Our politics are dumb, but everyone already knew that. And I am stuck on a “pox on every damnedable house that is about”. More the Republicans than the Democrats? Maybe. More the Democrats than the two Democrats that every Democrat hates right about now? Possibly.

When you have a bill that is best described as a “Whole Pile of Things Act”, you cannot single out a popular item with “cross partisan support” to bludgeon an opponent or compromiser when it topples over. Joe Manchin killed Paid Family Leave, as the bill gets scaled back to meet his budgetary threshold, and his and Sinema’s revenue (taxing) restrictions — you say — and this a measure that has the support of basically everyone to the left of Ayn Rand? Great! Whip up the bill and pass it then.

I myself am a fan of paid family leave. Less so another popular measure tacked into the “Whole Pile of Things Act” — the make or break bill for President Joe Biden — universal pre-school. Maybe I ought love it — expanding formal schooling a couple of grades. Maybe I need to put myself into the three, four year olds’ shoes and admire the facts of the ground — damned if the paste don’t taste good and there’s plenty of playdo available to munch on! — But all this vets drowned out in my memories of the early educational experience — the teachers always had the worst taste in kiddie literature and movies. But now they insist that we expand the mixed horror of it all a couple years.

Nonetheless, despite these differences I have to come to President Biden’s defense — and sticking at this fox news headline — Biden briefly ‘stumbles’ during speech at McAuliffe rally, critics seize. The stumble? “In fact, we’re taking a page from Terry’s book when he was governor and when he’d be governor next time,” Biden said. “We’re emerging from this pandemic…we want to expand pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds — millions of [inaudible] students.”. The Republican National Committee posted a 15-second clip of the video and wrote, “Huh?”. It strikes me as completely coherent in this transcript form. Am I missing something here? I guess I have to understood — it is kind of an auto script working — excerpt any and all long pauses and claim incoherence where there is none.

Dipping into the gubernatorial race in Virginia — and some offshoots of Virginia politics into the national scene of Republican Senators yelling at Attorney General Merrick Garland — it becomes immediately apparent a lot of hogwash gets floated from a single statement from Terry MacAuliffe. Narrowly speaking, the parent is complaining that an Advanced Placement Senior English class is reading a Toni Morrison book. It is difficult not to slip into a bit of derision at this parent. So goes the current MacAuliffe campaign — Obama in tow… Biden cause he is obliged to throw him in somehow or the optics would be off-kilter, but we will be a little more quiet on that one… Of dumping free copies with an anti- Youngkin bookmark marking him (fallaciously, but these things get thrown about a lot ) as a “book banner”.

Still, it would indeed be political malpractice for Youngkin not to campaign against that quotation. And broader issues are brought to bear that are not as simply defined as “one good, the other bad” — even as… One stands next to chuckling yahoos. I guess the good news is I can skip away from the line on Ted Cruz — where we have headlines that “(Gasp!) Cruz defines Nazi Salutes thrown at council meetings!” and move to Ben Sasse, who I have already established I think is a decent enough Republican Senator — and bark that… actually, the issue here is in making the Nazi saluting “you’re a fascist!” yelling Hotheads a federal case, with the new side issue in the knowingly false suggestion that these particular cases are Nazis being defended by Cruz and Sasse…

… The Cultural Wars proceed apace…

Yes, I suppose the thing marks bigger issues beyond the specific case. It is the tricky matter that… The role of a parent in their child’s curriculum is necessarily going to be about notta if they are (for instance) arguing that the science curriculum needs to be covering Creationism. You have more subjectivity in the Arts and Literature department, but damned if you are not coming across as a philistine fool in complaining about about upper level smart kids tackling real literature with real issues in them… complexity becomes R-rated. But feel free to storm about and find what graphic novels with more explicit than you would like gay sex referenced in ’em are available for one and all in school libraries.

All right, seeing what everyone has a tizzy over these days. Hm. Revenge fantasy...lobbed up in a Twix commercial… Yeah, an anti evil lying message framed in the guise of a proxy school shooting from the Pagan outcast. Seems to be what Twix is selling there. Odd.

And… Hm…

I am left a tad puzzled by how this one is fed at us. The article seems to be describing some hypocrisy — Where Netflix changed their algorithm on a film that could perceivably be viewed in a noxious way by pedophiles so it would not be seen by peoples looking for “steamy” material. Good for them, unless I am reading the article wrong. Yet… This is brought to bear against the current Dave Chapelle controversy, which… I do not know what the argument is or is supposed to be. Understand, whatever algorithm I have here threw me a bunch of clips from his special the other day. About what you would expect from him on Jussie Smollett’s hoax and Caitlyn Jenner being named a “Woman if the Year”. So I gather the issue had is by people who want to bury it, plain and simply… But… the implication for how the problematic but defendable “Cuties” was marketed on the fly (away from people looking for titillation) against that for this straight ahead all on his sleeve bloviating show from Chapelle is supposed to be… What?

Following a marketing dictum of meeting the customer / audience where they are — in virtual space one where at the start of the oughts you realize that a message board is pointless, and maybe you fumble about with a blog before not finding any monetizing technique and throwing it away so in the mid-oughts you move to a MySpace page before moving to Facebook before going to a batch of platforms — probably still facebook, but Twitter and YouTube are more useful —

Well, maybe the time will come when everyone needs a pornhub account.

A Taiwanese math expert who goes by Changhsu has found the ideal venue for teaching audiences calculus, and that venue is, of course, Pornhub. To date, the teacher has uploaded 226 videos, none of which feature anything more erotic than the smashing together of numbers. […]

Though his online presence was already solid, Changhsu started his Pornhub channel last year since, in his words, “very few people teach math on adult video platforms.”

I guess that may change sometime soon… or late.

Going to his site, I see a wide discrepancy on “thumbs up” percentages for his videos. I hasten to guess the differences between those getting 30 percentages and those getting ninety percentages.

Now that I was at pornhub scanning math tutorials, I typed “portland” into the search function — and was tossed back to … That time a top less woman walked by, and I was left speculating there was a hidden camera. For pretty good reason as — yep! There she is, with a bunch of videos posted at pornhub — probably elsewhere too. Clicking about a couple of this exhibitionist salesjob, I half think I recognize someone walking by — but he resembles any number of people so this is only a “half think”. I imagine if you look through enough of this — I guess it is not actually porn — you may find me, or someone you know — never given permission — at pornhub.

A little weird that I accurately the set-up.

All Kinds of amusing. The ideology of forged opposition — against all ramifications of a, quote -inquire “Deep State”, gets the Trump Conspiratorial minded frontline rearguard fighters in legal strategy trouble. The dilemma may be, though, that it hardly matters. You fight on a higher plane than your public defenders’ quest to spring you from jail — that higher plane that will notice judicial chicanery — Enter the the Gold Fringe flag defense or declarations of sovereign citizens.

At best there may be someone there as smart as Ammon Bundy in understanding nuances of sympathies in dealing with a jury. Though, precisely how you maneuver from his “Sadesbrush Rebellion” trope to their keeping divisive partisan control, I can not say. In the days of their Mahueur stand-off, I read them or some spokesperson from them interviewed arguing a cross -ideological “everyone mad” motif at central power. Makes some sense in a world where these right wing activists are not tied to one political party of power (move on to a surreal and grating to some observers post verdict shared lunch with some blm activists) — but here, a jury pool runs right up against the reality that the self defender is just trying to keep his guy in power.

But a self defense and guilty verdict makes for good self-matrydom… Even as they search the courtroom to see if it happens to be waving the gold fringe.

More amusement follows when you cram them together to… Explore the dilemmas of the gold fringes.

There are headlines in which I have to decide if I care to dip into the details, and where the details will provide some nuance on what I think of this headline, which not knowing gives the advantage of leaving the story in the abstract so I can stick to considering the abstract values — or splitting the differences in parallel stories. Or, if I knew there is a strong possibility there just isn’t a story.

So, I do not know what is up with The Rolling Stones dropping “Brown Sugar” from their playlist. As a matter of course I approve. As a matter of course I would approve if they left it in their concerts. By now we all know that The Rolling Stones have amassed a large collection of songs to draw from, and the disappearance of any one can hardly be thought of as maybe even noticeable. Go ahead — you can listen to “Brown Sugar” right this instant if need be — I and no one else is stopping you! But therein lay the problem, and splintered realities. How did this come to light? If it were a press release, delivered I would go ahead and blast Mic Jagger and company (this “Blues Cover Band”, and there Paul McCartney is just amusing himself in good natured ribbing of a rival band he never really had truck with in the first place) as engaging in “virtue signaling”. And maybe there are worse things in the world, bigger faults, then deciphering an audience and playing to it — probably badly as I can not imagine Generation Zoomers rolling into a Rolling Stones concert checking off a list of objectionable materials in song lyrics, or of the famous ” woke mob” detouring from a Dave Chapelle protest to concern themselves with a Legacy Rock Act playing their old time music.

. The matter might get a little more wearisome if this were an answer to an interview, and there I would have to look and see what it is the aging rock star says — and to what question… And if the questions were the focus point for any interviewing. Like, if the media outlet called up the PR flacks for a “we want to interview your opinion on ‘cancel culture’ and shifting cultural awareness”, and Jagger said “yes, my thoughts are that is exactly what is needed!” — I guess I would a little less of Jagger.

And why do I not look into this? If I knew the matter would be settled, and it will likely show up as not in any way interesting.

On a cliche as far back as 1988 (though, in his shirtlessness “Grandpa Randy” more resembles Iggy Pop than the usually shirted Rolling Stones.) Archie generally lagging — so this motif could probably be set by the late 1970s. (Worth noting, the latest edition of ‘Betty and Veronica Jumbo Digest’ includes a reprint from 1960 where Betty “introduces” the term “frenemy”, apparently a use which prompted an Internet comics site q and a column A year back — Cold War terminology in the 1950s put it in print, or an upper class snob constellation of Socialites bandied about in the 1940s so, I guess, it could peter down to the lower class pieces at the end of century — sure, but that does not answer the question — was it midwifed here in 1960 by the hands of Frank Doyle? Nay. I do gather there is probably a direct correlation between this online column and Archie Comics reprinting it, claim partial ownership of interest.)

I scratch my head round about here-parts — Oh, this tweet from Progressive Messaging Inc blasting the media for the public’s understanding of that which is “Build Back Better” —

GOP: BBB is costly! media: BBB is costly! Dems: it’s filled w/ popular stuff! media: it’s costly!

I see in the conservative sphere the contention from this premise, apparently barked out by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi — that the media is falling down on the job in-game as the Republican outlets see her words as them not promoting it right as opposed to the partisan belief belief that it isn’t getting explained right –. And surely we have seen in the past that claim when Republican causes come to the same “public would be for it if they just had our framing in place and the media is not telling the truth that our framing is right!” gist —

Well, it would be easier for the premise of “Popular thing! Popular Thing! Popular Thing!” as opposed to “Bunch of Stuff” if the bill were not basically identifiable as the “Bunch of Stuff Act of 2021.”

Off of this we have a “Presidency in Peril”. Supposedly. And maybe we do — maybe the expectations fight for the partisans backing him can not be won. The problem comes in an opposition laying ugly undemocratic grounds, and maybe this is just a sales job, or maybe this is setting up a disastrous self-fulfilling storyline:

“I tell Democrats: Donald Trump is desperate for a win here,” McAuliffe said. “If Glenn Youngkin wins, it’s a win for Donald Trump, and you’re going to begin his political comeback.”

I saw basically the same premise told by a Democratic aligned pollster or pundit, and would prefer to quote him. The problem is there is plenty to dislike from McAuliffe, and the vote will always be viewed as a referendum on anything and everything. Everything comes to equate to nothing. Currently he is getting dubbed by Education policy, with the problem that that his partisans view themselves as so in the right as to have no brokering room to semi skeptics in semi opposition. The policy difference will become “Trumpist” in the eyes…

… On a gubernatorial seat that until Obama’s second term, the seat flipped always to the party not in the White House — dating back to Carter…

Sure… Superman… Gay… Or, I guess, Superman’s kid I guess, and Superman’s kid is apparently a new Superman —

Or… Just kill him already.

What is the state of comic books anyways? Jumping into familiar comments land —

What is true is that no one is buying print any more, period, and that’s especially true of comic books. DC is still ahead of Marvel, but in a very small market. DC seems to have a major reboot/marketing event every year or so now- who can keep up? I never heard of Jon Kent until today. The real money for comic book characters is in the movies, and there DC is way behind Marvel. (And no one’s gone to see any movies in almost two years anyway.)

The history of comics sales is pretty much decline from 1954 on. Illusory spikes bringing with it new high points to reach back at, even as the highs points are lost points in prior eras. Comic books are rounding eras in Disney and Time Warner’s profit margins — necessary only for movie and tv rights. Inasmuch as anything is selling, we are back at curious retro history —

Whether this financial gambit pays off remains to be seen – Marvel’s earlier Marvel NOW initiative seemed to be a mixed bag in terms of sales[3] – especially given that the biggest demographic buying comics are middle-aged men[4] who may be resistant to such themes. On the other hand, the speculator market has returned with a vengeance, so milestone issues featuring these newer characters may generate demand based on future collectability expectations[5].

Say what you must on that number 5. The dilemma is that a gay son of a superhero who is a superhero, apparently the new identity of the old one — or at least on one dimensional plane — holds no “collectable” value. A dime a dozen. We already have a bunch of other gay new old superheroes who either are or are not their original versions.

Sure to take over the most valuable slot from Action number one.

Previously I saw Dreher get his panties in a bunch over something in Teen Vogue — I think it was a pro anal sex article full of products to buy for teen anal sex usage — and, I had a question, bring this out of cobwebbed draft storage…

Just what is Teen Vogue? I did flip through the issue Hillary Clinton edited, and saw that… Frankly, she did a horrible job of it. But pestering culture detritus…

Into the comments section on hysterical all in drehrer article.

NOBODY is arguing over bringing kids to kink shows. One woman said she was ok with it and she was universally pounded for it. If anything the push on the left is for a bright and hard line at 18, with the only anxiety being how to navigate sex between teenagers inside that framework.

2) Everyone keeps eliding what the word “child” means when it’s convenient and uses “young adult” when it’s not. You’ve done it here: NOBODY thinks “hard core porn” is part of a “normal childhood”. They assume that before the age of 18 kids will come across it and yeah, it needs to be discussed more. It was never discussed in my household growing up and that was a problem.

Teen Vogue isn’t telling children how to have anal sex. They’re providing reviews to late teens and adults (because Teen Vogue’s readership is adult: their marketing and readership statistics list 18+ as 97% of their readers) for products of which there are a massive range available. I’m not expecting to convince everyone that it’s just fine, but it’s not pedaling anything to kids.

The fact that Teen Vogue‘s readership is 97% adult is more disturbing than the reviews of sex paraphernalia.

18 and 19 year olds are both teenagers and adults.

Teen Vogue reinvented themselves as a Social Justice Warrior outlet around 2016 or so.

It was a deliberate publishing choice, I think. When they went fully online they shifted to much more political coverage and it changed their readership substantially. And increased it more than 700%.

“Teen Vogue isn’t telling children how to have anal sex.” They are selling a magazine labelled for teens. Typically, they are targeting anyone older than 11. I don’t buy their excuse that in actuality, their readership is over 18. Even if it is, their articles are totally disgusting. If they don’t want to be seen as appealing to teens, they should change the name to “Adult Vogue”

How did you determine Teen Vogue is of the “cultural Left”? Seriously, what makes it a magazine of the Left? I suspect its readership doesn’t break down into neat little ideological categories like Left and Right.

If you can’t look at the fact of ubiquitous hardcore porn considered a normal part of American childhood, and if you can’t look at the fact that mainstream magazines like Teen Vogue advise young readers on the best lubricants to use for being rogered up the rear, and if you can’t observe that progressives are actually arguing now over whether it is appropriate for little children to see sadomasochist queers at Pride events — if you can’t look at all that and see the Second Coming of Hel

was amused a few weeks back to read in an online women’s forum similar complaints about how too many men take their sexual cues from porn. This, needless to say, is the same forum where porn is routinely defended, and performers’ decision to go into porn is said to be every bit as legitimate as any other profession.

So it’s legitimate, even moral, to be a pornstar, and of course everyone should be able to watch porn because banning it would be the work of prudes. But the takeaway must be what the libertines insist. No one should see porn as “real,” all must recognize it as make believe, it mustn’t influence real-world behavior!

A minor observation: At this point, I’m really skeptical about Teen Vogue. I am not convinced it is what it purports to be. I suspect it mainly functions as a clickbait site to draw in ad money. I don’t think anybody actually reads it — certainly not any teens.

Their constant use of outrage-inducing headlines and articles is just weird, and I can’t think of any real human beings who could possibly constitute a genuine audience for this stuff — at least, none who would read Teen Vogue. It would be one thing if it were just an occasional article or two, but the whole site is like this. I think their business model is something like, “come up with insane articles and headlines to get links and attention from right wingers, then collect ad money based on clicks.”

It’s just really strange how everything they do seems designed to confirm the worldview of right-wing doom-and-gloomers. No real lefties I know — and I know some good and woke ones — are actually like this. The mirror image would be something like a professional-looking Fox News or Breitbart style site where “right wingers” go on unironically at length about how they love racism, hate gays, love Nazis, think science is Satanic, etc. Something that *appears* to be pitched at right-wingers while coincidentally confirming every single awful stereotype lefties have about the right.

I am the father of a teenage girl, and know many of her friends, also teenage girls; and as a teacher, I interact with teenage girls every day; and I will second you that while I’ve heard all kinds of things, none of them given any evidence of knowing what Teen Vogue even is.

Isn’t Cosmopolitan basically the same? When I was a teen in the late 90’s, my female peers used to read Cosmopolitan for the articles about sex (of which there were many, IIRC) and relationships. It was the same kind of stuff, though perhaps just a tad less explicit than this Teen Vogue example (not by much). They didn’t subscribe, they just bought it off the news stand and then kept it hidden in their room (or openly, depending on their parents). It was sort of the teen girl version of what the guys were doing with Playboy (though of course we couldn’t just buy those ourselves, we had to be more creative). It was especially a thing at 13 to 15, before most people were actually doing the things described therein but were nonetheless awfully curious about them.