her basketball husband at the White House.

UNRELATED UPDATE: To Nick: BAB is a low- or close-to-no-budget operation, written and “programed” by me, with the help of donations from a few generous readers. Unless our fortunes change here—not least that this scribe is no longer the sole “programer”—we’ll have to make do with the BAB format as it stands, I’m afraid.