Shangi here, wishing you all a Happy Holiday. Whatever holiday you foolish theists are celebrating today. I'm here to spread the Holiday Hate. You know, a teacher once accused me of being an anarchist. Maybe she's right. But I'm also right when I say she was a fucking cunt working for The Man. And The Man ain't cool. So MadShangi says "fuck Christmas."
Not too long ago I deleted a girl off my Facebook. My MSN. I threw away her phone number. But she phoned me today to tell me she was thinking of me. On Christmas. I wanted to die. I told her I'd call her back. I'm not going to. Why? Because right now I'm writing this blog. And to me, that's a better thing to do with my timre right now.
So after I picked myself off of the floor, I crawled over to my chair, sat down and logged into my blog. Why? I don't know why. Maybe I'm a mean guy. Maybe I'm a pretty nasty shit. Maybe I'm such a horrible person everyone is always telling me I am. I'm feeling like a Scrooge this Holiday Season, and I just want to say "Bah Hambug and Fuck You"
There is no Santa, kids. That was your mommy and daddy all along, and when they're gone who's going to give you your presents? NO ONE! Anyone reading this blog right now better copy and paste this and send it to the local authorities. Because I'm issuing a threat. A threat against Christmas. Fuck Christmas and Fuck The Christmas Spirit, Fuck Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer. Anyone that worships the false gods Jesus, Jehova, or Santa I'm going to send anthrax to their houses through the mail. Maybe. Could this be satire? You decide!
Maybe I have designs on being the Andy Kauffman of the Blogger Sphere. Maybe I just hate your fucking guts. Why am I being so nasty? I like being nasty. I'm a nasty guy. I'm a raving lunatic. I'm raving on and on. And I love it. No one can stop me. I paint imaginary thoughts of horror and blood. I'm going to download and watch the original "Black Christmas" and watch it over and over. I rented the Dark Knight, but it won't play on my PlayStation 2. Can't play it on my DVD. 'Cause I broke that fucking thing, too. Long time ago. Who really reads this shit anyway? Maybe I should compile all my posts into one massive book and sell it? That seems to be the trend nowadays "My Life As A Whore" seems to the gist of it for some of these "bestsellers." Shee-it.
I hope Santa gets murdered in the North Pole. But that won't happen, because Santa isn't real. I'm not real, either. There's really no Patrick Doran. Only the person who is typing this. But it's not Patrick Doran. Patrick is dead. There's only Zool..
This was a comment left by a reader of a previous post about cops illegally stripsearching a woman completely naked.
Stinger503 said... Agreed. Sorry police but when the Sheriff says that it was "by the book" when its on video and clearly against the stated policy, then YOUR FULL OF SHIT! In my opinion, all of the officers that were present should be fired as well as the entire chain of command. I'm sorry but when your lying like that you're corrupt.
He also had THIS to share:
This is probably even worse! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVXPEGHdDlg
I don't like police, I don't trust police, and I won't depend on the police. I've had too many bad experiences with cops. They are not our protectors, it's just another job to them, and one they complain about and slack off on.
I was once beaten up pretty badly during a swarming attack. I was a bloody mess. Some people took me into their home and called the police and an ambulance. When the cops came they're trying to question, when I should've been looked at by a doctor first. They even tried to convince me not to take an ambulance. I was a bloody mess, and these guys were keeping me inside a complete stranger's house, sizing me up as if I was the threat. Fuck the police.
Thinking about it now, I wonder how I could've handled that situation better. What do you do when you're all beat up, and the cops are keeping you inside someone else's house, trying to question you before you've even been looked at by a doctor.
Anyone else got similar experiences?
From AKKUS
I was attacked on a sidewalk by a couple of illegal aliens who injured me and pushed me into traffic. Over the next two hours, I talked to five cops. None of them would look into the situation. The first said he couldn't do anything as he hadn't seen it occur. The second threatened to arrest me for "making a false report", though he had made no effort to look into my claim. The third, a relative of mine, just laughed when I told him that I had been threatened with arrest for reporting the crime. I was told that I could file a complaint against the cop who threatened me, but that's like having a producer rate his own movie.
This is just one of many horrible experiences I and people close to me have had with cops. I have zero confidence in them and their commitment to "Protect and Serve", as is so hypocritically painted on their cruisers.
To "Protect and Serve" is right .
I remember once, when I was eleven years old, there was a fight going on in one of the apartment complexes in my neighborhood. Apparently police were called, but it seemed like no one was coming, so I found a cop sitting inside a coffee bar just right nearby. I tried convincing him to take care of this, but his attitude was "I'm on my break." I had to go back into the coffee bar four or five times before he finally decided to get off his fat ass.
He ended up arresting and using pepper spray on an intoxicated man that was fleeing from the apartment complex. I remember how mad I felt inside, after his backup arrived, they pat this schmuck on the shoulders and tell him "good work."
Police corruption is a complex phenomenon, which does not readily submit to simple analysis. It is a problem that has and will continue to affect us all, whether we are civilians or law enforcement officers. Since its beginnings, may aspects of policing have changed; however, one aspect that has remained relatively unchanged is the existence of corruption. An examination of a local newspaper or any police-related publication on any given day will have an article about a police officer that got busted committing some kind of corrupt act. Police corruption has increased dramatically with the illegal cocaine trade, with officers acting alone or in-groups to steal money from dealers or distribute cocaine themselves. Large groups of corrupt police have been caught in New York, New Orleans, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles.
Methodology: Corruption within police departments falls into 2 basic categories, which are external corruption and internal corruption. In this report I will concentrate only on external corruption because it has been the larger center of attention recently. I have decided to include the fairly recent accounts of corruption from a few major cities, mainly New York, because that is where I have lived for the past 22 years. I compiled my information from numerous articles written in the New York Times over the last 5 years. My definitional infornmation and background data came from various books cited that have been written on the issue of police corruption. Those books helped me create a basis of just what the different types of corruption and deviances are, as well as how and why corruption happens. The books were filled with useful insite but were not update enough, so I relied on the newspaper articles to provide me with the current, and regional information that was needed to complete this report. In simple terms, corruption in policing is usually viewed as the misuse of authority by a police officer acting offically to fulfill personal needs or wants. For a corrupt act to occure, three distinct elements of police corruption must be present simultaneously: 1) missuse of authority, 2) missuse of official capacity, and 3) missuse of personal attainment. (Dantzker, 1995: p 157) It can be said that power inevitably tends to corrupt, and it is yet to be recongnized that, while there is no reason to suppose that policemen as individuals are any less fallible than other members of society, people are often shocked and outraged when policemen are exposed violating the law. The reason is simple. There diviance elicits a special feeling of betrayal. "Most studies support the view that corruption is endemic, if not universal, in police departments. The danger of corruption for police, and this is that it may invert the formal goals of the organization and may lead to "the use of organizational power to encourage and create crime rather than to deter it" (Sherman 1978: p 31) General police deviance can include brutality, discrimination, sexual harassment, intimidation, and illicit use of weapons. However it is not particularly obvious where brutality, discrimination, and misconduct end and corruption begin. Essentially, police corruption falls into two major categories-- external corruption which concerns police contacts with the public, and internal corruption, which involves the relationships among policemen within the works of the police department. The external corruption generally concists of one ore more of the following activities: 1) Payoffs to police by essentially non-criminal elements who fail to comply with stringent statutes or city ordinances; (for example, inviduals who repeatedly violate traffic laws). 2) Payoffs to police by individuals who continually violate the law as a method of making money (for example, prostitutes, narcotics addicts and pusshers, & professional burglars). 3) "Clean Graft" where money is paid to police for services, or where courtesy discounts are given as a matter of course to the police. "Police officers have been involved in activities such as extortion of money and/or narcotics from narcotics viloators in order to aviod arrest; they have accepted bribes; they have sold narcotics. They have known of narcotics vilolations and have failed to take proper enforcement action. They have entered into personal associations with narcotics criminals and in some cases have used narcotics. They have given false testimony in court in order to obtain dismissal of the charges against a defendant." (Sherman 1978: p 129) A scandal is perceived both as a socially constructed phenomenon and as an agent of change that can lead to realignments in the structure of power within oraganizations. New york, for instance, has had more than a half dozen major scandals concerning its police department within a century. It was the Knapp Commission in 1972 that first brought attention to the NYPD when they released the results of over 2 years of investigations of alleged corruption. The findings were that bribery, especially amoung narcotics officers, was extremely high. As a result many officers were prosecuted and many more lost their jobs. A massive re-structuring took place aftewards with strict rules and regulations to make sure that the problem would never happen again. Be that as it may, the problem did arrise once gain... Some of the most recent events to shake New York City and bring attention to the national problem of police corruption was brought up begining in 1992 when five officers were arrested on drug-trafficing charges.
Michael Dowd, the suspected 'ring leader', was the kind of cop who gave new meaning to the word moonlighting. It wasn't just any job that the 10-year veteran of the New York City force was working on the side. Dowd was a drug dealer. From scoring free pizza as a rookie he graduated to pocketing cash seized in drug raids and from there simply to robbing dealers outright, sometimes also relieving them of drugs that he would resell. Soon he had formed ``a crew'' of 15 to 20 officers in his Brooklyn precinct who hit up dealers regularly. Eventually one of them was paying Dowd and another officer $8,000 a week in protection money. Dowd bought four suburban homes and a $35,000 red Corvette. Nobody asked how he managed all that on take-home pay of $400 a week. In May 1992 Dowd, four other officers and one former officer were arrested for drug trafficking by police in Long Island's Suffolk County. When the arrests hit the papers, it was forehead-slapping time among police brass. Not only had some of their cops become robbers, but the crimes had to be uncovered by a suburban police force. Politicians and the media started asking what had happened to the system for rooting out police corruption established 21 years ago at the urging of the Knapp Commission, the investigatory body that heard Officer Frank Serpico and other police describe a citywide network of rogue cops. (New York Times, March 29, 1993: p 8) To find out, at the time, New York City mayor David Dinkins established the Mollen Commission, named for its chairman, Milton Mollen, a former New York judge. Last week, in the same Manhattan hearing room where the Knapp Commission once sat, the new body heard Dowd and other officers add another lurid chapter to the old story of police corruption. And with many American cities wary that drug money will turn their departments bad, police brass around the country were lending an uneasy ear to the tales of officers sharing lines of coke from the dashboard of their squad cars and scuttling down fire escapes with sacks full of cash stolen from dealers' apartments. (New York Times, April 3, 1993: p. 5) The Mollen Commission has not uncovered a citywide system of payoffs among the 30,000-member force. In fact, last week's testimony focused on three precincts, all in heavy crime areas. But the tales, nevertheless, were troubling. Dowd described how virtually the entire precinct patrol force would rendezvous at times at an inlet on Jamaica Bay, where they would drink, shoot off guns in the air and plan their illegal drug raids. (New York Times, Nov. 17, 1993: p. 3) It was "victimless crimes" problem which many view was a prime cause in the growth of police abuse. Reports have shown that the large majority of corrupt acts by police involve payoffs from both the perpetrators and the "victims" of victimless crimes. The knapp commission in the New York found that although corruption among police officers was not restricted to this area, the bulk of it involved payments of money to the police from gamblers and prostitutes. (Knapp Commission Report, 1973: pp 1-3) ``The cops who were engaged in corruption 20 years ago took money to cover up the criminal activity of others,'' says Michael Armstrong, who was chief counsel to the Knapp Commission. `` Now it seems cops have gone into competition with street criminals.'' (Newsweek, Oct 21,1992: p. 18) For cops as for anyone else, money works age for crooked police. Gambling syndicates in the 1950s were protected by a payoff system more elaborate than the Internal Revenue Service. Pervasive corruption may have lessened in recent years, as many experts believe, but individual examples seem to have grown more outrageous. In March authorities in Atlanta broke up a ring of weight-lifting officers who were charged with robbing strip clubs and private homes, and even carrying off 450-lb. safes from retail stores. (Washington Post, Jan 18, 1993: p. 11) The deluge of cash that has flowed from the drug trade has created opportunities for quick dirty money on a scale never seen before. In the 1980s Philadelphia saw more than 30 officers convicted of taking part in a scheme to extort money from dealers. In Los Angeles an FBI probe focusing on the L.A. County sheriff's department has resulted so far in 36 indictments and 19 convictions on charges related to enormous thefts of cash during drug raids -- more than $1 million in one instance. ``The deputies were pursuing the money more aggressively than they were pursuing drugs,'' says Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Bauer. (Washington Post, Jan 18, 1993: p. 11) When cities enlarge their police forces quickly in response to public fears about crime, it can also mean an influx of younger and less well-suited officers. That was a major reason for the enormous corruption scandal that hit Miami in the mid-1980s, when about 10% of the city's police were either jailed, fired or disciplined in connection with a scheme in which officers robbed and sometimes killed cocaine smugglers on the Miami River, then resold the drugs. Many of those involved had been hired when the department had beefed up quickly after the 1980 riots and the Mariel boatlift. ``We didn't get the quality of officers we should have,'' says department spokesman Dave Magnusson. (Carter, 1989: pp. 78-79) When it came time to clean house, says former Miami police chief Perry Anderson, civil service board members often chose to protect corrupt cops if there was no hard evidence to convict them in the courts. ``I tried to fire 25 people with tarnished badges, but it was next to impossible,'' he recalls. (Carter, 1989: pp. 78-79)
The Mollen Commission testimony could also lead to second thoughts on the growth of community policing, the back-to-the-beat philosophy that in recent years has been returning officers to neighborhood patrol in cities around the country, including New York. Getting to know the neighborhood can mean finding more occasions for bribe taking, which is one reason that in many places beat patrolling was scaled back since the 1960s in favor of more isolated squad-car teams. The real test of a department is not so much whether its officers are tempted by money but whether there is an institutional culture that discourages them from succumbing. In Los Angeles the sheriff's department ``brought us the case,'' says FBI special agent Charlie Parsons. ``They worked with us hand in glove throughout the investigation.'' (Washington Post, Jan 18, 1993: p. 11) In the years after it was established, following the Knapp Commission disclosures, the New York City police department's internal affairs division was considered one of the nation's most effective in stalking corruption. But that may not be the case anymore. Police sergeant Joseph Trimboli, a department investigator, told the Mollen Commission that when he tried to root out Dowd and other corrupt cops, his efforts were blocked by higher-ups in the department. At one point, Trimboli claimed, he was called to a meeting of police officials and told he was under suspicion as a drug trafficker. ``They did not want this investigation to exist,'' he said. (New York Times, April 3, 1993: p. 5) It was at this time that New York City police commissioner, at the time, Raymond Kelly announced a series of organizational changes, including a larger staff and better-coordinated field investigations, intended to improve internal affairs. His critics say those changes don't go far enough. Much of that happened after Kelly's reforms had been announced. The Mollen Commission is recommend the establishment of an outside monitoring agency, a move that Kelly and other police brass have expressed some reservations about. ``No group is good at policing itself,'' says Knapp Commission counsel Armstrong. ``It doesn't hurt to have somebody looking over their shoulder.'' An independent body, however, might be less effective at getting co-operation from cops prone to close ranks against outsiders. ``You have to have the confidence of officers and information about what's going on internally,'' says former U.S. Attorney Thomas Puccio, who prosecuted a number of police-corruption cases. (New York Times, April 3, 1993: p. 5) Getting that information was no easier when officers were encouraged to report wrongdoing to authorities within their own department. In many cities that have them, internal affairs divisions are resented within the ranks for getting cops to turn in other cops -- informers are even recruited from police-academy cadets -- and for rarely targeting the brass. ``One of the things that has come out in the hearings is a culture within the department which seems to permit corruption to exist,'' says Walter Mack, a one time federal prosecutor who is now New York's deputy commissioner of internal affairs. ``But when you're talking about cultural change, you're talking about many years. It's not something that occurs overnight.'' (New York Post, June 14, 1993: p. 28) Dowd, who was sentenced prison on guilty please, put it another way. ``Cops don't want to turn in other cops,'' he said. ``Cops don't want to be a rat.'' And even when honest cops are willing to blow the whistle, there may not be anyone willing to listen. (New York Times, Mar. 29, 1993: p. 14) Is there a solution to the police corruption problem? Probably not because since its beginings, many aspects of policing have changed, but one thing that has not is the existence of corruption. Police agenies, in an attempt to elminate corruption have tried everything from increasing salaries, requiring more training and education, and developing polices which are intended to focus directly on factors leading to corruption. What have all these changes done to eliminate or even decrease the corruption problem? Little or nothing. Despite police departments' attempts to control corruption, it still occurs. Regardless of the fact, police corruption cannot simply be over looked. Controling corruption is the only way that we can really limit corruption, because corruption is the by-product of the individual police officer, societal views, and, police environmental factors. Therefore control must come from not only the police department, but also must require the assistance and support of the community members. Controling corruption from the departmental level requires a strong leadership organization, because corruption can take place any where from the patrol officer to the chief. The top administrator must make it clear from the start that he and the other members of the department are against any form of corrupt activity, and that it will not be tollerated in any way, shape, or form. If a police administrator does not act strongly with disciplinary action against any corrupt activity, the message conveyed to other officers within the department will not be that of intimated nature. In addition it may even increase corruption, because officers feel no actions will be taken against them. Another way that police agencies can control its corruption problem starts orginally in the academy. Ethical decisions and behavior should be promoted, because failing to do make officers aware of the consequences of corruption does nothing but encourages it. Finally, many police departments, especially large ones, have an Internal Affairs unit which operates to investigate improper conduct of police departments. These units some times are run within the department or can be a total outside agency to insure that there is not corruption from within the Internal Affairs unit, as was alleged in the 1992 NYPD corruption scandal. Such a unit may be all that is need to prevent many officers from being tempted into falling for corrupt behavior patterns. Although the police agaency should be the main source of controling its own corruption problem, there also requires some support and assistance from the local community. It is important that the public be educated to the negative affects of corruption on their police agency. They should be taught that even 'graitudes' (the most basic and common form of police corruption) is only a catalyst for more and future corruption. The community may even go as far as establishing review boards, and investigative bodies to help keep a careful eye on the agency. If we do not act to try and control it, the costs can be enormous, because it affects not only the individual, his department, the law enforcement community as a whole, but society as well. Police corruption can be controlled; it just takes a little extra effort. And In the long run, that effort will be well worth it to both the agency and the community. (Walker, 1992: p. 89)
The powers given by the state to the police to use force have always caused concern. Although improvements have been made to control corruption, numerous opportunities exist for deviant and corrupt practices. The opportunity to aquire power in excess of that which is legally permitted or to misuse power is always available. The police subculture is a contributing factor to these practices, because officers who often act in a corrupt manner are often over looked, and condoned by other members of the subculture. As mentioned from the very begining of this report the problem of police deviance and corruption will never be completely solved, just as the police will never be able to solve the crime problem in our society. One step in the right direction, however, is the monitoring and control of the police and the appropriate use of police style to enforce laws and to provide service to the public.
--- Works Cited
Beals, Gregory (1993, Oct 21). Why Good Cops Go Bad. Newsweek, p. 18.
Carter, David L. (1986). Deviance & Police. Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co.
Castaneda, Ruben (1993, Jan. 18). Bearing the Badge of Mistrust. The Washington Post, p. 11.
Dantzker, Mark L. (1995, ). Understanding Today's Police. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
James, George (1993, Mar. 29). Confessions of Corruption. The New York Times, p. 8.
James, George (1993, Nov. 17). Officials Say Police Corruption is Hard To Stop. The New York Times, p. 3.
Sherman, Lawrence W (1978). Scandal And Reform. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Simpson, Scott T. (1993, June 14). Mollen Commission Findings. New York Post, p. 28
Walker, J.T. (1992). Briefs of 100 leading cases in the law enforcement. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Company.
Weber, Bruce (1993, April 3). Confessions of Corruption. The New York Times, p. 5.
Worker dies at Long Island Wal-Mart after being trampled in Black Friday stampede
BY JOE GOULD, CLARE TRAPASSO AND RICH SCHAPIRO DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Updated Friday, November 28th 2008, 10:46 PM
A Wal-Mart worker died early Friday after an "out-of-control" mob of frenzied shoppers smashed through the Long Island store's front doors and trampled him, police said.
The Black Friday stampede plunged the Valley Stream outlet into chaos, knocking several employees to the ground and sending others scurrying atop vending machines to avoid the horde.
When the madness ended, 34-year-old Jdimytai Damour was dead and four shoppers, including a woman eight months pregnant, were injured.
CAUGHT ON CAMERA: WAL-MART CROWD MOMENTS BEFORE DEADLY STAMPEDE
"He was bum-rushed by 200 people," said Wal-Mart worker Jimmy Overby, 43.
"They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me.
"They took me down, too ... I didn't know if I was going to live through it. I literally had to fight people off my back," Overby said.
Damour, a temporary maintenance worker from Jamaica, Queens, was gasping for air as shoppers continued to surge into the store after its 5 a.m. opening, witnesses said.
Even officers who arrived to perform CPR on the trampled worker were stepped on by wild-eyed shoppers streaming inside, a cop at the scene said.
"They pushed him down and walked all over him," Damour's sobbing sister, Danielle, 41, said. "How could these people do that?
"He was such a young man with a good heart, full of life. He didn't deserve that."
Damour's sister said doctors told the family he died of a heart attack.
His cousin, Ernst Damour, called the circumstances "completely unacceptable."
"His body was a stepping bag with so much disregard for human life," Ernst Damour, 37, said. "There has to be some accountability."
Roughly 2,000 people gathered outside the Wal-Mart's doors in the predawn darkness.
Chanting "push the doors in," the crowd pressed against the glass as the clock ticked down to the 5 a.m. opening.
Sensing catastrophe, nervous employees formed a human chain inside the entrance to slow down the mass of shoppers.
It didn't work.
The mob barreled in and overwhelmed workers.
"They were jumping over the barricades and breaking down the door," said Pat Alexander, 53, of Crown Heights, Brooklyn. "Everyone was screaming. You just had to keep walking on your toes to keep from falling over."
After the throng toppled Damour, his fellow employees had to fight through the crowd to help him, police said.
Witness Kimberly Cribbs said shoppers acted like "savages."
"When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling, 'I've been on line since Friday morning!'" Cribbs said. "They kept shopping."
When paramedics arrived, Damour's condition was grave.
"They were pumping his chest, trying to bring him back, and there was nothing," said Dennis Smokes, 36, a Wal-Mart worker.
Damour was taken to Franklin Hospital and pronounced dead at 6:03 a.m.
Hank Mullany, president of Wal-Mart's northeast division, said the company took extraordinary safety precautions.
"We expected a large crowd this morning and added additional internal security, additional third-party security, additional store associates and we worked closely with the Nassau County police," he said in a statement.
"We also erected barricades. Despite all of our precautions, this unfortunate event occurred."
The 28-year-old pregnant woman and three other shoppers were taken to area hospitals with minor injuries, police said.
In a news conference after the incident, Nassau County police spokesman Lt. Michael Fleming described the crowd as "out of control" and the scene as "utter chaos." He said Wal-Mart did not have enough security onhand.
Fleming said criminal charges were possible but that it would be difficult to identify individual shoppers in surveillance videos.
Items on sale at the Wal-Mart store included a $798 Samsung 50-inch Plasma HDTV, a Bissel Compact Upright Vacuum for $28 and Men's Wrangler Tough Jeans for $8.
The Long Island store reopened at 1 p.m. and was packed within minutes.
"I look at these people's faces and I keep thinking one of them could have stepped on him," said one employee. "How could you take a man's life to save $20 on a TV?"
rschapiro@nydailynews.com
With Brendan Brosh and James Queally
People are stupid, they truly are. It's kind of hard to have faith in humanity when the majority are made up of people like the ones stampeding into a Wal-Mart trampelling people to death. The greed!
I remember dropping off product to a Salvation Army store in Richmond, BC. All these Asian people were gathered outside the store, propped up against the glass looking like Garfield cats from the inside of the store. Apparently the store was having some kind of sale. My co-worker and I had to go through the front door to wheel in appliances on our dollies. Once the doors opened, all these Chinese people were trying to force their way in. I grabbed a Chinese man by the back of his jacket and yanked him out of my way, as he tried to get into the store (it wasn't even open yet). My partner and I had to fight our way past the mob. At the time, it was among the funniest shit I've ever experienced.
Since, I read Julian Real's deconstruction of the teen vampire flick "Twilight." I decided it was time for a humorous retro review for an older vampire flick, the much forgotten "Tales from the Crypt: Bordello of Blood" starring Dennis Miller!
Bordello of Blood (also known as Tales from the Crypt Presents: Bordello of Blood) is a 1996 comedy/horror film starring Dennis Miller, Erika Eleniak, Angie Everhart, Corey Feldman, and Chris Sarandon. It is based on the television series Tales from the Crypt. Dennis Miller plays a private investigator who ends up in a bordello run by vampires, led by the Mother of all Vampires, Lilith (Everhart).
A man called Vincent and his associates are exploring a forest, until they find a cave containing a coffin with the skeleton of Lilith, the mother of all vampires. Vincent takes a box out of his pocket, which contains the four sections of Lilith's heart. He puts it in her body, and she rapidly begins reanimating. After coming back to life, she rips the hearts out of the associates and goes after Vincent, who produces the key artifact seen in Demon Knight. Lilith promises to Vincent that if she can have the last man in the room to eat, she will behave for him.
The Crypt Keeper is having lunch with the Mummy (William Sadler), who is boring the Crypt Keeper about his life in the film industry. The Mummy challenges the Crypt Keeper to a contest of rock, paper, scissors which the Mummy wins, and he slices off the Keeper's hand with a meat cleaver. The Crypt Keeper laughs (as it didn't hurt him at all) and the Mummy gets ready for the next round. The Crypt Keeper addresses the audience, and the movie continues.
Katherine (Erika Eleniak) lives with her delinquent brother Caleb (Corey Feldman). When he turns up missing, Katherine goes to the police to ask them to look for him, to no avail. Katherine reluctantly hires Rafe Guttman (Dennis Miller), a cynical and sarcastic private investigator whose office is an old adult movie theater, to look for Caleb. Rafe uncovers a brothel in a funeral home being run by vampires, where the money from the clients that visit the brothel is put towards a major Christian organization. The dwarf, meanwhile, destroys the key, so Lilith is now immortal.
Katherine gets kidnapped when they fall for a trap set up by the now-vampiric Caleb. Rafe kills the dwarf and fills some super soakers with holy water, and he and the reverend (looking to redeem himself) enter the brothel, burning all the vampires. They find Lilith, and soon the reverend is killed by a knife in the heart, and Lilith also breaks his hand. Meanwhile, Rafe finds Caleb and uses the super soaker on him. Caleb's body is burned, and he falls to the ground.
Rafe rescues Katherine. Back at the church, while shooting a documentary, Lilith returns, leaving a bloody trail. Rafe cuts her heart back into four parts, as that is the only thing that can destroy her, once the parts are out of her body. Rafe is about to be killed by Lilith when Katherine grabs a trident and stabs Lilith's heart out. Lilith's body burns to bone, and Katherine and Rafe leave.
After locking away the box with the hearts in it, Rafe and Katherine sit in Rafe's car. Rafe begins to fondle Katherine, when he asks "What's that perfume you're wearing?". He pulls back her skirt to find a pair of bite-marks on her thigh, where she was presumably bitten by Lilith. Katherine replies, "It's not perfume. It's sunblock". Then she quickly reveals her fangs as she bites into Rafe's neck. The camera cranes upwards as we hear Rafe screaming.
Another Crypt Keeper clip is shown, then the credits roll.
The vampire prostitutes make the perfect representation of feminism. These women are in charge of their own exploitation, which makes them "empowered," feeding off men for sustenance. It is really the male clients that are exploited, while these empowered women rip off heads, rip out hearts, and bite into them hungrily like the Elizabeth Bathorys that they are. This is very similar to the way modern marriage works, as men get married to these women and slowly become drained of their fortunes, their livelihoods, their children, and their property. Sucked dry by the evil vampire women.
"Bordello of Blood" is required viewing for those interested in discovering the true nature of feminism. ;)
Just when I thought I was done talking about the fruit cake known as Julian Real, a stumble across this latest blog entry. In it he takes a crack at being an amateur film critic, and watches the vampire flick "Twilight" through his radical profeminist lens. And the results are expected and hilariously stupid.
Where the vampire's otherness posed a terrifying threat for the original readers of Dracula, [...] today that same alien quality is often perceived as an attraction. As rebellious outsider, as persecuted minority, as endangered species, and as member of a different "race" that legend portrays as sexually omnicompetent, the vampire makes a fitting hero for late twentieth-century popular fiction. --"The Vampire as Alien in Contemporary Fiction", by Margaret L. Carter, p. 29 of Blood Read.
The white, dark-haired, not-so-badboy is back. His name is Edward Cullen and he's "sexier", and paler, than ever. Edward is keeping his damsel-in-distress, Bella Swan, out of trouble with the enemies of true white love--you know, those with the "longest incisors". Keep in mind the story of The Ugly Duckling--with feathers all stubby and brown--the first three and a half minutes of this YouTube video tells the tale. Only when it becomes a white swan does it become bella, or beautiful. So of course he's desired by and desires a young thin pale white woman--duh! ("Out" gay men and butch lesbians of any color are not likely to make the cut as "the romantic love interest" anytime soon in a major motion picture.) And of course he desires to BE WITH HER ALWAYS (creepy!), never letting him out of his sight, or, well, to be her soulmate. (Too often in real life: same diff.) This is where this story lures us in: is he a bad "irresistable" pale guy who wants to be good, or a good guy whose passions will lead him to be bad? Even without long incisors, we are aware he carries danger somewhere inside himself... perhaps in his molars.
It sometimes gets confusing as to who exactly is evil in racist Western patriarchal cultural mythology. But generally speaking, in cinema, all that is white, including good-whiteguy cowboy hats, represents good. All that is dark or black, including bad whiteguy cowboy hats, as well as anyone with unpale or "black" skin and allegedly "black" eye color, is ominous, dangerous, and just plain evil. The 1960s campy TV vampire soap opera was called "Dark Shadows" not "Sunny Days" for a reason. More on Twilight's racism a bit later.
This story draws on themes that go all the way back to the Old Testament (with that original irresistible white temptress who only makes the weak white man feel badly about himself for giving into temptation). Is this another telling of male supremacy's Adam and Eve'l or Romeo and Juliet? Well, the woman in such myths is a threat to a man's well-being or she's dead; or, in vampire films, perhaps a combination of both.
This is the dilemma our newest pale male vampire faces in Twilight: to love Bella, be with her, as an abnormal human doing his best to assimilate, or to steel himself away from her, for her own good. Edward isn't your common cannibal, after all. He only goes after non-human animals for snacks, unlike the other more overtly predatory heteromale vampires in this film, such as James--a common cannibal who really hates vampires who won't suck the life out of people who are (only) human. (Figuring out what to serve such a lot at a U.S. holiday supper must get so problematic. I don't get the sense anyone would be all that happy with tofurkey.)
In Edward and James we have the eternal inner struggle of the perrenially tormented pale vampire: To bite/penetrate/kill or not to bite/penetrate/kill? For Edward, a diet of pets may suffice. But not so for James, whose specific tastes might be termed Bellatarian. Good vampire vs. bad vampire. Each battling for the love, or blood, of Bella. The subtitle to this film could just as well be "It's Hard Out Here for a Vampire". Poor fellas. Poor Bella--drawn to a man who cannot love her without the risk of her being destroyed. Here is the painful passion found in many abusive relationships: she wants him, but he's not good for her; he wants her, but his love might result in her death. But back to fiction.
Vampire movies are, historically, a Hollywood film genre known for eroticising pale male violence against [traditionally] young thin white women, in that "oh-so-sexy-while-creepy" way. Sure, there was that 1994 ECD oh-so-controversial Brad Pitt-Tom Cruise homoeroticism pervading some scenes in Anne Rice's best-seller brought to the screen, Interview with the Vampire". (And, the blogger noted sarcastically, they really pushed the envelope regarding who is seen as handsome in Hollywood with that film, eh?)
We might note the number of women involved in the maintenance of this genre. I suspect because these stories are, on the surface, more romance and passion than ugly predation and woman-killing. (Male writers and directors still hold the market on the bloodier, "terrify, fuck, and kill the woman" films. But given the racist-sexist pornographication of Western society, it matters not if the story is written by a woman or a man. All these lines between love, romance, danger, and death have been blurring for some time. Terror and horror can be themes in a dominant society that won't own the real horrific and terrible things that it does, like, say, keeping a genocide going on this soil.
In fact, the blending of racism (not just symbolically), heterosexism, the potential and impending death of a woman or women, spiced with turn-on or terror, is something that U.S. films and many top rated TV shows just can't exist without. For Hollywood, leaving the violence out of sexist and racist themes, and the sexism and racism out of violence, would, well, be like depriving a predatory heteromale vampire of fresh female blood. Well, the female blood that comes from the neck area*.
[*There are plenty of tired, misogynist jokes about male vampires being drawn to women who are having their periods. The idea with this humor is that it is "gross" (hence funny) because, you must understand, menstruating women are really gross, so men say. Menstruation = gross = funny. Yes, this does mean dominant male society's emotional maturity level is perpetually in elementary school. Perhaps because of being raised in the company of plenty of girls and women, I've never understood the aversion to menstrual blood. Women friends and I have discussed using it in political work. For me, the more it is in men's faces the better. Why is it "in vogue" to cover women's faces in men's semen? Because it shows who is degrading whom, and that semen is gross, not hot, when it touches female flesh. (In gay male pornography, it's only hot, because it never touches female flesh.)
I can't seem to get through to my gay and heterosexual brothers on this topic. They'll shriek and cringe like, well, the misogynistic mensesphobic grown men they are, when I bring up the subject of menstrual blood. They share stories of personal "horror" such as when a young or older man finds external evidence lying around of a woman having her period, such as when a woman doesn't waste water by not flushing the toilet when there's drops of blood in it as well as urine, or when the disposal of a tampon or pad is shamelessly left atop a bathroom wastebin "insufficiently" cocooned in toilet paper. The key to understanding misogynist men's attitudes about women and blood is this: blood from the uterus--not sexy. Blood from any other area of a woman--sexy. Menstrual blood is not the kind of blood men eroticise in (or on) women because it is a sign of pre-menopausal women's health, and life. Women bleeding is, in the misogynistic imagination, supposed to be fused only to the possibility of female death. Of course this still allows men the pornographic option of being the violent cause of women's internal bleeding, anywhere in her body, including down there.]
But where were we? Ah yes: misogyny and racism.
Pale white is the dominant U.S./U.K. new (oh, and not-so-new, and olden days) "beautiful", according to fables, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and corporate pimps. Surely you remember: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all?" and all that other racist-hetero/sexist children's story horseshit. But the claims of the vampire as another race gets tricky in a film like this one. For there are, [SPOILER ALERT!!] actual people of color depicted in this movie. In typical Hollywood racist fashion, American Indians have "a role" to play in this film, and, unfortunately, it's not solely to remind the pale-faced leeches to go back to Transylvania... or wherever in Europe we came from. Here, they can be werewolves. (Wait: isn't that basically how Hollywood has ALWAYS presented American Indians?) As such, they become "animals" for white-night-crawling vampires to drain. (Sarcasm alert:) Humans as animals: nothing sexist or racist about that!
As for the hidden and not-so-hidden misogynist violence within this genre, one need only note that in the 2008 ECD vampire TV show True Blood, there was reference to a "fang-banging". (The dots are all connected, it's just that we're trained to see only dots, no lines.) Curiously, this time it's the TV show that could "go there" while this movie, rated [SPOILER ALERT!!] PG-13, doesn't quite. Ah, the allure of the long period of longing in heterosexual seduction. The endless wait for consummation, a word which means to bring to fruition, to fuck if newly married, and to terminate. (How quaint of the English language to offer up such a term.)
Twilight, according to reports, handles this topic of consummation in an way that shouldn't upset too many folks who are into the whole white Christian conservative spawned (and miserably failing) phenomena of the "virginity pledge" and the "Purity Ring".
There will be no "sex" (meaning, OF COURSE, genital-to-genital male-with-female intercourse) in this new film! Sparing the audience of predominantly white, middle class adolescent girls and their moms of scenes of consummation means you have a Disney-tame plot line with enough sexual tension to take us through several sequels, or centuries: whichever comes first. It also means that grown men are not so likely to go see this one. (We're virtually all addicted to Internet porn anyway, so "Bye, ladies, have fun at the movies!" This is not to say one need leave home to see fangy-toothed men portrayed graphically.
For example, you may have seen this vampiric theme on CSI:
">
In overtly sexually violent Vogue magazine photos, and in this more "tame" Vogue image in which such thin white young women seem to walk the line, visually, between life and death.
And in the news, men serially murdering women is also nothing new. To modify a famous quote by C. A. MacKinnon: Man kills women; subject verb objects. There has even been a real life vampire serial killer.
Academics, too, have tackled this theme. For an especially good analytic piece on the subject, see this.
I can only wonder about the on-going jokes of the dashing draculesque dude having blue-balls, and not just because he's so damned cold all the time. All I can say is: Edward Cullen, take matters into your own hands. If you don't get to that nubile female human blood in time, what's the worst thing that can happen? Oh, right: you die, for good.
To Edward, James, and any readers of this blog who happen to be vampires, I recommend that you leave white women, men and women of color, and non-human animals alone and go crawl into a coffin.
Male pale-faces, go home to Transylvania!
Hey, Edward--what do you think of that idea?
I thought so.
Get ready for the sequels, folks.
For a whole book on this subject, see Blood Read: The Vampire as Metaphor in Contemporary Society, edited by Joan Gordon and Veronica Hollinger.
If interested in more plot details, see here.
For discussion and analysis of the racism in the book (which spills over into the film), click here.
For a wonderfully transgressive fictional spin on the same ole plot, see Jewelle Gomez's The Gilda Stories. A review of her book is here.
(Revised on Nov. 25)
I posted a comment on this blog, I don't expect any sort of response, nor do I expect it to be shown. Julian has control over what comments can or cannot be shown on his page. The ones he keeps, though, are usually copied and pasted and used in his rants.
I feel disgusted right now. Not because Julian Real is a fucking idiot (and he is). But because after all that, he turned out to be a pretty weak opponent. Here is a guy who would go out of his way to smear those whose ideologies conflicted with his, only to be a quitter. Now has half-baked movie reviews, in the guise of social commentary? Bullshit!
The comment I submitted went something like this.
"Twilight," an allegory of the bloodsucking nature of White Hetero Men? You truly are a fucking idiot. Does ANYONE besides you take you seriously?
MadShangi not only brings cutting edge social commentary to his blogs. MadShangi also dabbles with the realm of stupid. That's John Collins on guitar and bass, also programmed the drugs for this little experiment. The song actually had three parts that gradually got intentionally worse and worse. I blame our alcohlism. I'm probably going to regret this one leak.
The music video for MADSHANGI - I Am In Your Inbox.
How have we never heard the term "internerds" before? In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Tina Fey uses our new favorite new word to describe the hordes of opinionated internet commenters who have become an extremely vocal minority in the last few years. Brilliant, Ms. Fey! We're totally stealing that... starting now: the trailer for J.J. Abrams' reimagining of Star Trek, which premiered in front of Quantum of Solace this weekend and is now available online (in HD!), has made the internerds very, very unhappy. To put it another way, hell hath no fury like a Trekkie scorned!
A quick scan of Ain't It Cool News reveals that the natives are not only restless, but also kinda pissed. Things like "terrible trailer," "it doesn't inspire much confidence," and the ubiquitous "raped my childhood" are written with passionate fervor and the caps lock firmly engaged. Even a Trekkie that actually liked the trailer had to write that he/she wouldn't consider the upcoming film "canon".
While we happily consider ourselves part of the nerd community, we never succumbed to the Star Trek phenomenon. We always felt like Star Trek was Dungeons and Dragons but pushed into the final frontier--the whole "dressing up like your favorite character" thing is a case of nerddom run amuck. Plus, James T. Kirk was never as cool as Han Solo, even if he did come first. Yet, that being said, we think the trailer looks pretty badass. Mr. Abrams has molded his vision of Star Trek into part origin story, part Star Wars and part Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer summer action blockbuster. There are car chases, explosions, and though we could do without the Phantom Menace-style space dogfight, the presence of Simon Pegg almost makes up for it. How could we not want to see this?
And that's where the disconnect lies. Mr. Abrams has made a movie for nerds like us, not nerds who still debate the merits of Star Trek: The Next Generation against Star Trek: Enterprise. But for Star Trek to be a success, he needs everyone to come out and buy a ticket, not just guys dressed like Klingons.
So if you're a Trekkie (or, if you prefer, Trekker), perhaps stardate May 8th, 2009 isn't something you're looking forward to. For the rest of us, we'll set our phasers to stun and give Mr. Abrams a chance to show us if he's the next Steven Spielberg... or Michael Bay.
JJ Abrams looms large on the pop culture landscape right now. Whether you love everything he’s done or not, he’s carved out a nice piece of the pie for himself, and part of that pie right now is getting to play with the biggest train sets that Paramount has. When they offered to bring him to the movie division, they did so knowing full well what they wanted from him: franchises and events. And if something can be both at once, even better.
And there are people that sneer at the sort of thing that Abrams does right now, but I’ve been pretty vocal about this for a while... I’m fascinated. There are things he’s been associated with that I’ve hated (REGARDING HENRY, for example), that I’ve been indifferent to (FELICITY), things I’ve loved (ALIAS, LOST). I think he obviously gets what kind of heavy lifting it takes to create a successful franchise event. And again... that sounds so calculated and clinical, but it’s not. It doesn’t have to be. You can decide you want to do a certain kind of big canvas movie, and you can do it with real passion and ambition. Even when I’ve disagreed passionately with the creative direction JJ Abrams took an existing property (his SUPERMAN draft), I’ve done so because I’m engaged by the way he makes choices. He’s not fucking around when he takes a property and rebuilds it. He’s going to make radical decisions, and they might work, or they might backfire, but they’re going to be bold choices. I think M:I:III was a warm-up. I enjoyed it, but it wasn’t really reinventing the wheel. He just made a solid M:I film, which is what he needed to do, basically.
I think he’s aiming higher with STAR TREK. And I think he’s making some of those big bold choices, and doing things that you wouldn’t think he’s doing. And I think there’s a chance STAR TREK fans are going to commit mass seppuku when they hear some of what he’s up to. Which is exactly what you’d expect when you’re making big choices.
The first question is...
No, actually; the only question is: why STAR TREK?
I’m hoping I get a chance to ask JJ exactly that. I wonder if it’s the opportunity for the exploration movies down the road. If this first one goes well, he’ll be able to make STAR TREK movies for the next ten or twelve years, easy. With his track record in TV, I’m sure Paramount would let him take it back to the small screen when the film franchise goes cold again. He could be doing this for the rest of his life in one way or another.
Or maybe it’s just a one-off. He’ll make a few of these and then hand it off to someone else. I don’t know. I don’t know how much he wants to do or how little.
Certainly, STAR TREK is about as stark a set of archetypes as you could ask for when doing a remake. It all depends on hiring the right young Kirk, young Spock, and young McCoy.
Those are your big three. You need that dynamic to be perfect so everything else falls into place. Most of the big drama happens in the friction between those three personalities. So obviously the first film is going to find a way to put those three people together. Right?
Sort of. Possibly.
Okay, first thing that surprised me: I think Leonard Nimoy is sort of the star of the movie. I think a lot of this movie is about Spock. Nimoy-aged Spock, mind you.
How?
Okay... you know the scene in BACK TO THE FUTURE 2? Where Doc Brown explains alternate timelines? Well, this is sort of... ummm... TREK TO THE FUTURE, I guess you would call it...
Picture an incident that throws a group of Romulans back in time. Picture that group of Romulans figuring out where they are in the timeline, then deciding to take advantage of the accident to kill someone’s father, to erase them from the timeline before they exist, thereby changing all of the TREK universe as a result. Who would you erase? Whose erasure would leave the biggest hole in the TREK universe is the question you should be asking.
Who else, of course, but James T. Kirk?
If Spock were in a position to change that incident back, and then in a position to guard that timeline and make sure things happen the way they’re supposed to, it creates...
... well, what does it create? Because evidently the plan is to use this second timeline as a way of rebooting without erasing or ignoring canon. These new voyages of the ENTERPRISE, they’re taking place in whatever timeline starts with this story. Maybe this timeline features dramatic differences. Like... say... if Vulcan were to be blown up. If the Vulcans in the series were suddenly the last of their kind, alone in the universe, it would change who they are and maybe even redefine their strict rejection of emotion in favor of logic.
You can introduce these Universe2 versions of classic TREK events and characters, and you can play with the audience’s expectation. Things have changed. Some things play out the way you expect… some don’t. It’s basically the same solution Marvel Comics has in terms of publishing, the way they use their ULTIMATES line to reboot continuity.
As a friend said when I was talking to him about this tonight, “Wait... so you’re saying they’re not just doing a square one reboot that would simplify everything, but that they’re actually making it... more complicated?”
It would appear so. Not that I think TREK fans mind complicated. It’s certainly not the safest choice if this is, in fact, the direction he goes with the film.
I’m not telling you that anything I said above is 100% set in stone. I don’t think Abrams is far enough along for that to be the case yet. But they are considering some really crazy reinventions, on par with some of the choices Abrams was making on SUPERMAN.
Who was the original captain of the ENTERPRISE?
I know the answer to that question in the canon STAR TREK universe right now... but will it be the same in the Abrams TREK universe?
Can you fundamentally alter one or more of the characters in that main trio, and still expect the same chemistry when you put the three characters together?
That’s the real question Abrams is going to have to face when he reveals his TREK next Christmas. I think you’d have to be crazy to bet against him, and I’m intrigued by some of these decisions, but I’m also willing to bet that even details as vague as the ones I’ve reported here today will cause a fair bit of debate. Abrams certainly doesn’t take low-profile gigs, and I guess that’s one of the reasons he’s gotten so good at trying to engage the audience early or in unconventional media ways. I’ll be curious to see how he gets the public ready for his version of TREK. What the images are we see first. How he sets the visual tone for the world. I hope it’s very classic TREK. I hope that’s something they embrace. The greatest visual representation of that ‘60s version of the universe, all Roddenberry optimistic with big giant philosophical ambition. Pop that aims a little higher. The Abrams sweet spot.
Yep, it's true. I'm a very sexy man. That's why some people choose to be fixated on me, and follow me wherever I go. Aw, well. That's the life of an internet superstar like MadShangi.
I found this message in my JUNK MAIL folder. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Friend, (TRANSFER OF US$14,000,000) Please do not be surprise the way i got your contact. It is obvious that this proposal will come to you as a surprise. This is because we have not meet before but i am inspired to send you this email by the huge fund transfer opportunity that will be of mutual benefit to both of us.
First Let me start by introducing myself properly to you. I am AMOUSSOU ANDRE ,Credit officer TRUST FINACIAL COMPANY here in cotonou.I believe that you will not betrayed me at last with the trust i intend putting on you now.
THE PROPOSITION
A foreigner, a Libyian,Late Engr. MAHMUD ALI IBRAHIM (snr)An iron steel company chairman with the Federal Government here in Benin until his death some years ago in a plain crash and he Deposited with us some amount of money worth US$14,000,000(Fourteen million United States Dollars),the company now expects a next of kin as beneficiary of this money and Valuable efforts are being made by TRUST FINACIAL COMPANY to get in touch with any of the MAHMUD ALI'S family or relatives but to no avail.
It is because of the perceived possibility of not being able to locate any of Late Engr MAHMUD ALI IBRAHIM (snr)'s next of kin (he had no wife or children that is known to us).The management under the influence of our chairman and members of the board of directors, have made arrangements for the fund to be declared "Unclaimed» and subsequently be used to import ammunitions into our country.
However, In order to avert this negative development, some of my trusted colleagues and I, now seek your permission to have you stand as next of kin to late Engr MAHMUD ALI IBRAHIM (snr) so that the fund US$14,000,000 will be released and transferred into your account as the beneficiary.
All documents and proofs to enable you get this fund has been carefully worked out. We have secured from the probate an order of mandamus to locate any of the deceased beneficiaries, and more so, we are assuring you that this business is 100% risk free evolvement. Your share remains while the rest will be for myself and my colleagues for investment purposes anywhere according to agreement between we and your good self. So as soon as we receive an acknowledgement of the receipt of this our mutual business proposal from you, we would furnish you with the necessary disbursement ratio to suite both parties.
If this proposal is acceptable by you, do not hesitate to contact me through my private e-mail: amoussouandre09@live.comLooking forward to your urgent response.
Best regards, Amoussou Andre. _____________________________________________________________________________________ HA! HA! What the fuck?!?!
Julian Real, you're a punk Faking down Fake Street, fake in the funk You're a bitch, whiny man-child little snitch MadShangi says “Fuck what you pitch!” You're a bitch, and you're just like a pony giving kid's rides, 'cause you sad and lonely You think you own me, but I own you Grow some balls, bitch – 'cause I own two Your life is through, 'cause you try to hang me But, you punk: you can't fuck with MadShangi I can say what I wanna say, 'cause it's my blog And if you don't like it, you can go fuck the dog Cause I know you do anyway If the dog shits, eat it, 'cause fuck what you say You publish my name, so I'm a publish yours 'Cause punks like you are just like cold sores Pussy, it's time to smarten up, you little wussy MadShangi says: “Fuck this Little Tootsie!” I may be no Vanilla Ice, but I don't give fuck MadShangi just showed up 'cause you suck Call the cops, coward 'cause you're overpowered Get devoured! 'Cause your milk has soured I've broken no laws, and my records are clean Julian Real is just venting his spleen Sit down, take it like a man, Peter Pan, Neverland 'cause you've just been shit-canned So you was touched when you were little It's not like I'm unsympathetic... But that's no excuse for you to be this pathetic Stop. Now. And seek some help, get your head checked 'Cause the shit you write is mind-wrecked Bullshit – motherfucker, pull shit – let's expose it Gangster-fronting feminized boy, that fronts to pose it I know what your last name is, but I'm the one that's Real So deal! And like a pig you will squeal for your meal That's your appeal, Julian Real
To John Dias, cybro, Kapt Krunch, Fidelbogen, MadShangi, Frostyboy, Anti Misandry, and all the other Father's Rights/Men's Rights/Antifeminist Activists out there:
It has been brought to my attention by a colleague that all the arguments you put forth have already been answered sufficiently (see below). Therefore, I decided it would be an utter waste of cyberspace to further engage you on those subjects here.
Since you don't seem to know it, I'll inform you that you are a group of very privileged human beings who are utterly clueless about the living conditions and lack of privileges most people in the world--who aren't you--live with, endure, and often don't survive.
When you are, from your points of view, unfairly treated, or falsely accused--sometimes by one woman in your past--this "affront" generates in far too many of you the most self-righteous, scathing, and scornful written assaults on women, especially feminists, with a particularly foolish level of deranged irrationality focused on radical feminists.
These sorts of ego-bruises--assuming the occasional personal injustice done to some of you--to which you are apparently not at all accustomed, is but one indication of the enormous amount of privilege you carry day to day. (Most women I know are treated unfairly every day of their lives.
You give humanity a bad name. So much for the myth of white men being western civilisation's standard of sanity, honesty, and integrity.
Let the record show that, to date, my questions to antimisandrists have never been answered. I gave John Dias his requested two days to reply here, and he did not choose to do so.
I apologise to the anti-misogynist visitors here for giving those men as much attention as I have.
I'll close this post with the following quotes, correspondence, and this important link (a website from which all of what follows was found). What is blockquoted below, in addition to the other information found at the link just above, thoroughly exposes many of the distortions and lies Fathers' Rights and Men's Rights Groups are organised to promote and promulgate.
Robert Okun, a specialist in men's issues and domestic violence, pointed out that many of today’s dads, whether married, never-married or divorced, are doing their best to stay actively involved in their children’s lives. But of men in the organized father’s rights movement, who typically represent themselves as the innocent victims of gender discrimination and manipulative ex-wives, Okun writes: "Some may very well be getting a raw deal. If so, it is essential that divorce lawyers, psychotherapists, family service court officers, mediators, guardians ad litem and judges educate themselves about those circumstances and take steps to intervene when a man has been erroneously targeted as part of a strategy in a contentious custody complaint. However, in a dangerously high number of cases, many of these fathers have a documented history of abuse."
[C]oncerned citizens who've taken the time to investigate the activities of father's rights groups in greater depth -- notably Trish Wilson, a freelance writer who considers exposing the shady underside of the father's custody movement her part-time job. Ms. Wilson first became curious about the movement when she stumbled into a father's rights message board on AOL ten years ago. When she questioned the accuracy of child support statistics posted on the board, Ms. Wilson reports she was "attacked by the regulars there. The woman who had posted the original out-of-context quotes told me that I believed all women should have custody of their children because they had uteruses, which is nonsense. There were similar, ugly flames thrown at me by others. I was taken aback at how nasty they were." Since then, Ms. Wilson has conducted extensive research reviews and produced a series of articles disputing the studies and data father's rights advocates use to justify their intention to overhaul child custody and support laws.
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 06:12:26 -0500 (CDT) From: enclosed@mo.net To: liz Subject: Re: SMH
Liz,
One evening I was sitting at dinner with a man who stated "Women don't understand abstract justice." I said, "What do you mean by that?"
He said, "They can only see the world through relationships, and that is all that matters to them."
Thanks for proving his point.
Look for this man's book coming out this year, "The Case for Father Custody." [5]
Liz, a man is very interested in raising his progeny, not somebody elses.
"Organisms have evolved to expend their very lives enhancing the fitness prospects of their descendants. Parental investment is a precious resource, and selection must favor those parental psyches that do not squander it on nonrelatives." --Daly and Wilson, 1988.
Nick
LIZ'S RESPONSE:
I see you've run out of arguments and now have descended into thinly veiled insults, i.e. telling me (a lawyer), that (being a woman) I do not understand "justice," as well as resorting to sloganism, and the "authoritative fallacy," i.e. quoting others, who are to be given extra credence because their words have been published.
You go on to say: "A man is very interested in raising his progeny not somebody elses."
I have a question back. It's "why?" Why do you think so? Are you sure it's RAISING that progeny and not merely passing on genes?
My response to you is this: catering to an adult's ego is just not a priority consideration. It has nothing whatever to do with the interests of a child. If you believe a parental DNA connection is a motivating thing, well that speaks volumes.
We're talking "possession" here, as in property, as in "mine." And "molding" here as in "indoctrination into my beliefs." Not caregiving. Not a child perspective. But self-adoration and replication. If the biological connection alone was so motivating, how is it we have the numbers of nonmarital unions and bad marriages we have? what about adoptive parents? what about sperm donors? I'll agree with you that some men think this way. I just don't buy it as some naturally arising drive, and even as a result of social indoctrination, I don't buy it as a given.
But let's accept your theory for the sake of argument. If a biological father's ostensible natural interest is in raising his own progeny, that interest nevertheless still is unlikely to compare favorably with the gestating mother's interest. She's got the very same biological connection, PLUS the biological relationship in fact with the child! And how is the father's interest later on demonstrated? Who is more likely to be the primary caregiver?
"The Case For Father Custody?" Nonsense. By your own measure, natural mothers' parenting generally would come out on top on both counts: your "abstract justice" theory, as well as my real life relationship preservation.
In one breath you've pretended (that male superiority thing?) that "women don't understand abstract justice," and then implicitly called upon nature, quoting talk about about organism evolution. Evolutionarily, the male reproductive drive in species the world over is merely to pass on the genes, not to raise the children. Most organisms also have evolved such that mothers raise their young.
And what about your "abstract justice?" Life is not lived in the abstract, and some men's egos are just not the sum total of what counts.
This is really what the FR movement is about, isn't it. Children and women as men's possessions. The ideology of property rights. Patriarchy. It has nothing whatever to do with the well-being of children.
By the way. Clarence Darrow, a famous man lawyer well known for his righting of wrongs, had this to say about "abstract justice": there is no such thing, in or out of court.
liz
I just got a call from my mother a few minutes ago. She had just been reading my blog, and decided to give me a call late at night. I was glad, I was worried it would have been someone I didn't want to talk to: like a bill collector, Tele-Marketer, or my employers.
"I just want to say 'kudos' to you for holding your own against that Julian Real guy," she said, "I'm so proud of you. He surfs around policing other people's opinions and threatening to call the cops. He's insane! I was writing you an e-mail and said 'fuck it," I'll just give you a call. Oh, and I noticed on one of your videos that your tower was maiking like a... siren sound... and I think I know how to fix it..."
Thanks, mom. And I just got your e-mail. I'll check it out. ;)
Oh, and for those of you liked my posted gangsta rap lyrics. You'll love this.
Julian Real, you're a punk Faking down Fake Street, fake in the funk You're a bitch, whiny man-child little snitch MadShangi says “Fuck what you pitch!” You're a bitch, and you're just like a pony giving kid's rides, 'cause you sad and lonely You think you own me, but I own you Grow some balls, bitch – 'cause I own two Your life is through, 'cause you try to hang me But, you punk: you can't fuck with MadShangi I can say what I wanna say, 'cause it's my blog And if you don't like it, you can go fuck the dog Cause I know you do anyway If the dog shits, eat it, 'cause fuck what you say You publish my name, so I'm a publish yours 'Cause punks like you are just like cold sores Pussy, it's time to smarten up, you little wussy MadShangi says: “Fuck this Little Tootsie!” I may be no Vanilla Ice, but I don't give fuck MadShangi just showed up 'cause you suck Call the cops, coward 'cause you're overpowered Get devoured! 'Cause your milk has soured I've broken no laws, and my records are clean Julian Real is just venting his spleen Sit down, take it like a man, Peter Pan, Neverland 'cause you've just been shit-canned So you was touched when you were little It's not like I'm unsympathetic... But that's no excuse for you to be this pathetic Stop. Now. And seek some help, get your head checked 'Cause the shit you write is mind-wrecked Bullshit – motherfucker, pull shit – let's expose it Gangster-fronting feminized boy, that fronts to pose it I know what your last name is, but I'm the one that's Real So deal! And like a pig you will squeal for your meal That's your appeal, Julian Real
Ha! Ha! That was cathartic for me. It really was. Julian, you're a fucking quitter. You really are. Oh, and by the way... who reads your shit anyway but us? So I say goodbye to you too, and poo-poo, for you get no kiss for you boo-boo. Sucker!
"Let the record show that, to date, my questions to antimisandrists have never been answered. I gave John Dias his requested two days to reply here, and he did not choose to do so." - Julian Real
MARX - Antimisandry.com Forum Admin
I couldn't be blessed to read beyond that point, because he is undeniably lying through his teeth. John's repsonse is pasted to this thread and Julian seems to be unwilling to allow John's post (at Julian's blog) to be approved or has been deleted in order to serve as 'evidence' of his (Julian's) claim (that John did not reply).
Let's assume worst case scenario here though, and give Julian benefit of the doubt: We know, by Julian's own admission, that he misrepresented his claim to have presented questions to antimisandry.com members. Instead, he had posted questions elsewhere. They were then pasted in Kim's blog, which is mirrored here.
Now Julian presents this as him "asking antimisandry.com members a questions and they did not answer my questions".
See the difference folks?
Regardless though, Julian knew that his questions were contained in here - and he considers their very presense reason enough to justify a claim against antimisandry.com.
Fine.
So, even *if* John had not answered at Julian's blog - his answer still exists here, on antimisandry.com
If Julian can anticipate that we should 'just know' he expected us to answer his question, being as they existed here - surely the same logic works for John's response...
Or is it different this time around, because it doesn't suit the obvious agenda?
Here's JD's answers to Julian, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Dias
Since he dedicated a post specifically to letting me give our side of the story, I posted the following comment on his blog today.
2. Washington Times columnist Larry Thornberry writes a column on July 20, 2008, which is favorable to Parker's pro-male book.
3. Cybro, owner of the Rex Patriarch MRA-oriented blog, quotes liberally from the Washington Times article, using the quotes to illustrate how radical feminism has unjustly demonized innocent boys and men for the actions of a few.
4. Julianreal (you) comments on Cybro's blog posting on July 24, 2008, and is subsequently and summarily dismissed by Cybro as a feminist ideologue and likely women's studies graduate.
5. Kim, a pro-male female blogger who is also a member at AntiMisandry.com, creates a thread that quotes from and lambastes Julianreal's comment on the Rex Patriarch blog post.
6. Julianreal creates a post on his blog entitled, "Antimisandry.com: An Introduction," dated November 12, 2008. The post seems to be critical of the MRA-oriented site AntiMisandry.com. However, Julianreal cites no examples of objectionable content on AntiMisandry.com, and instead links to
Athough the title of Julianreal's article is "Antimisandry.com: An introduction," not one example is provided of writing on the site. The only links provided to the site pertain to the average age and full listing of the site's membership. What is critiqued is the general outlook of the site: AntiMisandry.com opposes misandry (the teaching of contempt for males in popular culture). The theme of Julianreal's post concedes that it's possible that wrong can be done to men, and that when it happens it's wrong.
7. I, John Dias, respond with a comment on that same day (November 12, 2008), inviting Julianreal to ask me any questions.
8. On November 19, Julianreal creates this post, offers me the opportunity to comment on the question that he believes he posed back in July to the community at AntiMisandry.com.
So here I am. As you can see by the above chronology, your post was not made on AntiMisandry.com, but rather on the blog of Rex Patriarch. You made a comment in response to a blog posting that was in response to a book review that was in response to a book. None of this had anything remotely to do with AntiMisandry.com. So let's be clear on that: you were not ignored, nor mistreated.
So these questions that you would now have me answer were not even directed to our site. Nevertheless, since you've given me the opportunity to represent AntiMisandry.com and our outlook, I'm happy to do so.
Your comment referred to an article on the IndianCountry.com Web site, entitled, "Sexual violence against indigenous women discussed at United Nations," published May 18, 2007. The link to the article that you originally cited no longer works, but I dug up the article via Archive.org.
Before I begin responding to your questions, I would like to comment on the above article which you used as their basis:
I would say that the greater issue is that the well-being of any community depends on the preservation of the intact 2-parent family, preferably in a close-knit community of families, in which the natural abilities of women to nurture the members of the family are complemented by the abilities of men to nurture that family's survival. Here's a YouTube video that illustrates this perspective eloquently:
I believe that a community of families as described above is nurturing and healthy, because it is made safe and secure (by the men) and its members are nurtured (by the women). It is governments which disrupt this delicate and natural balance, but not just governments. Cultural decay can do it too. The intact 2-parent family can mitigate the impact of anti-family influences, but a 1-parent mother-only family cannot do it alone, at least not as effectively.
Again, I point you to the video below, which extols the value of ensuring the safety of women, but emphasizes that men will be most motivated to do this when women in turn nurture the men and the family. The security provided to women by men means that such men are putting their lives on the line for those who they love. Hatred of men, and sidelining male influence in the family and culture, only breaks down the family, hence leaving women more vulnerable:
Oh, please. Like her culture has absolutely no concept of women being raped. Who is responsible for the raping, then, if indigenous peoples simply have no concept of it? Why of course, the Western white males! Never mind that Ghenkis Khan, a member of a Mongol tribe (indigenous, I'd say), is famous for lopping of the heads of his vanquished and stacking them in huge piles. He must not have gotten the memo on the inherent peacefulness of indigenous people who hadn't yet been subdued by the Western hordes.
Now, on to your questions.
I suppose that you expect me to tell you that we need a halt to Western industrial colonialism, or some such left-wing ideology. I will simply say that we need a restoration of intact 2-parent families, and from that will come both personal security as well as an increase in personal modesty. The family is the answer, and hyper-industrialization along with hyper-consumerism does tend to turn our culture in a somewhat narcissistic direction, in my view. That's why innocent people (not just indigenous peoples) are hurting -- from violence, yes, but also from loneliness, isolation, and poor substitutes for group-belonging (gangs, etc.).
In schools, women comprise the vast majority of teachers. Normal behavior by boys is misinterpreted by these women as disruptive, and as a result, boys are falling behind in academic achievement. Colleges now have a major gender gap between female and male graduates, which I believe is partly due to the female-dominated education that boys have been subjected to throughout elementary and primary school.
The point of your question seems to be that female domination is not possible if females are not actually making the decisions, and occupying the positions of political and financial power. You probably won't agree with this, but elected leaders place a lot of value on not offending the female electorate. The business world also recognizes the spending power of women and caters to win their business. So you can see that women are more than capable of exerting their influence via proxy.
Whether it is stereotypical or not, it is a business, and to the extent that the participants are engaged voluntarily, on what basis would you limit it? Sure it's degrading, but it's degrading to humanity. If women are portrayed in pornography as sexual objects, certainly the men in such videos are unfairly "representing" men too.
What demonstrates a cultural sickness is not the existence of pornography, but rather the demand for it. If men and women were able to unite outside the influence of a hyper-sexualized culture, their sexual needs would be met. Pornography exists because men, who are expected to initiate romantic relations, are mocked for their failed attempts at romance (at one extreme) or are vilified as potential rapists (on the other extreme). So, facing such suppression and demonization of male sexuality, such men turn to artificial means of getting their rocks off. In the process, they run the risk of associating women in general with the women they see portrayed in pornographic material.
Here's a suggestion: let's stop painting manhood and masculinity as irrelevant at best, and threatening at worst. Let's celebrate men and manhood for a change, rather than making men out to be abject fools. If manhood is just a continuum of "affable doofus" on one extreme and "competent menace" on the other extreme, our boys won't have much positive to look forward to. Porn is a symptom of the problem of misandry. In summary, misogyny is the effect of porn, but misandry causes the demand.
The family courts, family court mediators, family court psych evaluators, child protective services, divorce attorneys, trial lawyers... And those are just dealing with the legal sphere. Then there are the media mavens and their sponsors, with their misandric portrayals of men. Where do we see realistic and plausible men portrayed as heroes, providers, protectors, competent, and yes, sexual (in a positive way)? This is rare. It's the result of decision makers in powerful positions (political, judicial, cultural, financial, and commercial), all reducing human beings -- BOTH men and women -- into caricatures and commodities.
Despite the fact that men compose 38 percent of all domestic violence injuries, there are no shelters devoted to men. Despite the fact that a significant body of research reveals that men suffer from domestic violence at similar rates to women, little attention is devoted to this fact (you'd think acknowledgment of male-victimization would be higher, since more men than women are elected officials). And of course, we have men being 98 percent of war dead, plus a requirement that only men must register for the draft (women are exempt, although Obama has indicated a willingness to change this). Men comprise over 90 percent of work-related injuries. But we have no "Office of Men's Health." Do you see how men's pain is being ignored, or merely acknowledged as a part of being a man? I have a son, and I'll be damned before I have to tell him that he's in for domestic violence, work-related injury, and eventually being a war casualty all because that's just what it means for a boy to become a man. Forget that!
Anti-misandrists are trying to highlight the negative effects of the above phenomenon on men. That's not to say that we intend to ignore female suffering. But someone has to be a voice for the pain that men feel, and the cultural isolation that we experience. We are that voice.
No, I don't know that many female victims of such crimes. I guess those atrocities must not be so widespread as you suggested, since I haven't encountered as many victims as you have. Perhaps your ideology has helped you to seek them out, or perhaps they seek you out. Or perhaps, you don't really know the whole story. Or maybe, in particular cases, there never was an atrocity.
I would surmise that you woke up one morning and decided to hug the entire oppressed world, and noticing the world's ambivalence, you can't figure out why they are not joining with you in the worldwide hug- and cry-fest. You conclude that they're reinforcing the oppression.
You have fallen victim to an ideology.
Oh, I do! I very much do! I referred earlier to men in power placing high emphasis on pleasing the female electorate and female consumers, giving women influence-by-proxy. But let's take a much less conceptual example. See what kind of reaction you get if you talk in mixed company about a man who has been beaten by his wife. What kind of reaction will you get from your male listeners? The answer is that a significant portion of them will scoff, calling such a man either a wimp, or a tyrant who somehow deserved it.
Male pain is not a politically correct subject. We must always go back to the continuum of men as either affable-yet-impotent, or potent-yet-menacing. Nowhere can male pain simply be acknowledged.
Here's another short video. It's only 5 minutes, but I encourage you to watch it. Please reply with YOUR reaction to it:
It seems that you are concluding that women don't hate men, and that if they are hostile, it's a reaction to the male-imposed victimization that they have endured. Again with the ideology.
I'm not sure what you mean by "social experiences." At first I thought you wanted me to cite personal experiences, but you want the "large scale." I believe that I have provided some examples above. Especially the "Men's Issues" video.
I can give you a glimpse into what catalyzed me personally to get involved in the men's movement. I have a Web site of my own, apart from AntiMisandry.com, and on that site I tell my story. Take a look at where I'm coming from. Also, if you're interested, here are some other men's stories. We are unhappy, some of us angry, about the way men have been treated in our culture and under our laws. Have the courage to acknowledge our perspective, and don't think that doing so is to invalidate women's pain.
"Aren't white men the Nazis?" Are you serious? Don't ask a question like this -- especially in a rhetorical way (thinking that the obvious answer is to agree with your ideology) -- and expect me to proffer a dignifying response.
Next question.
More about the "feminazi" word. I don't use that word, but I know some who do, and their use of the term refers to those feminists who are ideologically hostile to men as a biological group.
Then there was the year-long mind-washing program that I was required to take after accepting a plea bargain for my Ex's false allegation.
But that's not all. Last year, I learned that my Ex (who shares child custody with me) was dealing drugs out of her home, and letting the drug dealer live with her and spank my son. I learned that her plan was not to report on him, but rather kidnap our son and move off to another state, on the pretext that it was all a "vacation." I brought this to the attention of Child Protective Services (CPS), the police department, the Sheriff department, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, all of whom refused to take a report (except CPS, who said that if they did take a report, they would remove my son not just from his mom's home, but also from mine). Finally I took the case to a judge in an ex-parte hearing. He told my son's mother to stay away from drugs and to keep our son in town. But that was it. He referred the case to family court, and washed his hands of it. A couple days later, my Ex falsely accused me of threatening her, and sought a restraining order. I hired an attorney for thousands of dollars, then weeks later, on the day of the hearing for the restraining order, my Ex didn't even show up. The female judge dismissed the case, shaking her head. I had spent thousands of dollars in my defense, and all of this (the false allegation) was simply a way for my Ex to deflect attention from the drug dealing that she had been involved in. All that drama was for nothing, and I was out thousands of dollars in attorney fees for it. I was trying to protect our son, and I paid dearly for it.
These types of incidents are very common in divorce and child custody proceedings. Where the court steps in, the delicate bonds that exist between fathers and kids are disturbed, and often completely cut off. Mothers are connected to their kids through child birth. But fathers are connected to their kids only by their emotional commitment; they could have impregnated the mother and then vanished. But sticking around is a noble decision, and even when fathers want to remain involved with their kids after a divorce, the family court treats the father's involvement as superfluous. "Just pay that child support check," the court tells fathers, "and you can have dinner with your kids a couple times a month. Oh, and don't complain about it either." When sole child custody is contested, over 90 percent of the time the family court awards it to the mother. This is devastating to both fathers and children, in my view. And the motivation for judges to make such rulings is misandry, which we identify and combat, at AntiMisandry.com and other places.
Well, I hope this answers your question. I ran down the links you provided, read through not only that article on IndianCountry.com, but also read through various other articles on the site that the article linked to, IndigenousWomensForum.org. This included declarations they submitted to the United Nations, such as this one, this one, and this one. I read them all, to get a good understanding of where you're coming from. Now I challenge you to do the same.
Take a look at all the links and videos that I have referenced in this reply (especially the videos on Men's Issues and Patriarchy. Do some research on my position, as I did on yours. Look into what we opponents of misandry believe. You don't necessarily have to agree with it, but I challenge you to look.
ChristianJ - Australian Men's News
Quote:
"The Case For Father Custody?" Nonsense. By your own measure, natural mothers' parenting generally would come out on top on both counts: your "abstract justice" theory, as well as my real life relationship preservation.
Amongst that other drivel from ranting hysterical LIZ, we have another sexist lie..
Women do not do a better job at raising children as studies have already clearly demonstrated but they are just assumed they can..
Use google you sexist dimwit and get you're facts straight. Not the standard twisted hysterical femispeak response..
KIM - Antimisandry.com Forum Member
CD posted about this earlier on this thread,
Antimisandry.com: An Introduction
I noticed the same thing Marx did and, according to CD who had scanned through Julian's blog, there's no sign of John Dias's post there. So, either, through some error or glitch, John's post never made it on to the blog or (more likely) it was deleted and Mr. Real is now claiming that John never responded.
John Dias - DontMakeHerMad.com
Oh, I posted alright -- within 1 day of the comment that he allowed me to make on there. He's lying about how I never responded. He just didn't want to look like an idiot after he excoriated AntiMisandry.com, then had to admit that it wasn't AntiMisandry.com that dismissed him after all, then had to face the mockery once again when I made my post (duplicated here).
