Category Archives: The Zeitgeist

Updated: ‘Sluts Galore: Scenes From 2006’

Aesthetics, Hollywood, The Zeitgeist

Let’s see, the line-up of sluts and just plain unsavory sorts in today’s WorldNetDaily column is long: Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, “Hue Hefner’s harem of hos,” Judith Regan, Michael Richards, Barack Obama. Even Oprah, “the Queen of Kitsch,” cameos.

As usual, politicians make most ordinary sewer rats pale in comparison. Here’s “Sluts Galore: Scenes From 2006.”

Update: Mike Burns dares me to print his apparently very gritty letter, so here goes:

You have written many a wise and witty column, Ilana. Unfortunately, “Sluts Galore” wasn’t one of them.
In an astoundingly vicious screed, you succumb to a pervasive form of bigotry, one of the last few “acceptable” forms left in America: bigotry against people you consider “ugly.”
Don’t start saying I’m defending the slutty behavior of Brittney Spears et al [That would be a moralizing, Malkin-type, red-herring retort, not one Mercer resorts to]. I don’t approve of that anymore than you. But denigrating her (and by extension, those of similar physiognomy) on the basis of the features she has is just plain mean.
I call ’em as I see ’em. Dare you to print this.

–Mike Burns

Mercer Reply:

Although these females are not beautiful, neither are they ugly. Nor were they so termed in my column. Rather, they represent what I call the porn aesthetic the essence of which is not true sensuality or real physical beauty, but something that corresponds to the lowest form of sex. They are pornographic phenoms theirs are faces that men want to see on hookers; on women they have plain crude sex with. They look well-used, cheap, unrefined, and whorish even in their youth. This nuance has evaded Mike’s righteous indignation. In fact, like the best of left-liberal sensitivity enforcers, Mike rails against aesthetic judgment per se. — ILANA

Updated: 'Sluts Galore: Scenes From 2006'

Aesthetics, Hollywood, The Zeitgeist

Let’s see, the line-up of sluts and just plain unsavory sorts in today’s WorldNetDaily column is long: Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, “Hue Hefner’s harem of hos,” Judith Regan, Michael Richards, Barack Obama. Even Oprah, “the Queen of Kitsch,” cameos.

As usual, politicians make most ordinary sewer rats pale in comparison. Here’s “Sluts Galore: Scenes From 2006.”

Update: Mike Burns dares me to print his apparently very gritty letter, so here goes:

You have written many a wise and witty column, Ilana. Unfortunately, “Sluts Galore” wasn’t one of them.
In an astoundingly vicious screed, you succumb to a pervasive form of bigotry, one of the last few “acceptable” forms left in America: bigotry against people you consider “ugly.”
Don’t start saying I’m defending the slutty behavior of Brittney Spears et al [That would be a moralizing, Malkin-type, red-herring retort, not one Mercer resorts to]. I don’t approve of that anymore than you. But denigrating her (and by extension, those of similar physiognomy) on the basis of the features she has is just plain mean.
I call ’em as I see ’em. Dare you to print this.

–Mike Burns

Mercer Reply:

Although these females are not beautiful, neither are they ugly. Nor were they so termed in my column. Rather, they represent what I call the porn aesthetic the essence of which is not true sensuality or real physical beauty, but something that corresponds to the lowest form of sex. They are pornographic phenoms theirs are faces that men want to see on hookers; on women they have plain crude sex with. They look well-used, cheap, unrefined, and whorish even in their youth. This nuance has evaded Mike’s righteous indignation. In fact, like the best of left-liberal sensitivity enforcers, Mike rails against aesthetic judgment per se. — ILANA

Updated Again: A Storm in a Tea Cup, Apparently

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Media, The Zeitgeist

The first thing to note in the aftermath of the biggest windstorm to hit Washington and Oregon in decades is the lack of coverage in MSM. The feminized media allots plenty of coverage to human interest stories–the girls are currently eulogizing endlessly the “experienced” mountaineers gone up Mount Hood during the most treacherous month of the year, just before one of the biggest blizzards ever. (Hey, do a story about electricity deprived, peeved pets or something.) But nothing about at least a million residents in the Pacific Northwest stranded without power for days, in primitive conditions, befitting a Third World country–or perhaps states overrun by greens, where the Prius is the “People’s Car.”

Well, as I say, we were plunged into a primitive, Third-World existence. Temperatures in my home plummeted to 45 degrees for 4 days. We coped thanks to the generosity of a neighbor with a massive generator. Now that I know I live at the mercy of Luddites, I fully intend to go survivalist: a generator, extra gas for the BBQ (I made a stew with the remaining chicken in my freezer, although I was forced to discard the rest of the meat and fish therein), and piles of candles.

So what are the questions Journalism of Old would have asked here? Utilities are only nominally private and are heavily regulated. How have regulations affected their response times and, most crucially, the maintenance of the power grid? Should power lines be buried? Why aren’t they? (Earthquakes would be one consideration, in addition to costs.)

But above all: the grid and power lines suffered mostly tree damage. In this part of the world, the trees everywhere are intertwined with the cable. Why? Why isn’t a wide tree-free swath maintained around these vital structures? Why are trees not chopped back?

I suspect the explanation lies in the self-defeating dementia of tree fetishists, and “Watermelon” legislation — green on the outside; red on the inside. However, as usual, the “Watermelon” worldview creates more havoc than it prevents. Because of wood fires, the usually pristine air in our part of the world resembles the air above the shanty town of Soweto. The resources and energy spent–and the lives lost–because of this mess are many times the cost or worth of a few thousand trees.

Update: While MSNBC noodles on for hours about the “experienced” climbers of Mt. Hood, and their relatives who, like all Americans, have an amazing knack for suctioning themselves to TV cameras and addressing “the nation” in their time of sorrow, some residents of King County, WA, got told they may be without power for yet another two weeks.

Updated Again: S. Johnson of Oregon backs up what I’ve surmised so far. He writes: Thank you for telling it like it is. We are on a private, co-operative power co. (Blachly-Lane), and they do exactly what you suggested be done as far as maintaining a tree-free zone around power lines. The Greens/tree huggers/libs thwart their efforts to a degree, as do liberal property owners, so guess what? The trouble we do experience is ALWAYS on/around their property! “They” never get it. I have a neighbor that refuses to let the power co. install a pole on his property because he maintains that it isn’t necessary as it’s been that way for 40 years and he is not going to change his mind. Guess what again? The power outages caused by winds are ALWAYS because the power lines span such a long distance over his property that they whip severely and bring down the poles! EVERY TIME! Yes, during the storm, down came the power pole and we, and about 500 others, were out of power for 23 hrs. Not a big deal for us, as I have generators, but some others don’t. I’ve lived here for 31 years (it’s a very rural area) and our power co. only serves about 2500 customers. I have talked to the “neighbor.” He is a Berkley educated hobby farmer who is as stuck on himself as he is dense. I’m sure he can absorb light. Won’t budge even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Oh, well, I won’t bore you anymore. Thanks for letting me vent. Keep up the good work and MERRY CHRISTMAS to you.

Letter of the Week: The Banality of Feminism in All Permutations

Feminism, The Zeitgeist

ALEX WRITES:

I never really cared for Paglia. I thought her another feminist, and I guess these comments make it so.

When I read how she felt that a majority of men envied women’s reproductive ability—to have children—I scratched my head. I can’t remember the last time I felt the need to become pregnant.

I never liked Tom Cruise until his excellent performance of the contract killer, “Vincent,” in the terrific Collateral. His glib nihilism and ruthless zeal was conveyed with a subtle performance that some might miss. It was a refreshing and surprising turn from an actor who had given us such dreck as Top Gun and that awful, can’t-remember-its-name, Daytona movie.

Back to Paglia: how is the trumpeting of sex by Britney Spears and her ilk bad for the sex movement? Isn’t that what the sex movement is all about? And what’s with this mundane “pro-sex” ideal that she speaks of? Is she a libertine? Gross. [Related read: “On Sexual Bombast and Bliss“]

For another taste of the nasties, check out the posts from other feminists on the board, who are complaining and wailing that public crotch shots and nudity are, “Like, soooo tame, and like, get over it already—it’s HER body, after all.”

Wonder if the same thing could be said if a disgusting, overweight plumber was caught flashing his penis in public. Would the hip press be debating whether or not it was a career move, or would they state that he was a disgusting and disturbed man? Would these women come to his aid, because it was, “Like, HIS body, ‘after all’?”

—Alex