<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

The Wimp Factor: Introduction 

We address Stephen Ducat's poignant "The Wimp Factor", Introduction chapter, tonight.

Ducat states the thesis of his book succinctly on page 1 {his emphases}:

"This book will show how this fantasy of being under constant seige by a multitude of external feminizing forces is really an unconscious defense that is employed to keep ouy of mind something even more disturbing--an identification with women."

Mohamed al-Amir Atta, the "mastermind" behind the apparent Al Qaeda (Maybe not) attack on the Twin Towers, was a mama's boy who was called a girl by his dad, and ended life with such femiphobia that he forwent even touching women, forbade them from his funeral, and needed to prove his manhood by apparently crashing a plane into a 350-meter phallus.

The "genderdization" of the Dems as "feminine" as Republicans as "masculine" started relentlessly in the Reagan era, continuing infamously with the portrayal of Dukakis as a helpless Massachusetts governor letting the much larger Willie Horton loose to rape white women. An attempt to associate the Democratic party with white male emasculation (never mind the FACT that a Republican governer of Massachusetts had instituted the program that furloughed Willie), it worked on many "NASCAR" (Needing Additional Sensitivity, Can't Articulate Rage) dads.

The famous penis trade-off from Bill to Hillary (when she spoke up on health care) and--frustratingly for the Republicans--back to Bill after the Lewinsky scandal, is another example.

Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky attained worldwide name recognition and substantial profits from their association. If the President's alleged sexual proposition in that inimitable Arkansas hotel room had truly offended Paula Jones, and she had truly wanted to remain anonymous, she would have best kept that memory to herself. Her handlers, however, fueled with resources from Clinton's political enemies' coffers, strategized her into an $850,000 settlement and a psychic phone line network.

Sure, Paula made out (with Clinton and financially afterwards), but the Republicans simply made Bill seem more macho to some of the anxious males in America.

Bush senior, with his feminizing statement that he had served "under" Reagan, together with his emasculating surname, fought hard and ultimately unsuccessfully to fend off the WIMP factor--of course, his geyser vomit in Japan and pathetic bouncing (Cramer describes Bush's pathetic pitch as a "feckless parabola" that not only doesn't get to the catcher; it doesn't even get to the dirt around home plate) first pitch in 1986 no doubt having some clout in this opinion.

Indeed, the Wimp Factor addresses a lot of what happens in America--why the Gulf War was supposed to erase the "Vietnam syndrome"; why "Rambo" was popular; why Hillary is so despised; why Laura Bush is only capable of interior decorating and recipes; and perhaps most importantly why the President Bush doll (oops, action figure) on the front jacket of the book comes with its own "genuine fake penis...ready for action".

This book is important reading if we as a country are ever to get beyond the false macho, denial-of-dependence, denial-of-feelings pathology that currently is threatening to ruin the world.

Next, Chapter 1.

-Vulf

Monday, April 04, 2005

Karl Rove is gay. The Wimp Factor Part II 

I hate to imply there is anything wrong with being gay. There isn't. And gays, like straights and the whole mixture in-between, have an immense breadth of personality traits. I have gay friends, straight friends, and several friends who are partly gay (it's not analog, folks, it's not dependent on a single gene) but don't know it or don't want to admit it. Let's agree to never pigeonhole gays or straights.

I preface this blog in the manner because I do not mean it as an insult to gays that Karl Rove is gay. His crime is not in being gay but in sponsoring a macho femiphobic/homophobic agenda.

I heard from an impeccably trustworthy source tonight that Karl Rove is gay. On a whim, I thought maybe critical mass on this rumor might be out there. Indeed, I found plenty on Google supporting it, including:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=2895

They say that there is no smoke without fire and stories linking senior members of the Bush administration with homosexual circles continue to circulate. Coupled with the Gannon/Guckert affair and the 'Desperate Wives' interview with Kay Griggs it is symptomatic of a much deeper malaise. Widespread and profligate homosexuality seems to be a characteristic of cultures in terminal decline. It was apparent in the imperial Ming dynasty shortly before its final collapse. It is evident around the British Royal House of Windsor which is waited upon by what has been described as a "homosexual mafia". It flourished in the final days of ancient Rome and now it seems to be surfacing in and around the White House. Gossip aside, there seems to be a strong homosexual element around Bush and his administration and it is through this medium that much darker forces are making their influence felt. Coupled with neocon cabal it adds up to a veritable witches cauldron in Washington's seats of power.

We knew after the Gannon shenanigans that something wasn't right. Now we know more. Cheney's daughter is gay. Gayness is strongly genetically determined. Rove, Gannon, and as a prop for their agenda, Michael Savage. All gay. Cheney might well be. Is Bush gay, too?

Stephen Ducat's "The Wimp Factor" exposes why those men trying to suppress their homosexual urges need to resort to femiphobia and homophobia--the "cult of macho" is a cover. In deriding gays they're actually demonizing the forces and urges within themselves.

But this is really too much. The "architect" behind Bush's moral agenda is himself gay?

Walter Storch, editor of the Barnes Review News reported three weeks ago that "Karl Rove was seen by one of my people entering a private homosexual orgy at a five-star Washington hotel over the Mid-Atlantic Leather (MAL) weekend last year." [2004]

A Barnes reporter told Storch that "Karl greatly enjoyed the supervision of a certain hairy 350-lb. Leather Dominator who had won the Miss Virginia Daddy Bear title at the MAL festivities."

Storch wrote, "Karl used to hang out a JR’s, which is on 17th between P & S streets, before he became so well-known. This is a respectable gay bar for discreet people...," adding, "there is an expensive apartment...over near Dupont Circle that certain powerful senators take turns visiting with their pickups."

"Bush, via Karl Rove, was projected as a moral man who would return a hedonistic America to the simpler virtues of a bygone era. A large part of the American public, unhappy with what they saw as debilitating liberalism, abortion on demand, gay marriage and other forms of moral decay, put Bush back in office," said the Barnes editor.

"Now they have to deal with rampant male whores prancing around the White House in consort with a small army of closet queens, all of whom very obviously have the ear, and the confidence, (and hopefully, that’s all they have) of their ‘moral’ choice for President," said Storch.

(Try Googling "Karl Rove Gay" and do your own research...keep in mind there's plenty on "John Kerry Gay", too...but the evidence for Karl Rove is considerably stronger--i.e. there is actually some)

I can't say I'm surprised. I can, however, say I'm disappointed. Not in Rove, he's free to be gay if he wants. Not that any of my gay friends would touch him with a...whoops, I need a better trite phrase here. But I'm disappointed in the American public for swallowing the load of "moral" crap that a bunch of gay men are using in an attempt to project their insecurities and perceived deficiencies on others. Rove has the chance and the power to show that being gay is not immoral. Will he come forth or betray himself to posterity?

-Vulf

Sunday, April 03, 2005

Big government = Republicans 

In Stephen J. Ducat's "The Wimp Factor", Stephen puts numbers behind my earlier observation that the blue states get $0.80 back for every buck of taxes they pay, while the red states get $1.20 back for every buck they pay. Ducat notes this is a $90 billion--yes, BILLION--dollar a year transfer of funds from the blue to red states (about the same as the Iraqi War, and guess who'll pay a disporportionate amount of that, too?) But the red states are the macho, "independent" states...ha ha, suckling at the Federal breast. Ducat points out that the "Freemen" who went ballistic in Montana a decade ago typified this...Ralph E. Clark, their rancorous, "anti-government" leader "had received $676,082 in government subsidies to make up for agricultural losses on his farm". Sure, I know, he didn't lose money as fast as Bush, but still, nearly $700,000 in Federal funds hardly makes you a self-dependent he-man, manly-man.

It's all fun and games until you look at how poorly reality matches the anxious-denial-through-affirmation-of-lies that is the Republican party. Check out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html

to see how much better off we are under the Dems (not that they're an ideal party by any stretch, but in comparison, they're much closer to acceptable)...

Our text today is the statistical tables of the 2005 Economic Report of the President. I did this exercise a while back with the 2004 tables and couldn't quite believe the results. But the 2005 data confirm it: The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn't even close.

The Republican values I refer to are universal. We all want prosperity, oppose unemployment, dislike inflation, don't enjoy paying taxes, etc. These values are Republican only in the sense that Republicans are supposed to treasure them more and to be more reluctant to sacrifice them for other goals such as equality and clean air.


Statistics back to 1959 make this clear. A consistent pattern over 45 years cannot be explained by shorter-term factors, such as war or who controls Congress. Maybe presidents can't affect the economy much, but the assumption that they can and do is so prominent in Republican rhetoric that they are stuck with it. So consider:

Federal spending (aka "big government"): It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president's policies to take effect, Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.

Leaning over backward even farther, let's start our measurement in 1981, the date when many Republicans believe that life as we know it began. The result: Democrats still have a better record at smaller government. Republican presidents added more government spending for each year they served, whether you credit them with the actual years they served or with the year that followed.

Federal revenue (aka taxes): You can't take it away from them: Republicans do cut taxes. Or rather, tax revenue goes up under both parties but about half as fast under Republicans. It's the only test of Republican economics that the Republicans win.

That is, they win if you consider lower federal revenue to be a victory. Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenue by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenue is good because it will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.

The numbers in the Economic Report of the President undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.


Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.

As for measures of general prosperity, each president inherits the economy. What counts is what happens next. Let's take just two measures, although they all show the same thing: Democrats do better under every variation. From 1960 to 2005 the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billon a year under Democrats. Measured from 1989, or measured with a one-year delay, or both, the results are similar. And how about this one? The average annual rise in real per capita income -- that's the statistic that puts money in your pocket. Democrats score about 30 percent higher.


Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 percent compared with 3.89 percent for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33 percent versus 6.38 percent). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.
Almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year's delay, Republican presidents edge out Democratic ones on inflation, 4.57 to 4.36. Congratulations.


OK. So, it appears the Dems do as good a job on the positive aspects of the Republican party's supposed platform. Anyone care to compare the two parties on the Democratic platform issues such as the environment?

Get the red out. Visine the government in 2006. And then let the war criminal trials begin.

-Vulf

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?