Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Friday, December 20, 2013

Friday Rant: The Progressive Quack Up

I am in a rant mood. Hope this makes sense especially to non-American readers who might not be familiar with Duck Dynasty.

Wow! It has been a rough week for America's socialists cum cultural "reformers." Not only is their Messiah--to use foolish Barbara Walters' foolish word--unable to make the lame to walk, the blind to see, and the mute to speak, he can't even get the lame to see, the blind to hear, and the mute to walk. He even got himself labeled "liar" of the year by a liberal political rag that has spent the last six plus years breathlessly repeating his lies and covering for him. To make things worse, the progressives got their feathers ruffled by a blast from the Louisiana bayou. In answer to a question in an interview by liberal GQ magazine, Ol' Duck Dynasty Phil, using, shall we say, blunt and graphic language, made known his and most Americans' problem with the current cultural obsession with gays. He put it in terms of where do we draw the line--a question raised here before. Once we say, legally, that marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, all bets are off on what arrangements are acceptable--and the courts, as predicted, have begun to reflect that.

Louisiana Phil also contested the standard version of race relations in the South, noting that he, I repeat, he had not seen any lynchings or violence, but he had seen poor whites and poor blacks working together. This drove the libs mad, as you can tell from the attacks on him. His mistake was not making up an imaginary friend or victim which is what liberals would do, e.g., Obama and Booker. Honesty is the conservatives' strength and what drives progs bonkers.

Much like groundhog Punxsutawney Phil predicts winter, it appears that Louisiana Phil has predicted rough weather for "liberalism" in America. The progressives who rule us are amazing creatures. They control our government; our cultural and educational institutions; our education system; and, of course, the bulk of the old line mass media. On paper they have all the power they could ever need or want. That, however, turns out not to be enough. They also want silence, or, if you are going to disagree with the established orthodoxy, you must do it only in a fawning, apologetic manner, for example, "Of course, I think the gay lifestyle is absolutely fine even though my upbringing makes it difficult for me to accept." Then, they will "cluck, cluck," demand and usually get a big apology, and then they will express pity for you and hope that with time you will see the TRUTH.

Question: Who has used guns to kill people? Phil Robertson or Eric Holder
Judging from the reaction to the heavy handed attacks on Phil, it seems the liberals-progressives-socialists have overplayed their hand. The support from ordinary Americans is pouring in for Phil and his kin with even commercial sponsors of the weird reality show in which Phil stars sticking by him. The classic liberal Mau-Mau tactics might not work this time.

While conservatives have Louisiana Phil, Texas Ted Cruz, and Alaska Sarah Palin, the liberals have bizarre British import Piers Morgan--who seems to know zip about his new home--flailing Kenya Obama, and, of course, their secret weapon . . . no, not the Navy Seals.


No, the liberal cultural commissars have PAJAMA BOY!


Pajama boy! He is almost as manly as Julia, the previous effort by Team Obama to connect with America. Who does the publicity for these folks? In what bubble do they live? Do they think that Navy SEALS after a hard day of whacking America's enemies, or Louisiana Phil after a hard day of hunting ducks and running a business put on their pajamas, grab a cup of hot chocolate, and talk about the glories of Obamacare?

Ah, progressives, if they weren't so destructive, they'd be funny . . .

77 comments:

  1. The Left has badly over-played its hand on a great many issues, of late. So much has been rammed down Americans' throats that the so-called silent majority is starting to push back. You can see it with Obamacare, the polls on how big government is bad, and now reality tv. Personally, I find the blow-back refreshing!

    It wasn't all that many years ago when every MSM outlet had stories on the death of conservatism. I'm starting to see the opposite instead. Hope springs eternal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concur. I, too, am enjoying this but am also concerned at the potential duration of it. The Lumpenproletariat (to use the enemy's terms) seem all too willing to simply forget what is going on as soon as the MSM runs the next cover story (e.g., shiny thing).

      Good example: a somewhat clueless co-worker was standing in the elevator lobby where I work, watching the TV that's there (we have an endless fight where some of us keep switching it to Fox, but that's another tale). She said "why won't they just let Obama succeed?"

      Gives you some idea of the depth of delusion we are dealing with, I think, when his own lack of competence simply isn't part of their reasoning.

      Delete
    2. At this late date that is a surprise, M?

      Delete
    3. Alas, it is not. Though the brief period of watching some of the more idiotic lib machinations blowing up has been satisfying. Long term? Not sure.

      Delete
  2. Phil has outfoxed the Progressives by not really caring what they think of what he says. If A&E persists in the hiatus, he's a "martyr" who will only gain popularity for having stood up to "the man". If A&E caves, he is free to repeat his beliefs, though he may consider doing so in less vulgar language. Either way, he wins, they lose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What competing network will pick up his program, I wonder.

      Delete
  3. Expect massive media retaliation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. O, dear. They might call you *names*.

      Delete
    2. Followed by a strongly worded letter

      Delete
  4. DiploMad, thank you so much. I have been preaching that until I was blue. Libs just gotta hate. They just won't understand that largely we don't care what they do as long as we done have to watch it or hear it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you really blue. Might you post a picture?

      Do you look like a Smurf, or like one of those guys in Avatar, the leftie's-dream movie in which Cameron got American audiences to applaud the defeat of [transparent stand-ins for] American troops?

      Delete
    2. O, c'mon, Good. I hope I haven't given offense; I was only joshing. I'm glad you're posting. Welcome to the group.

      Delete
  5. It's just crazy... he did the biblical due diligence of expressly not judging/condemning, but that's not enough.
    I feel a bit sad for the new pope and his hope that the catholic church can avoid having christianity defined by wedge issues. I don't think most of these people seek a wedge debate, but the media absolutely wont leave it alone.

    I can see it like a checklist agenda:
    Wait... you hate homosexuals, right? No? So you approve of homosexuality then? No? That doesn't makes sense in my black and white world. How can you care for or love somebody whose actions you disapprove of?
    Of course, for a liberal to whom obedience is the most fundamentally important trait, that lack of understanding makes sense.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's more than obedience. They don't even need orders.

      "I don't want loyalty. I want LOYALTY! I want him to kiss my ass in Macy's window at high noon and tell me it smells likes roses. I want his pecker in my pocket." -- Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the United States, discussing a prospective appointment.

      Delete
    2. Mr Johnson on requirements for "Mr Johnson" ;)

      Delete
  6. Political correctness is, at its conclusion, all about conformity. Conform or die. I think I'll pass. I have a feeling that regular folk are about to explode with pent up "payback time".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Political correctness" (and its inverse) began life as a dead-serious Communist locution in the nineteen-twenties, as in, "Quantum mechanics is scientifically correct, but politically incorrect because it contradicts dialectical materialism and historical inevitability."

      It more or less disappeared at July 22, 1941, until it was revived ironically by the neoconservatives (the real ones, back before that became an epithet meaning Jewish conservatives), attributed to the New Left as a way of saying that it is as totalitarian as the Old Left. As all the world now knows.

      There are even some fools on the New Left who have adopted it, and used it without irony (or, if they cannot manage that, without much ironically).

      Delete
    2. "but politically incorrect because it contradicts dialectical materialism and historical inevitability." So to continue in this vein, the person would be living in a state of "false consciousness"? I see you have your old handle back. Must feel good?

      Delete
    3. Yes. Nice to have old handle back.

      Putting on my 'twenties-Commie hat, "false consciousness" is not a description of someone who believes something false, i.e. politically incorrect. It is a description of someone whose consciousness is not correctly aligned with his class status. Not to put to fine a point on it, it describes a toiler, especially a proletarian, who is not (or, even more dramatically, is anti-) Communist.

      False consciousness is (as political incorrectness is not) one of the fundamental pillars of socialism, because (to be blunt) with the exception of the occasional Stakhanov (possibly--that may have been a Potemkin production) or Morozov, no working class person who has actually *experienced* any socialism wants any part of it.

      As we see with Obamacare.

      Delete
    4. O'care for us but not for the nomenklatura.

      Delete
    5. The young millennium's most delicious irony, so far, is that even junior members of the nomenklatura got swept up in the transport. As described in their village paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/nyregion/with-affordable-care-act-canceled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html?_r=0

      Delete
  7. The destruction is to weep for. But they are still funny. We are defiant. We still laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alpha there is a lot to laugh at and it is a potent weapon. Nothing explodes a "progressive" vacuum [also known as their head occasionally] like laughing at them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a progressive vacuum, no one can hear you laugh. :)

      Delete
    2. But they can see you in a paroxysm of mirth and that's just as good as hearing you. :-)

      Delete
    3. Hi, Ozzie! How very seasonal!

      A "paroxism of myrrh" being like, say, para-dioxy isofuranogermacrene 6?

      Delete
    4. Doy you mean Commiphora abyssimica which includes nine sesquiterpenoid hydrocarbons, the sesquiterpene alcohol elemol and the furanosesquiterpenoids furanodiene, furanodienone, isofuranogermacrene, curzerenone and lindestrene

      Delete
    5. Won't a large serving of pinto beans bring about a similar reaction within a vacuum for the more selfish?

      Delete
    6. Happy to meet you, veng. Yes, that's the general idea, but with two oxygens attached at opposing ends, hence paradioxy prefix, hence "paroxism". Ha-ha. I hate explaining a joke--it leeches all the humor out. Also, the necessity suggests I didn't make such a good joke in the first place. Sigh.

      Whitewall, good to speak to you again. But not quite following you.

      Delete
    7. Maybe I'm missing it but I take paroxysm to mean uncontrolled bodily reaction from laughing, excitement, massive flatulence --hence the beans. Within the vacuum would be alone but visible. Possibly more meanings to the word than I know?

      Delete
    8. Great to meet you too a6z. My reply really stretched my chemistry but I wanted to play straight man, poorly it seems and with a typo too. I really miss having an edit feature, preview doesn't cut it.

      And Diplo, you run a great blog, it draws great commentors - and some hangers on like myself.

      Merry Christmas to all from here in the Philippines.

      Delete
    9. Merriest Christmas back at you veng. And everyone.

      Ww, that isn't the joke I had in mine (vide supra) but I do not deny its fully independent funniness.

      Delete
  9. "He is almost as manly as Julia"

    You gave me a fright then Dip.

    We have only recently got rid of a Fabian Socialist called Julia. She occupied the position of Prime Minister for three harrowing years and, expectedly, was a friend of your current President with whom she has/had a lot in common -- unquestionable incompetency and a seeming tendency to tell Porkies.

    She may also become the first person to have held that office to be charged with a serious criminal offence.

    I had to look up Duck Dynasty - fascinating

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, if you are in touch with that gent from Georgia, USA ask him what he thinks of the show. Might take some 'splaining.

      Delete
    2. Damn it David, you made me almost spill my cocoa on my pajamas!

      Delete
    3. Obamacare jammies:)

      leaperman

      Delete
    4. G'day Whitewall,

      Top of the Saturday afternoon to you.

      I communicated with Randy and he reckons The Duck Dynasty is a hoot.

      I guess that's Southern talk for bonzer [Aussie for "Bloody Beauty Mate"].

      Sorry about the 'jamies James. Sometimes I just can't help myself.

      Besides at 71.9 years of age there is not much the PC Brigade. aka "Thought Police" can do to me.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the lesson, Ozzie. I'm a bit disappointed--I had thought the Australian word for the local brogue was not "Aussie" but "Strine".

      Delete
    6. Alpha you are spot on. It is Strine but often that is met with a ?

      Delete
  10. You may wish to have a read about a recent appointment in Australia. The Attorney General George Brandis has appointed Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission. Mr Wilson will focus on freedom, as opposed to anti-discriminisation.
    The left has had apoplexy over twitter and facebook, because Mr Wilson is not an 'appropriate' person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have been reading Tim Blair on it, fascinating reaction from the lefties.

      Delete
    2. The Aussie Left seems all a twitter over matters just like the American Left. It seems to take very little. Must be same "parentage" and family trees that rise a long way before they branch.

      Delete
    3. The Aussie left are in melt down claiming that the appointment of Wilson proves that our new PM will make appointments not on merit but on political belief and ideology. The criticism is a stellar act of hypocrisy, as the ALP when in government shamelessly appointed it mates to every judicial and other quango going. They also created myriad new quangos so that they appoint more of their mates in positions of influence and put their hands firmly in the taxpayers pocket. A worse, just before the election, when its clear that they were gong to slaughtered at the ballot box, they expanded the number of judicial positions so that they could appoint more of their preferred people, knowing full well that they courts had no need for an expanded bench and thereby stealing appointment that would properly have ben the prerogative of the new government when vacancies naturally occurred.

      The simple truth is that the Australian left is a cancer in our democracy.

      Delete
    4. Sorry about the typos; its is a risk of ranting through the keyboard (although DiploMad seems to have it under control)

      Delete
    5. I do the same thing and sometimes drive spell check crazy. In other forums I will use "cancer" to describe the Leftist methodology. They metastasize within the body and lay there until activated. Chemo doesn't touch them, surgery is a solution but they worm in and wait on my dime. Tough to get rid of them. Starving the system may be the last resort

      Delete
  11. And it goes *everywhere* too... hey... we know what's best for your sick kid... stick her in a psychiatric ward for half a year because we don't know what to do with her but we've got to protect her from... umm.. not being abused by her parents.
    You see, because these bureaucrats know your children better than you do... you're supposed to be at work all day every day anyways, without any time to see your kids... so what do you think you're doing making medical decisions that the state should be making for them?

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/12/21/state-retains-custody-teen-limbo-children-hospital-for-months/5TGcy5X8IxQusdtXgRmXdK/story.html

    This is extremely scary stuff... if anybody with any sense needs an argument for smaller government, it's right here.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Your children"? The State does not recognize your preposterous claim to an ownership interest in children. They are "our children." The child welfare department will decide what best serves the welfare of the child.

      Delete
    2. By the way, congratulations on belonging to such a celebrated family. I've always been very impressed with the exploits of your famous ancestor 1492.

      Delete
  12. It has been said that the mere thought that anyone, anywhere, was having any fun would make the Puritans feel ill and send them into a frenzy. With today's "Liberals" the mere thought that anyone, anywhere, is even thinking any independent and non "Liberal" orthodoxy thoughts makes them feel ill and sends them into a frenzy. Same show just under a different tent.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please, please, please, keep Piers Morgan. If you have to get rid of him, send him to Guantanamo. We promise we will not complain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The inmates at Guantanamo voted unanimously not to take him, sorry. He's yours.

      Delete
    2. Yo soy un hombre sincero
      De donde crece la palma,
      Y antes de morirme quiero
      Echar mis versos del Allah.

      Guantanameros
      Guajiros Guantanameros
      Guantanameros
      Guajiros Guantanameros

      Delete
    3. A very cute play on a famous song!

      Delete
  15. Something I've been wondering a lot... do Democrat Presidents generally lack the intestinal fortitude to play the role of kingmaker in various places?
    South Sudan... looks like we're headed to disaster there after insisting on partitioning the country off.
    Pick a side and throw our support behind it? No, we're just going to sit back and watch.
    It feels to me like weak Presidents fear being blamed for picking "the wrong side", or someone who "winds up being a person we don't like".
    Seems to me that the president should get informed and pick a side, or stand aside and let someone else be president.

    "Oh, I don't know.. both sides are bad.. it's really complex... how can one tell which side to back? We really can't do anything." <--- cop out

    What I think they should be saying: "It's very complicated, but this side appears better for us, we're going to support them, and if they wind up being problems, we'll the fix that."

    Having a difficult decision to make is no excuse for doing nothing.

    - reader #1482, grandson of #1492

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have noticed that too? It seems since the "end" of the Cold War and its clarifying divisions, some presidents do have this problem. The mission for an American President is not to be liked, held in awe for verbal skills, or to be popular. It is to be understood for clarity of purpose and willingness to back it up. Failure here invites the world's bad actors to threaten our allies and interests.

      Delete
    2. It's not just Democrats and not just recently. We Americans have hardly ever gone in for that kind of thing. Okay, the Philippines, when imperium was in fashion. Vietnam, in a half-hearted way--half-assed too, before anyone else says it--out of imagined necessity. A few gestures in other countries.

      Real imperial powers were better at it, from practice rather than brilliance. They--most of them now out of the business, not by choice--sneer at our footling efforts for being amateurish and also for being imperialism. I don't see how they can have it both ways.

      Delete
    3. Thinking of South Sudan--and, perhaps, a lot of sub-Saharan Africa in the not-too-distant future.

      South Sudan happened because of an obstinate dedication to the borders in place in 1946 led to the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan being kept as an independent Sudan made up of former human predators and their human prey, with the latter deciding they weren't going to stand for such a status. It was a successful revolt against a truly oppressive and backwards system (Islamicist slave hunting), but one that didn't have a vision of how it would consolidate its gains. Frankly, I think our official position on the Sudanese civil war while it was going on was that it should be resolved peacefully, the country remain "united", and the ex-rebels given a say in its governance. Our recognition of South Sudan was based on the fait accompli.

      And, come to think of it, we Americans were never good at imperialism away from our own continent--and our successful imperium over the middle half of the North American continent was in many ways a "peasant conquest" (the way the Thai ate up the states of the Mon and Khmer peoples back between 1100-1400 A.D.), even if we like to think of our pioneers and homesteaders as sturdy yeoman rather than actual peasants.

      We weren't even all that good at our Philippine imperium. Had the Japanese not gone to war with us in 1941, the Philippines probably would've been an independent country by 1943 (MacArthur's mission was originally to train a military for an independent Philippines before retiring)--less than a half century of American rule. That doesn't compare well with Roman rule over Spain, Gaul, or even Britain--or even Chinese rule over the Kradai peoples south of the Chang Jiang, or even the Annamites--or, for that matter, Russian rule over the Tatars and Tungus peoples. THOSE were and are imperia worthy of the name.

      Getting back to South Sudan and all the other little conflicts going on around the globe, I sum up my position with a few observations:

      1. History is going to happen whether we like it or not.

      2. The rest of the world has its historical trajectories along which various nations travel, even if "we" (whoever that is) are not involved.

      3. Maybe the Founders' wariness about foreign entanglements wasn't such an antiquated, horse-and-buggy sort of thing after all.

      4. Who cares what the former imperial powers of Yurruppe think? Their empires, with the exceptions of Spain's and Portugal's, were mere flashes in the pan when the span of historical time is considered. Very ephemeral, and maybe we were not wise to emulate them.

      Delete
    4. I'd more advocate a picking of a side and materiel aid, more so than direct intervention. We should pick sides based on interests and principles alongside an evaluation of the people involved. Even with the supposed 'good guys' in the Syrian rebellion, we still only half-hearted support them, and we bail on that at the first objection of Russia. If we want to support them, we put the vise on the Syrian regime and flood the opposition with clear and tangible support. (And follow through on threats in regards to things like chemical weapons attacks.)
      If we're not going to do that, then we should back Assad, give him whatever advantages he needs to continue his rule, and acknowledge that he's "the least of the evils".
      It's this waffling that has me confused. It's like this administration wants to back the rebels, but doesn't want to destabilize Syria?

      But I recognized similar things in some previous administrations like Clinton and Carter pussyfooting around, while the republicans appeared to be a bit more decisive, or maybe that's just my interpretation.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    5. We should pick sides based on interests and principles alongside an evaluation of the people involved.

      I'd only offer that at the moment (given the chaos - natural, it's Africa afterall) it's very difficult to discern whether this is truly a Civil War or just an ethnic foofaraw with the Neur trying some tit-for-tat to outdo the Dinka.

      If it's the latter ... I think "we'd" be better off waiting a little while longer then maybe, pick the side which appears the stronger. (That way, with The Idiots we've got available to "us" who'll be doing the picking of a side - "we" are less likely to repeat a, for instance, Libya.

      Arkie

      Delete
    6. Though this isn't the only place I'm looking in on South Sudan from, this STRATFOR article gives a pretty good picture of the ethnic stuff I mentioned above.

      * This is currently an "internal analysis" - yet to be publicly accessible I mean. One might upon search get a request to enter an email address in order to access it. Safeguards are now in place - unlike 2011 when I experienced "a little trouble" after Stratfor's servers got hacked, my "boss" called me up What the ____ you doing in Oman? - I wasn't in Oman but my "company" credit card # was - anyway, I'll not have access to anybody's address, Strat will however. Might send an invitation to you to spend some money.

      http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/south-sudan-tribal-frictions-persist

      Arkie

      Delete
    7. Oh what the heck - nobody any longer can fire me. Mind, this [excerpted] was distributed 16 DEC - pre-Osprey attack & add'l USMC presence at Djibouti.

      "A firefight that broke out late Dec. 15 in the South Sudanese capital of Juba does not appear to have been an attempted coup, as some news organizations have reported. Rather, the incident -- in which presidential guard members with different tribal backgrounds fought at their barracks in the capital -- highlights the persisting tribal frictions in South Sudan. These tribal frictions take a central role in the political competition between President Salva Kiir Mayardit and former Vice President Riek Machar, who come from different tribes, as they prepare to compete for the presidency in the 2015 election.

      Tensions between the Dinka and Nuer, the largest ethnic groups within South Sudan, have existed for a long time and have often dominated political and military alliances within the country. Since Kiir, a Dinka, dismissed Machar, a Nuer, in July, these tensions have been rising. As Kiir and Machar initiate their presidential campaigns, frictions between tribes will be one of the central issues in South Sudanese politics ahead of the 2015 election.

      Although news organizations have used the term "coup," the incident did not bear the hallmarks of a politically motivated attempt to overthrow the government."

      Read more: In South Sudan, Tribal Frictions Persist | Stratfor

      Arkie

      Delete
    8. If this lands you on the homepage - to your right there'll be a box "select a country to review" scroll down:

      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/od.html

      Ark

      Delete
  16. I drink cocoa in my boxers .... sometimes I wear a housecoat .... if we have certain company.

    But ... I watch Duck Dynasty with my boots and hat on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just your boots and hat?

      That's kinky.

      :-)

      Christmas Eve here in Oz so to all a Merry Christmas

      Delete
    2. Just checkin' in to wish all best wishes to Dip and to all the rest of us commentors here for the next one, and a Merry Christmas in this year.
      I'm just lurkin out back for a while, while tending to a project, and enjoying immensly all the gang of Dip's meetin' place.
      Jack

      Delete
    3. I concur. Merry Christmas to everyone on this fine forum. It has exploded from 6 readers to 13 to a current number higher than I can count.

      Delete
    4. Best holiday wishes to all.

      Delete
  17. Merry Christmas Ya'll.

    Arkie

    http://brickbarn.com/SuckDynastyCartoon.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  18. Merry Christmas to all you rapscallions, varlets, footpads, rascals, and occasional cut purses love all your company!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well James, I shoulda known I'd see you wishing Merry Christmas to, among others, rascals as this post has just come to my attention.

    Merry Christmas James if you hadn't noticed my "general" Merry Christmas overspreading the Diplomadsphere:

    http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/12/some-points-on-homosexuality.html

    h/t malcolmpollack.com

    Arkie

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hoping for a peaceful, joyous, and merry Christmas to Dip and Mrs Dip.
    The fight continues on the 26th.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I did my part..I ordered my DS a new duck call..from Duck Commander for Christmas!!! Go Phil!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am not sure what upset the high school clique that rules American political/media complex the most- Phil's paraphrase of the Bible or that he dared allude to what homosexual men actually do with one another. It is a modern paradox: those who relentless promote the queer lifestyle go into a collective swoon an innocent Victorian maiden might envy whenever anyone even mentions homosexual acts.

    One of the funniest moments I've had among so called progressives was back in 1989. Chicago's Museum of Contemporary Art was one of the stops on the infamous Robert Mapplethorpe's The Perfect Moment tour. There was a member's only opening. The average member of Chicago's MCA is an affluent, middle aged urban dweller, usually secular and politically to the left. When I walked into the exhibit I was immediately struck by the tone. Usually there is a lot of earnest but almost whispered conversation about the merits of the work at a MCA opening. That night it was a pronounced sound of unsuccessfully suppressed nervous giggles. These soi disant sophisticates would die before admitting that Mapplethorpe's photos of homosexual S&M shocked them. But shocked they were and their defense mechanism was a reflexive giggle as they tried to deny the reality of the "art" on exhibit.

    ReplyDelete