The Insane Truth About Pornography

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn's chief of staff Michael Schwartz recently made a statement that was profound to him, and I assume, anyone else who's IQ is less than 85: "All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards." The fact that he wasn't driven out of town for saying that shows that the state of Oklahoma really doesn't deserve to have things like books. It's not like they use them for anything, except leveling out their kitchen tables.

Then, he followed that statement up with, “Now, think about that,” because to his non-fully formed brain, that was a mind blowing statement. He continued with, “And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants! You know, that’s a good comment, it’s a good point, and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”

Now, I don't know what 11 year old boys he knows, but when I was that age, my mission in life was getting my hands on a Playboy magazine. This inconvenient erection I kept getting needed to be put to use and since I didn't know any easy girls yet.

In fairness, though, before he said any of this, he said, "But it is my observation that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it.” So I assume what he was getting at is, telling boys that porn is actually gay will make them want to stop looking at it.

Again, I don't know what 11 year old boys he knows, because when I was coming up, the threat of going blind and hairy palms couldn't keep boys from rubbing one out, and that was permanent physical disfigurement. I'm sure an 11 year old boy will take the risk when it comes to a shot at seeing a naked chick. Think about today's adolescents. Scaring them with "the gay" didn't work when we were trying to get their to pull their damn pants up.

Not only that, kids today (in fact, kids of all generations, ever) aren't as stupid as Michael Schwartz, despite the things that they watch on television.

Seriously, where's the logic in that? Think about it for a second. "Reading Playboy makes you gay." Just saying that with a straight face means that I don't have to respect you as a upright walking human being, because that's really, really, stupid. If you believe things like that, I feel as though I'm well within my rights to disrespect your intelligence. That combination of words doesn't even make sense, even if I'm joking. It's like being a Holocaust denier: While it's a talent to be able to make something that crazy make sense, it still doesn't add to your credibility.

I've known a lot of guys who look at porn, and none of them are gay. On the flip side, I've known a lot of gay guys, and the only porn they ever look at involves swordfights. If there was anything true about anything he said, wouldn't everyone I know be gay? And what does that say about my friends who have made their own porn? I guess they've gotten into bestiality by now, because the confusion of watching themselves have sex must make their brains shut off when their dicks get hard.

And the fact that Schwartz thinks that this was a keen observation says a lot about where he is in his mental development. I'm willing to bet that a good third of his brain doesn't get enough oxygen. Still, feel free to try to teach that to America's kids, Schwartz. It IS a good message to teach our young people, because even children need to laugh.

$500,000? I can't buy a space yacht with this!

I really think the Republicans are just looking for things to be pissy about, kind of like when your girlfriend is in the mood to argue and chooses that moment to have a problem with the fact that you'd rather slit your own throat than to go the antique roadshow with her and her mother.

This week, they'd decided to be upset about President Obama's decision to put a cap on executive salaries, because those measures are only meant for professional athletes or government employees, not people that have actual responsibilities. They claim that it's a socialist measure, but conveniently leaving out the fact that they're getting their salaries from taxpayer funds. I figure since I had a less invasive background check getting into the IRS than single mothers have to suffer just to get food stamps, I'm not really concerned about the Republicans' opinion on this one. These are the same people who supported wiretapping the citizenry all willy-nilly, but won't subject our "social betters" to easier regulations than we give to welfare recipients.

Republican Senator James Inhofe asked, "Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?" And the answer to that question is yes, because just like the homeless guy who smoked up the five dollars you gave him for food, the financial sector is completely untrustworthy and irresponsible. After all, these are the minds that invented the adjustable rate mortgage and told everyone that it was a smart idea to get one, knowing full well that Americans aren't really known for their long attention span.

So it's not exactly the smartest move to give these people free reign to do whatever they want with this money. The previous president tried that and now, no one knows what they did with a single dime of it and in an unrelated story, 100% of American bank executives now own private jets made out of money. Thanks for justifying our faith in you, banks.

Besides, what makes these executives and their Republican friends think that they deserve their full salary after this? Did the captain of the Titanic get a bonus after he hit the iceberg? Republicans like to paint America as a meritocracy, but when it comes to actually applying that to people above a certain tax bracket, suddenly, they forgot what they just said.

It's like Bill O'Reilly getting on TV and saying that because they're not on public assistance, Sarah Palin's daughter's pregancy was none of America's business and none of us should be critical, but when that one lady had eight more babies on top of her six that she already had, suddenly he's got the right to say she's not a good mother, despite the fact that she also isn't on public assistance. Suddenly, Palin's situation is different, even though the only difference is Palin was a prominent Republican. Oh, and 13 extra kids.

So just because they're rich, powerful, and influential, they're above the watchful eye of the government (who doesn't actually have to give them anything)? Do you continue to give money to your cousin that has a gambling problem? These people are telling you that they just need a little money to break even, to keep their doors open and pay their employees, but we both know that the second our backs are turned, they're gonna be back at the track, betting on the greyhound that has the same name as the hooker that stole their wallet last week. Does that sound like a person you should trust with billions of taxpayer dollars?

It doesn't work that way. You can't take a handout, then spend it however you want to. If I lend you money to keep your lights on and you spend it on a clothes, you deserve a fresh shot in the teeth. Personally, I'm glad Obama's doing this. The country is tired of rewarding incompetence as well as the people who defend that system. And really, if you don't think a person can live off of $500,000 a year, I don't think you're the one who should be dictating anything about "fiscal conservatism."

Seriously. It's called "Barack, the Magic Negro."

I'm going to write a song called "McCain the Salty Cracker," followed with it's remix, "Sarah, the White Trailer Trash." It's not meant to offend, because it's just political satire.

For those who don't know, Chip Saltsman, a candidate for Chairman of the Republican National Convention, distributed a CD recently to his fellow RNC members that contained parodies of popular songs that mock "liberals," because this is what Republicans do when they're not hurting America. Apparently, the song that's causing all the controversy, "Barack, the Magic Negro," first aired on the Rush Limbaugh Show in March 2007, almost two years ago. There isn't a statute of limitations on when I can get mad about this, because in my defense, Black people don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

According to Dictionary.com, the definition of "satire" is: "a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule." That basically means that you're supposed to provide a hilarious send-up of one's flaws or mistakes.

Now, someone tell me, what does calling a Black man "The Magic Negro" have to do with politics or satire? I'm willing to bet both my balls that they only reason why they called it "Magic Negro" is because they couldn't defend it at all if they called it "Magic Nigger." Are they trying to tell me that being Black is "folly" or "a vice?" Do they believe that something is wrong with being Black? Really, it's probably just semantics, but if they're going to claim that it's satire, it's at least good to know what the word means.

Some white people might not see what the big deal is about all this and of course you don't, because it's not about YOU. If I decided to write a song called "Jon Stewart, The Covetous Jew," would the picture become a little clearer? Maybe if I did one called "Ted Kennedy, The Drunken Mick Bastard?" Thank goodness I didn't do "Hu Jintao, the Slanty-Eyed Laundryman," or else we'd be going to war with China soon.

In fairness, I haven't heard to song at all, because I can't get past the part where they say "Barack the Magic Negro." The title of the song is all I need to hear, because it says everything about what they think about us. To ALL Black Republicans, put down your shine boxes and listen: To them, you are still second-class citizens.

But I'm not trying to rally Black Republicans to release their grip on the slavemaster's nuts; I really just want to help the Republicans understand what satire is. We went through this during the election numerous times and they still don't seem to get it. Calling President Bush a "mouth-breathing, helmet-wearing moron" is satire. Calling President Bush "white, peckerwood trash" is not satire.

This song is in the "white peckerwood trash" category. So are all my other made-up song titles.

If title was "Barack, the Slow-Talking, Flip-Flopper," there would have been no problem. All the jokes that Republicans made about Barack being "The Savior," and the cracks about him parting seas and walking on water were fair game. The second race is brought into it, it becomes a problem because we, as a nation, can't even publicly discuss our racial problems without it becoming a fight, so don't ever believe that we're on such good terms racially that you can poke fun at being Black.

Race is always where the line is drawn, not just for us, but for everybody. Do you call your Mexican friends "bean-and-tamale-eating border hoppers?" Of course not, because that's Carlos Mencia's job.

We both have a long way to go, because Black people are quick to make fun of white people. The difference is, the political realm is national news. For a long time, the only people seeing the "white jokes" were Black people, only comedians were telling them, and unless they're caught by police giving rides to transvestites, comedians don't make the national news. Not only that, there wasn't a comedian alive claiming that it was just "political satire." We all knew what is was. And there were white comedians doing the same thing, so that doesn't even count. The second that one of my songs starts making the rounds to the Black Congressional Caucus, both sides of the political spectrum are going to start playing the victim. Will I be able to claim "political satire" card then?

Dave Chappelle, who made a living doing racially charged humor, said that it's all about "the subtleties," and there's nothing subtle about this song. It's the difference between Jimmy Kimmel doing Karl Malone or Frank Caliendo doing Charles Barkley versus, say...performing in blackface. One is clever, one is offensive. Being clever is making fun of the fact that neither one of these men can speak properly. Being offensive is writing a song called "Barack the Magic Negro."

What's funny is actual satirist Andy Borowitz's parody of the official apology from the RNC denouncing the song: The RNC offered "an official apology to America's negroes." They said that the song was "tone-deaf, unacceptable, and offensive to every negro in the country," Following with, "We do not want one ill-considered song parody to create the wrong impression. The Republican Party has always been, and will always be, the friend of the negro."

Suddenly, a light bulb went off in someone's head and the RNC realized where it went wrong in making their apology. They quickly issued an apology for the apology that stated, "It has come to our attention that we misused a word in our first apology. We should have capitalized 'Negro.'"

Now that's comedy. VOTE GOP!!!