Roundup
Late-Mid-Week Early(ish) Morning Roundup
GIANT alum Drew Toal thoroughly enjoys Joshua Cohen’s Witz, and says so in Time Out New York. Also, look for some concise praise of Witz in the Briefly Noted section of this week’s New Yorker (5/10/10 issue). I think things are looking good for my man, and I believe that this is only the beginning. Stay tuned. And, duh, get yours.
Yesterday Dennis Cooper honored a request for a re-print of an old blog post of his from ’06– “Writer vs. Artist #2, Comte de Lautremont, Salvador Dali.” Also in Coop-news, DC’s blog turns five years old on 5/15. Happy birthday to one of my bar-none favorite places on the whole internet!
Peter Orner posts his introduction to Underground America: Narratives of Undocumented Lives (McSweeney’s, 2008) at The Rumpus.
CBS censored/retracted/denied/something’d their story about the use of military spy planes in the capture of failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, but The Nation‘s Jeremy Scahill is on it.
And last but not least, here’s Florida state senator Mike Bennett looking at pornography on his laptop on the floor of the senate while a debate about an anti-abortion bill which he favors is going on. Way to go, you hypocrite woman-hating fuck. Full story at Jezebel, but the video speaks for itself–and for the senator.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p_1E5d5bfE&
And hey, once you’re over at Jezebel, you might as well start “Rethinking Virginity–And Examining Our Assumptions About Sex.” It may also interest you to know that “American Apparel Lies about its ‘Real People’ Models.” And if you’re still not done, there’s “Miley Cyrus’s New Video: An Analysis.” I bet you’re done now, huh?
Tags: Dennis Cooper, Jezebel, Joshua Cohen, Peter Orner
The “something like this” link in the “Am Appy Lies” article is pertinent to some of the recent discussion on HTML G:
http://www.wornjournal.com/html/american-able/
From _there_, check out the “Target Women” link.
Interesting stuff.
I don’t understand. Why can’t you look at pornography and still be pro-life? I don’t undestand where lies the hypocrisy.
Well, DDR, when your entire position in American politics is staked out on the grounds of “family values,” and yet you are looking at pornography (and presumably masturbating furtively while doing so) while ON THE FLOOR OF THE STATE SENATE WHILE DEBATING A BILL ABOUT DENYING WOMEN AGENCY OVER THEIR OWN BODIES UNDER THE AEGIS OF ‘RESPECT FOR WOMEN’ (did you listen to the audio?) THEN YOU ARE A FUCKING HYPOCRITE. The family values agenda is at its heart about the exercise of absolute control over sexuality, at every point along the spectrum. The family values crowd is consistently among the largest and most eager participants in/consumers of ALL the things they vilify–from homosexuality to pornography (gay and straight) to prostitutes to abortions. Their relationship to anti-choice laws and all manner of “values”-legislation is the same as a bootlegger’s to Prohibition, or a present-day narco-trafficker’s to drug laws. They are monsters, and they can go burn.
A funny update: the senator contacted the reporter who shot the video and called him a voyeur.
That’s hilarious. But it’s also quite telling inasmuch as it reveals the fullness of the senator’s position. He’s not against voyeurism as such, just as he’s not against pornography and abortions, per se. It’s not a question of ethics at all, it’s a question of who is entitled to wield the power of the transgressive and the taboo. It’s not a question of WHAT may be seen or permitted, but rather a question of WHO is permitted to see and to do as they please. As a husband alone may see his wife with her burka off, so the senator alone is entitled not merely to view the pornography, but to assert that his public viewing of it is a privileged and private act. The king parades through the public square and all must gather, but none of the gathered are permitted to look upon the king. I hope this motherfucker is resigned before the week is over. I’m only sorry it was such a tame image he was looking at.
Oh. I agree with you.
Cool. I’m sorry I busted out the allcaps on you. I just wanted it to feel like I was screaming. :)
The “something like this” link in the “Am Appy Lies” article is pertinent to some of the recent discussion on HTML G:
http://www.wornjournal.com/html/american-able/
From _there_, check out the “Target Women” link.
Interesting stuff.
I don’t understand. Why can’t you look at pornography and still be pro-life? I don’t undestand where lies the hypocrisy.
Well, DDR, when your entire position in American politics is staked out on the grounds of “family values,” and yet you are looking at pornography (and presumably masturbating furtively while doing so) while ON THE FLOOR OF THE STATE SENATE WHILE DEBATING A BILL ABOUT DENYING WOMEN AGENCY OVER THEIR OWN BODIES UNDER THE AEGIS OF ‘RESPECT FOR WOMEN’ (did you listen to the audio?) THEN YOU ARE A FUCKING HYPOCRITE. The family values agenda is at its heart about the exercise of absolute control over sexuality, at every point along the spectrum. The family values crowd is consistently among the largest and most eager participants in/consumers of ALL the things they vilify–from homosexuality to pornography (gay and straight) to prostitutes to abortions. Their relationship to anti-choice laws and all manner of “values”-legislation is the same as a bootlegger’s to Prohibition, or a present-day narco-trafficker’s to drug laws. They are monsters, and they can go burn.
A funny update: the senator contacted the reporter who shot the video and called him a voyeur.
That’s hilarious. But it’s also quite telling inasmuch as it reveals the fullness of the senator’s position. He’s not against voyeurism as such, just as he’s not against pornography and abortions, per se. It’s not a question of ethics at all, it’s a question of who is entitled to wield the power of the transgressive and the taboo. It’s not a question of WHAT may be seen or permitted, but rather a question of WHO is permitted to see and to do as they please. As a husband alone may see his wife with her burka off, so the senator alone is entitled not merely to view the pornography, but to assert that his public viewing of it is a privileged and private act. The king parades through the public square and all must gather, but none of the gathered are permitted to look upon the king. I hope this motherfucker is resigned before the week is over. I’m only sorry it was such a tame image he was looking at.
Oh. I agree with you.
Yeah, I mean I’d actually quibble with calling an image of four topless women “pornography” if I didn’t assume that for the most wildly repressed of the “family values” types, eight nipples are likely enough to send them into fits of uncontrollable lust.
maybe he was judging them. loading pictures of partially dressed women and judging the shit out of their lives.
Cool. I’m sorry I busted out the allcaps on you. I just wanted it to feel like I was screaming. :)
Great roundup. Thanks, Justin.
This guy is a disgusting misogynist bastard. Fuck him. I like porn, by the way, but this “no women have no right to control their bodies” asshat clearly sees women as objects; property.
Yeah, I mean I’d actually quibble with calling an image of four topless women “pornography” if I didn’t assume that for the most wildly repressed of the “family values” types, eight nipples are likely enough to send them into fits of uncontrollable lust.
maybe he was judging them. loading pictures of partially dressed women and judging the shit out of their lives.
Great roundup. Thanks, Justin.
This guy is a disgusting misogynist bastard. Fuck him. I like porn, by the way, but this “no women have no right to control their bodies” asshat clearly sees women as objects; property.
Bennett voted against that bill. Just sayin’.
maybe accidentally, since he was looking at porn?
just kidding. but maybe.
Bennett voted against that bill. Just sayin’.
maybe accidentally, since he was looking at porn?
just kidding. but maybe.
I think the attack on Bennett is a little over the top. I mean, a) four girls in swimsuits is hardly “pornography”; b) he could very well be telling the truth (he seems to close it as fast as an old man on a computer can); c) he voted against the bill; and d) even if a-c aren’t true, the connection of believing in the “sanctity of life”/life starting at conception is not really connected to one’s enjoyment of pornography. That said, if b isn’t true, it’s still a highly inappropriate way to be using a government-issued, publicly paid-for computer.
I think the attack on Bennett is a little over the top. I mean, a) four girls in swimsuits is hardly “pornography”; b) he could very well be telling the truth (he seems to close it as fast as an old man on a computer can); c) he voted against the bill; and d) even if a-c aren’t true, the connection of believing in the “sanctity of life”/life starting at conception is not really connected to one’s enjoyment of pornography. That said, if b isn’t true, it’s still a highly inappropriate way to be using a government-issued, publicly paid-for computer.