The Revenge of Dana Loesch: The Final Nail in Breitbart's Coffin

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee: How Irony Escaped Aaron Walker

But for one post, I've stayed away from the strange and stupid saga of Aaron Walker (aka Worthing) because not only was it a dumb battle without any "good guys" in it, it also got powerfully tedious. Any self-respecting person can only listen to so many people engage in so much self-pity and retarded bravado before you throw up your hands and hope that everyone involved gets stomach cancer. I reached that point about 15 minutes after the whole dumb spectacle went viral.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted to support Walker, but I developed a powerful allergy to anyone who wants to take their blog pissing matches to the courts years ago. I don't care if they're on the left or the right. It's a giant waste of time and resources that can be better spent on other, more pressing matters.

For those of you who blessedly missed the story, here's a brief recap.

Once upon a time there was an adjudicated bomber who ran a couple of non-profit political groups* named Brett Kimberlin. A guy named Seth Allen wrote a bunch of posts that nobody read regarding Kimberlin's activities, so Kimberlin sued him for libel.

Mr. Walker, a self-described Virginia lawyer, acting under an alias and despite not being a member of the Maryland bar, started offering Allen legal advice. Walker maintains that he wasn't Allen's lawyer, although the former's e-mails to the latter reference "privilege" at least once, and maybe more often.

Anyhow, Kimberlin grew mighty interested in who this "Aaron Worthing" was. When he learned Walker's identity, he also connected it to the Everybody Draw Muhammad blog (which has since been scrubbed and made private.) That blog is key here, as you will see shortly.

On Everybody Draw Muhammad, Walker repeatedly asserted that certain segments of the Muslim population are violent psychopaths, which even most Muslims would agree with. Walker went further than that. From what he thought was the safety of an assumed name, he invited that violence to visit him personally and implored others to do the same under their real names. Of course, he didn't bother telling his readers and contributors that he was using a pseudonym because, to hear him tell it, he's more afraid of wife than he is of violently psychotic Muslims.

When Kimberlin found out who Walker was, Walker went to his employers and explained everything, including Everybody Draw Muhammad. Unsurprisingly, Professional Healthcare Resources, Inc. took a dim view of Worthing's online activities and shitcanned him, although they officially told him that he was being booted for (literally) sloppy lawyering.

But it would take almost a year for anyone to find that out. In the interim, Walker launched a legal and public relations jihad, insisting that Kimberlin cost him his job, although no evidence of that exists. In their e-mail terminating his employment (and, unfortunately, that of his wife) PHRI doesn't mention Kimberlin contacting them. They do, however, go on at some length about the security issues created by Everybody Draw Muhammad and his invitation to violence therein.

Walker's suits against Kimberlin (and Neal Rauhauser, Ron Byneart and at least one John Doe) have been thrown out by two courts of competent jurisdiction in the last five weeks.

The (almost certainly illegal or unethical) discovery leak that revealed the true reasons behind Aaron Walker's dismissal should have been enough for any honest conservative to withdraw their support from him. He was deliberately misleading in his public presentation of the facts and he continues to raise money from same. You can assume whatever you will about the motives of those who continue to stand behind him.

But it is that clear from the very first days of Everybody Draw Muhammad that he has a history of actively lying to his readers and not admitting it until he has no other choice. If you want to be a willing dupe for that, feel free. If you want to finance it, you're probably better off without the money, anyways.

Even before his lawsuits were dismissed as political nonsense and vindictive bullshit from someone that could only be charitably be described as a half-wit with honesty issues, Walker had the temerity to accuse PHRI's attorney of lying about his dismissal, which I'm sure will come back to haunt him, both civilly and before the Virginia Bar. If any one thing in the last year has made Aaron Walker unemployable in the legal profession, it's that. Lawyers blatantly calling other lawyers liars in public simply isn't done. That tweet was the final nail in his professional coffin.

All things being equal, I wouldn't care all that much if it ended there. Blowhards destroy themselves on the Internet with some regularity, and the people who ally themselves with Breitbart.com tend to do it more regularly than most. This is a story where everyone involved is someone that I wouldn't be proud to know.  It's one of those rare stories, like Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, where everyone's a Bad Guy.

I would have been thrilled to forget that I ever wasted seven months of my time following such a stupid story. Really, I would have.

But then Walker had to post this just as quickly as he could.

That's right. A guy who just wasted a year of everybody's time, energy and money fighting for his right not to be fired for his online activities ..... is calling for someone to be fired for his online activities.

Firstly, Walker proves that he's either an idiot or a dishonest hack by saying of Professor Loomis' "head on a stick" comment;

By the way, we are told that this bit about “head on a stick” could not possibly be an actionable threat, because it is a metaphor. Right, because you can never threaten a person in figurative language. If a Mafioso says “pay your protection money or you will sleep with the fishes,” these legal geniuses assure us, that is not a threat.

Which is my sarcastic way of pointing out that you can indeed threaten a person with a metaphor.

No, the when the Mafia said "Tonight, you sleep with the fishes," they meant exactly that. It's also where the phrase "concrete shoes" comes from. They would actually encase your feet in concrete and dump you in the water, thereby ensuring that you slept with the fishes. If you know anything at all about Mafia history or pop culture, which Walker apparently doesn't, you know it isn't a metaphor.

So far as I know, no one in western civilization has had their head  put on their stick as political statement since the nineteenth century. While it's a common figure of speech, it decidedly doesn't happen very often in modern America.

Of course, I'm being charitable in assuming that Aaron doesn't know that. I could just as easily say that he's a dishonest hack.

The real and clear reason, by the way, that this is not an actionable threat is because it was not plainly communicated to Mr. LaPierre nor was it plainly directed at being communicated to him. What this is, then, at worst, is ruminating about murdering a person, which can be rightfully a concern for law enforcement but it is not a threat.

(Ken at Popehat is also correct to say that it is not a threat if it is not meant seriously, but how does he know that he isn’t serious? I am sure he doesn’t literally want to put LaPierre’s head on a stick, but I don’t and I won’t speculate about whether Loomis actually wants to kill him.)

Wow. It does seem unreasonable to me to think that Walker's first remedy to questionable speech is to refer it the police, if not the speaker's employers, rather than the speaker himself. That kind of puts his silly fucking lawsuit in a new light, doesn't it?

And it gets better. Oh, it gets so much better.

Since Loomis said these things, there are some people who have argued that he should be fired from his university job and there are good people such as Ken in the piece I have cited, Adler over at Volokh, and eight professors posting collectively at Crooked Timber.

Now certainly if Loomis had merely said, “I hate the NRA.” Or even “the NRA’s policies are dangerous and contributed to Friday’s massacre,” I would agree with my distinguished colleagues and say he should face no retaliation at his job. I mean, I of all people don’t believe that as a rule people should be fired from their jobs for what they say on their off time. But they are missing (or in Ken’s case failing to grasp the importance of) the real problem in Loomis’ commentary:

Yes, respected lawyers who weren't fired from their jobs because of their dishonest and sloppy blogs tend not to support the firing of Erik Loomis. Whatever could these professionally respected and employed lawyers and scholars be missing that Aaron isn't?

The Problem is Fascism.

Oh. Who knew?

You see the real reason why Loomis should be fired—or at the very least investigated for what he said—is that his comments are fascist. Bear in mind, I define fascism as nothing more than a lack of belief in democracy itself.*

Walker published a footnote giving his preferred definition of fascism, which is hilarious**. I'm not going to reprint it, but if you're amused by the abuse of the English language to advance political bullshit, I couldn't encourage you to read it enough.

People like Aaron (and many others on the modern right) use the word fascism interchangeably with communism and socialism. They're either wrong or lying. Fascism was primarily an economic system that married government with private business, ensuring the success of both. Fascism was actually quite popular with the American right in the 1930s precisely because it was seen as an antidote to communism.

It takes a special kind of dickhead to equate fascism  "as nothing more than a lack of belief in democracy itself." There are all kinds of non-fascist systems of government that do that.

Consider for instance this comment by Loomis:

You are goddamn right we should politicize this tragedy. F__k the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison. [Cursing censored by me.]

So he believes that LaPierre should be imprisoned for what exactly? To the best of my knowledge, LaPierre has broken no laws. All he has done is advocate for a policy—reduced restrictions on gun ownership—that Loomis disagrees with. Advocacy of the criminalization of opinions you don’t agree with is the very essence of fascism. He repeats that thought several times:

Wayne LaPierre is a criminal and should be in prison for complicity with murder. 27 counts.—

Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don't want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life. #nraterrorism

Further he advocates that the NRA and its leaders be treated as terrorists, again for expressing an opinion he doesn’t agree with.

Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?

Larry Pratt and the group Gun Owners of America are terrorists and should be dealt with as such.

The right-wing intimidation campaign against me for saying the NRA was a terrorist organization continues. Will not succeed.

I bet terrorist NRA head Wayne LaPierre will sleep well tonight.— [on the night of the Newtown massacre.]

 

Um, yikes! There are any number of things that the modern right wants harsh criminal penalties for that didn't used to be crimes. Material support for terrorism is just one of them. Republican congressman Peter King remains a proud supporter of what the Irish Republican Army used to do, and there's no shortage of Republican assholes who successfully lobbied to de-list the MEK as terrorists because they happen to be  terrorists they see them as our terrorists, so we call them "freedom fighters" instead.

Now this is not to say that this is incitement within the meaning of the Brandenburg standard (of which I am safely considered an expert) and thus can be criminalized or otherwise prohibited. But as a history professor wrote, “such language can embolden the crazy[.]” And who wrote that? Erik Loomis, when arguing that somehow targets on a map caused the Giffords shooting. What Loomis has been doing is a tad worse than that. So, add the charge of hypocrisy to the bill of particulars against this professor.

And even then, ordinarily, this doesn’t justify a person being fired from their job. Whether a person is a fascist or not, a brownshirt in waiting, is of no rightful concern to his employer if he was a bagger at a grocery store, a garbage man, a lawyer, a businessman, etc.

But he is a professor in a University. Further, it is a state university. And that is a problem.

That's top to bottom nonsense. Walker successfully argued Brandenburg against a peace order (which doesn't require a lawyer) and he did so after losing at his initial hearing. That does not an "expert" make, any more than having a speeding ticket overturned makes you an expert in traffic law.

What Walker is suggesting is that some people have greater free speech rights in their private lives based solely on who their employer is. If you teach at a state school, according to Walker, you had better watch what you say!

Academic Freedom Applies to Students, too.

His students have as much of a right to express differing views, to enjoy freedom of inquiry, and so on, as he does. I mean a professor can say to a student, “I am teaching right now, so kindly shut up.” That is okay. Time, place and manner restrictions on student expression are fully justified or else teachers wouldn’t be able to teach.

But, a student should not face discrimination because his views—when expressed at appropriate times—differ from his professor. This is the ideal in the setting of a private university, but it is mandatory in a public one. After all, this professor’s actions are the actions of the state and thus academic freedom is not merely some ideal, but a constitutional command under the First Amendment (as incorporated by the Fourteenth).

And bear in mind I am not saying that Loomis is not entitled to believe what he believes, even passionately so. If he merely came on twitter and said he thought assault weapons should be banned, I wouldn’t be talking about either firing or seriously investigating him due to his words.

But he has gone further than that. He has advocated prison for those he disagreed with. He advocated designating political opponents as terrorists, which could bring consequences ranging from the freezing of funds to being killed summarily. And he has stirred up private violence against those who disagrees with him.

Do you think he can treat his students who disagree with him fairly?

Simply put, that's retarded, and I'm sure that Walker would agree if that standard were applied to him.

As a member of the Virginia Bar and an Officer of the Court,  it could be suggested that Aaron Walker's public positions should disqualify him from any number of legal issues. And I'm not arguing that, he is.

Bar associations have a monopoly granted under state power. If Erik Loomis is to be judged by a special standard because he teaches for the state, shouldn't Aaron Walker, as well? Given his publicly stated positions on any number issues, would it be reasonable to question Walker's ability to represent clients using Walker's own test?

Again, this is a guy, Professor Loomis, who said gun supporters should be imprisoned, treated as terrorists (which might be interpreted as endorsing their summary execution) and has whipped up violence against those who are pro-gun-choice. Even if you call that hyperbole, it doesn’t bode well for the possibility of an open and respectful discussion of gun rights in his class. If a student expresses a pro-gun-choice view on an exam will that student’s grade be affected by this professor’s unhinged hatred of this position?

Actually, that's not true. Loomis didn't say that "gun supporters should be imprisoned." He said that Wayne LaPierre should be. I disagree with that, but I'm not going to dishonestly manipulate what Loomis actually said, or cost him his job. And it was Walker himself who endorsed summary execution of terrorists and then imparted that motive on Loomis in regards to gun rights supporters, which goes further to Walker's record of honesty.

Walker also provides no proof that Loomis would treat anti-gun students unfairly. He cites no complaints or university censures. He just assumes that Loomis will be unfair, given his public record.

Who can say that Walker, as a lawyer, won't do exactly the same thing, absent any evidence that he won't? And I don't think that it's a huge stretch to suggest that the function of an attorney is as important, or more so, than that of a university professor. A lawyer's clients are at least as pliable, if not more so, than college kids.

I don't endorse applying that test, he does. And it takes a special kind of stupid for someone who lost his job due entirely to his online activities to do that.

Not three weeks after Aaron Walker's "free speech crusade" was throw out of court, he's parading around online demanding that other people suffer the same fate that he did. Hopefully, they have better repesentation than he did at trial.

If you want to continue financially supporting Aaron Walker, feel free. There have been things said about fools and their money, after all.

But please don't pretend that you're supporting free speech. You'll just look ridiculous.


As I said in my last post on this subject, if Mr. Walker wants to respond to anything that I've written here, I will give him all the space that he desires to do so, unedited and without unnecessary commentary on my part. Any counter-commentary (other than I deem necessary to protect my own legal interests) will be limited to the comments.

Should Mr. Walker feel that I have in way breached that commitment, he will of course be free to call me out for it on his presumably more widely-read blog.

If I have made errors of fact that are not supported by the available evidence, I will be more than happy to correct them. Having said that, "Because I said so" does not meet my standard of available evidence, particularly given the joint court dismissals.

Would Mr. Walker extend that courtesy to anyone else? There's no evidence that he would. But I am. If I'm going to make an error in this case, it'll be by being overly air to everyone. Except in the most egregious circumstances, I don't edit or delete comments. I think I've done it five times in almost ten years.

He can contact me at skippystalinATgmail.COM. 




*As I've said in my previous post, I don't think that anyone convicted of a crime should be allowed under the tax code to run a non-profit. If felons can lose their voting and gun rights, surely they can be stopped from playing politics at the taxpayers expense, too.

By the same token, that standard shouldn't apply to Kimberlin if it doesn't apply to Ali Akbar, whose crimes involve the theft of actual money. You can't deny a violent  psychopath his rights while granting them to an convicted thief without looking like a goddamned shill.

** Walker cites as a source Jonah Goldberg, who sees fascism completely as a creation of the left, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. The left already had their their totalitarian movement in communism. Fascism was a reaction on the right to that. As shocking as it may seem to those who buy into "left-wing fascist" blogosphere propaganda, the original fascist powers; Spain, Italy and Germany were vehemently anti-communist.

The United States itself allied itself with arguably fascist regimes in Central and South America, and Southeast Asia during the Cold War in the name of anti-Communism. They were just careful about not calling them that. Historical context is sort of important when throwing about phrases like "fascist."

Liberals can be extraordinarily totalitarian when they put their minds to it, but they aren't fascist by definition. When you hear conservatives describe then that way, that should be a giant red flag that they're dishonest, stupid, or working for Breitbart.com.

Who Wants to Marry a Porn Star?

I I was born like this. I had no choice. I'm a lifelong romantic. That was true even when I was in the crib. I just can't help it, and you shouldn't hate me for it.

Even as a toddler, the sight of a beautiful woman had a profound and undeniable affect on me. Whenever, say, my second grade teacher passed by desk, I'd take a peek at her bangin' little ass, ensconced as it was in her tight 70s slacks, and grip my crotch until my knuckles turned white, lest my Cry of Love escape my loins in the middle of a penmanship lesson. And that remains the case some 35 years later.

Some folks, feminists and she-males mostly, try to insist to me that there is some kind of a difference between love and lust. This is not unlike fables about alligators living in the sewer and awaiting the opportunity to lunge from the toilet and bite your junk off. It's an old wives tales, and not something that Serious People entertain.

Every great romantic knows that it's possible to like a member of the opposite sex a great deal, but it's self-evident that you cannot love them if the very sight of them doesn't compel you to punish your genitals into a swollen, distended and irreversibly distended mess of chafed skin and leaking bodily fluids. That's just how biology works, and who am I to question it? To quote the late Billy Preston, "That's the way God planned it, that's the way God wants it to be!"

From time to time, I'll research developments in the world of Modern Love and - I'm not going to lie to you - I'm often shocked at what I find (link NSFW.)

The latest Vivid Entertainment-XCritic.com "Sex Tracker" poll indicates that 61.4 percent of men would consider marrying a porn star and 85.8 percent said they would be happy to date one. The online survey of sexual preferences also revealed that 86.7 percent of respondents consider adult entertainment to be "a positive part of our culture."

Why was I shocked by this? I had no idea that so many men were such indecisive beta-male assholes, that's why! Saying that you would only "consider" marrying a porn star couldn't be a stronger indication that civilization is falling into a bottomless pit of wanton stupidity and faggotry. It shows how cosmically wrong we are becoming as the moorings of society disintegrate beneath our feet.

Ignore everything that social conservatives and religious types tell you. They believe all kinds of crazy shit that is utterly incompatible with living a Good Life. Those people wouldn't know Joy if it put on steel-toed boots and kicked them in the balls until they bled from their fucking eyes.

Those people embrace superstitious and silly notions about a better life after this one that tend to leave men angry, sexually stunted and inclined to blow one another in awkward public places.

Absent any evidence to the contrary, you should grab life by the goodies and rub them until it falls in an exhausted heap at your feet and lovingly calls you "Daddy." Because it's more likely than not that it all ends here. The only heaven that any of us are likely to know is between one another's thighs.

I know that my readership consists of thoroughly modern ladies and gentlemen. So if you ever find yourself asked whether you'd consider marrying a porn star, you know that the correct answer is "Consider it? I'd engage in a genocide to do it! Who has to go? Where's my machete and mustard gas?"

I marvel at ordinary women to the point that I fall in love with them at least 37 times a day. Some might think that shallow, but you and I know that they have no concept of what time it is, don't we? I don't want anything that follows to minimize the profound aching that they create in both my chest and my crotch.

But porn stars are just naturally superior people. I'm not convinced that they weren't created by an ancient scientist named Yakub from the Tribe of Shabazz to rule the world and subjugate lesser beings until Ezekiel's Wheel takes us all into space. I don't know if that's true, but I like to believe that it is.

As a general rule, porn stars are better looking than their civilian counterparts, definitely more flexible (as evidenced by the popularity of the piledriver in their fine films) and generally more given to adventure. They're an unstoppable force of nature, not even fearing the dreaded rectal prolapse in their quest to rule our hearts and minds.

Moreover, they face down adversity with a degree of courage not even found in the professional military. If you don't believe me, just ask the great Briana Banks.




I'm pretty sure that if you were subjected to an entire business day with Max Hardcore, you'd do a lot more than disappear for two months and change your name. That dude is wrong on so many levels that science is not yet capable of properly counting them. If you've never seen a Max Hardcore movie, don't. I did it so you don't have to. And it creeped me out, so I have no doubt that it'll leave you weeping in the fetal position.

But Briana persevered. Not just because she's a professional, my good friends. And not just because she's a hero. She struggled through it because she's the greatest hero of our age.

Miss Banks was pretty much perfect when she began her epic quest for Art and Romance, but she always knew that she could be better, so she had her (already more than nice) breasts enlarged twice. She's blessed with a supermodel's face and the self-declared "longest legs in the business." And I've seen her do things with her asshole that defy description. I'd just be cheating you if I tried describing them anyway. But one of them involves a bowling pin.

Even the sands of time won't stop her! At the professionally elderly age of 34, she's moved on to the MILF side of the business, where she continues to make my wonderous wang spit with a combination of adoration, wonderment and frustrated fury.

And if you think that her epic quest for adventure ends at the conclusion of her business day, you couldn't be more wrong.

AVN Hall of Famer and star of the films The Cougar Club 3, TSA: Your Ass Is in Our Hands, and Sodomania Slop Shots 9 & 10, among many others, Briana Banks, was recently arrested and charged with DUI at an L.A. McDonald's drive-thru. A witness contacted police after Banks hit another car at about 9 AM on Wednesday, alerting them that she looked to be under the influence of something. The police pulled her over at the McDonald's drive-thru and gave her a field sobriety test, which she failed leading to her arrest. Banks was then booked and shortly after released.

People who don't appreciate the finer things in life might try to tell you that 9 AM on a Wednesday morning is hardly the time to be under the influence, and that a McDonald's drive-thru isn't the place for it. Not only should you ignore them, you should crush their airway with a finishing hammer.

I've given this a lot of thought over the last three days, and I just can't think of a better time or place to be filled to the brim with pills, powders and amber liquids. And as you all know, I'm a pretty intelligent fellow. If there were a more appropriate way to approach a Wednesday morning at a McDonald's drive-thru, it surely would've occurred to me over the last 72 hours. However, I' ve done the math and science and there just isn't.

I've also considered what advice I would have offered to Briana, if given the opportunity. And the answer is none. By the looks of things, she handling things exactly the way that I would.

And to top it all off she even takes an adorable mugshot! Those aren't meant to be especially flattering photographs, but Briana couldn't be cuter in hers, even without proper lighting, full make-up, a gaffer and a Best Boy. If you need any more evidence that Briana Banks is just genetically better than you are, look no further than that booking photo. That's just good science, people!

Somewhere out in the Great Beyond, Yakub is proud of his good and great work. I can't prove it, but that doesn't stop me from knowing it all the same. I guess that makes me religious - although, in my own special way - after all.

Would I marry Briana Banks? I'll answer that question with a question.

Who has to go? And where is my machete and mustard gas?

Why the Internet is Important: A NSFW Exploration of Us and our Times

For nearly two decades we've all been told that the Internet is one of the most important advances in human history, but nobody has ever really come out and said why. Usually, you'll get some insipid trope about how instant, world-wide communication has the potential to broaden our intelligence more than anything before it.

Well, look around. Do people look any smarter to you than they did in a bygone era when books and newspapers were popular? Indeed, I would argue that most people are immeasurably dumber than they were just twenty years ago, despite having instant access to virtual encyclopedias of knowledge and endless other intellectual resources. The lowliest janitor can now converse with the greatest professors of our age, but those professors are actually more anonymous than they were thirty years ago.

As a means of bettering ourselves and our intellects, the Internet has failed spectacularly and indisputably.

No, there are reasons to love Al Gore's greatest invention above and beyond its wildly overrated ability to enhance the mind. And I'm not just talking about the unlimited porn out there, either, although I can't stress the importance of that enough. Nothing has broadened the horizons of  lovemaking quite like the Internet.

In the end, the single greatest function of of the World Wibe Web is that it serves as a permanent living monument of our time. Remember that cell phone video you took of yourself getting your clit pierced in college? There's every reason to believe that people will be able to see it hundreds of years from now, allowing them to get a glimpse of how we lived as a species.

Imagine if you could see and hear, for example, Genghis Khan or Jesus Christ at work. Imagine if we could see Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation without relying on Spielberg to re-create it for us.  Imagine the insight we'd have into our own civilization today!

Well, we're creating a record of ourselves for future historians to study for all time. Sure, most of it consists of us drunkenly drawing cocks on each other's unconscious faces, but that's better than nothing, right? There will be no doubt about the way we lived.

Hundreds - maybe thousands of years from now - our descendants will be able to see this ....



(NSFW warning: Extreme language and disturbing content alert! If you fucking daredevils choose to watch this without headphones from the office, don't come crying to me when you get shitcanned directly into Hell. I couldn't be more serious about this.)

Could anything be more important than that? I would suggest not, and I'm an internationally famous student of history. Those three minutes and seven seconds will tell future scholars everything they need to know about life at the dawn of the 21st century. They'll learn about economic disparity, health care and contemporary human sexuality, but that's not all. They'll learn the exact moment that we understood as a species  that public hair is evil and better done away with. They'll learn that white-trash women fucked themselves with home pregnancy tests, which is a fact that somehow eluded even me!

But there's still more. This might be the single most compelling dissertation on love and loss that I've ever seen. If history books are delinquent in anything, it's that you never get a proper understanding of the personal passions of a particular age. How common people were truly feeling, the heartbreak they suffered and the hope they held on to. Well, no longer is that left to the imagination.

Those that survive us in the great experiment of life will have immediate access to the documentation of our lives that we leave behind. All of it will be at their fingertips. And I can't help but believe that this video will be the most prized find of all.

So much of what we put out there is little more than a cultural Potemkin village of our highest aspirations rather than a true reflection of what we are. We pretend that we're symphonies, the Bolshoi and the Guggenheim. But we're not. Not really. We're not even Kim Kardashian.

No, this video is the most accurate representation of who we really are at this moment in time. Culturally, politically and spiritually; we're crab-infested grandmas, mourning the loss of our pestilent little friends to the point of our own ultimate self-destruction. We love the discomfort and shame our condition causes us, but we miss it with all of our despondent little hearts when it's gone.

All that we are, all that we can ever hope to be, is written in that video file, just as the word "crab" was written in the sand.

It is the Yad Vashem is American life. And it will never be forgotten!


Editor's Note: I couldn't be more grateful to my personal hero, Drunken Stepfather (also deeply NSFW) for this great and most excellent gift to the ages. I couldn't be more confident that Drunken Stepfather will someday be seen as the unsung hero of our age. For this and everything else he's contributed, I thank him.

The Sad Decline and Stupid Fall of Aaron Walker

 

Most people don't study history beyond the absolute minimum that they're required to school, which is too bad. Because of this, folks are usually inclined to see conflicts as being struggles between good and evil.

Actually, that's only rarely the case. Far more often such battles are what I like to call "scumbag on scumbag violence." The war between Hitler and Stalin is the most famous example of this, but hardly the only one.

Christ, even I forget that from time to time and find myself wanting to jump in on the side of who I perceive to be "the good guys." I was certainly prepared to do so this past spring when the story of Brett Kimberlin and Aaron Walker exploded on the blogosphere. And after I read this, I really wanted to get involved.

As you might have noticed, I didn't. Here's why.

First, too many of the main players on "my side" of the psychodrama were involved with the Brietbart empire. And anyone who has paid attention over the last four years knows that they are chronic liars. They've broken multiple stories that were later discredited, in whole or in part, within weeks if not days. Brietbart's Boy Wonder, James O'Keefe, was facing the very real prospect of federal prison time because of his sleazy tactics, which even Andrew Brietbart himself had to distance himself from.

I decided years ago to wait for the other shoe to drop before commenting on a Brietbart story. And there's always another shoe waiting to drop.

Second, I became uncomfortable with the narrative that was building around Kimberlin himself. You couldn't read anything coming from the right about Kimberlin that didn't describe him as a "convicted terrorist," which is weapons-grade nonsense.

I'm of the firm opinion that Brett Kimberlin is a Very Bad Man indeed, and his criminal history seems to back that up. He was convicted of major drug importation and perjury before he apparently decided to get into the big time. That resulted in what became known as the Speedway Bombings, and that's where I have a major problem with the narrative.

According to contemporaneous mainstream media sources, Kimberlin was having an odd relationship with the underage daughter of his then-girlfriend. The girl's grandmother objected and was shortly thereafter murdered. From what I understand, the Speedway Bombings were conducted to distract the police from investigating the murder. It's important to note that Kimberlin wasn't charged with or convicted of having a sexual relationship with the girl or the grandmother's murder. But he was convicted of the Speedway Bombings.

However, that conviction wasn't under any domestic terrorism statute that I'm aware of. Nor do the Speedway Bombings constitute "terrorism" as anyone who speaks English as a first language would understand the word.

Dictionary.com's primary definition of "terrorism" is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." Nobody suggests that the Speedway Bombings were a political act. If the court proceedings and the media are to be believed, they were an attempt to obstruct justice. That's awfully bad, but it isn't generally accepted as terrorism.

The Sppedway Bombings would make Kimberlin a murderous asshole (because nobody sets bombs without understanding that they could kill somebody, and one of his victims later committed suicide as result of his injuries,) but that does not make him a terrorist.

I've lived my life convinced that words mean something, and I tend not to trust anyone that doesn't share that conviction. Phrases like terrorism either mean something, or they don't. And Brett Kimberlin wasn't exactly Timothy McVieigh or Abu Nidal.

So the Breitbart folks began losing me right at the starting gun. Kimberlin is plenty bad, but they worked their hardest to make him even worse, which further raised my suspicions.

Kimberlin is also wildly litigious in a way that the left has made a staple of their discourse. A previously unknown liberal blogger named Seth Allen was sued by Kimberlin for writing about him, which is where Aaron Walker comes in.

Kimberlin v. Allen was litigated in Maryland. Walker was a claims compliance lawyer from Virginia, without standing before the Maryland bar, who decided to act as Allen's lawyer (or not, depending on who you believe or on what day. Walker has repeatedly referrred to Kinberlin's attempt to get him to "break privilidge", which wouldn't apply.).

Kimberlin sought the identity of Walker (who writing under the name Aaron Worthing at the time) in an attempt to silence and discredit him. As most of you know, Walker was subsequently "outed" and he and his wife were fired from their jobs at Professional Healthcare Resources, Inc. According to Walker and his allies, this was due to Kimberlin's "harassment."

Walker however has proven to be an untrustworthy narrator. His other blog, Everybody Draw Mohammad - which was written under the name Aaron Worthing - becomes important in judging his character at this point.

Even though my real name is out there for anyone interested enough to find it, I write under a pseudonym, mostly because it amuses me and I'm too lazy to change it. I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing exactly the same thing.

On the other hand, I don't ask anyone to do anything under their own real names that I myself wouldn't do in public, without the cloak of anonymity. If you don't believe me, Google away!

Everybody Draw Mohammad operated under a different model. Walker asked his readers to submit what would be considered blasphemous cartoons under their real names and locations, while suggesting that they would invite violent retribution. In fact, he invited said violent retribution to be directed his way. He actually dared them to, saying "Come on, bitches. Aaron Worthing, Manassas, Virginia. But if you bring it be ready; we practice the Second Amendment here, newly reinforced by the MacDonald decision."

The only problem is that he never disclosed that he wasn't really Aaron Worthing. He says that he did this because his wife wouldn't let him, which is among the most piss-poor excuses for anything that I've ever heard. Walker's subsequent writings, both private and public, indicate that he thought the prospect of violent reprisals were very real and he asked his contributors to undertake them while he lied to them about his own identity.

That, I thought, was the beginning of the other Brietbartian shoe dropping. Even though I had then decided that Walker had engaged in one of the sleaziest blogging tactics imaginable and that I didn't trust him, I still gave the rest of his story the benefit of the doubt  and kept my mouth shut. The fact that I had determined that everybody in this story was swine certainly helped.

For reasons that still strike me as being beyond the edge of sanity, Walker decided to sue Kimberlin. And that's where the Walker narrative falls apart, since it was only a matter of time before discovery materials leaked. Liberal blogger Bill Schmalfeldt started publishing them this week.

Lest I start being accused of being in the tank for anybody here, I should offer my opinion of Schmalfeldt, which is that he's a coward and a pain in the ass. He has no compunction after going after whomever he sees fit, but defensively warns his targets that retaliating is unwise because he has Parkinson's. And he does this repeatedly. Hardly an article of his can be read without hearing about Parkinson's and his suffering of it makes any of his antagonists look like shits.

Schmalfeldt uses his infirmity as both a sword and shield, making him at least as much of an asshole as Walker is. Both of them are operating from their self-perceived victimhood and seeking to be rewarded for it.

Having said that, Schmalfeldt's discovery dump (which I can't help but believe is illegally obtained. His arguments to Walker's lawyer are, in my opinion, nothing short of a mockery of common sense) are invaluable in further determining both the merits of Walker's case and his character.

As it happens, Walker's separation from Professional Healthcare Resources, Inc is a little more complicated than he would have you believe.

Throughout this mess, Walker has maintained that this is about his "First Amendment rights," which is categorical nonsense. In this case, Congress isn't stopping him from saying anything, which is sort of what the First Amendment protects him from.

In fact, if Walker has anyone to blame for infringement of his First Amendment rights, it's his former employer. When he notified PHRI of his predicament (apparently well before before Kimberlin did,) Walker himself said that he wrote under an assumed name so as to "keep this from affecting me in real life," a consideration he encouraged his contributors at Everybody Draw Mohammad to disregard, in large part because they thought he did.

In most states, employers retain non-contract empolyees "at will." That means that they can fire them for any reason, including "off-the-clock" activities, like blogging. I wholeheartedly don't agree with this premise, but most Brietbatians do until it bites them on the ass, especially if that ass happens to be liberal. I also think that it's a major breach of Internet protocol to snitch to employers what you've said online but so far as I'm aware, it isn't actionable.

Walker ends each and every one of his posts with, in part, this: "My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin."

That also turns out not to be true, at least not according to his correspondence with PHRI's outside counsel, Jim Hodges. Walker first notified PHRI of his blogging activity, including Everybody Draw Mohammed, the morning that he learned that Kimberlin discovered his identity. There is nothing in the discovery dump that indicates that Kimberlin or his associates had notified PHRI of Walker's activities before he was terminated. In fact, the first mention of "protests and formal diplomatic actions" comes 31 days after Walker was fired.

I will grant you that Bill Schmalfeldt might not be releasing all of the documents that he has, and I'm almost willing to bet that he's not. He's every bit the partisan hack that everybody else is in this shitstorm and he very much has a dog in this fight, in so far as he he doesn't often describe what Kimberlin was convicted of "40 years ago," which isn't exactly true. And Kimberlin wasn't convicted, as Schmalfeldt will have you believe, of a crime. He was convicted of dozens of them.

According to Hodges' email to Walker, Walker wasn't fired for Everybody Draw Mohammad, although it points out that it was in itself more than enough cause. Walker was dismissed for, quite literally, sloppy lawyering. From what we've seen thus far, that's incontrovertible. Furthermore, our boy Aaron was handling his blog-related legitation in his office, on company time. If you can show me an employer who thinks that's kosher, I'll show you somebody that every blogger on earth should go to work for right away.

Walker has also taken multiple stands on the possibility of radical Muslim violence against him, depending on his interests at the time. He actually invites it under his supposed name at Everybody Draw Mohammad, but minimizes the possibility it in his correspondence to PHRI

He says in public that he bought a gun to protect himself from both fanatical Muslims and Brett Kimberlin, but minimizes the danger of both to his employer.

Once PHRI had access to his writing, what were they supposed to do? If "terrorist" Muslims or the "terrorist" Kimberlin were going to threaten his life, as he said in public that they were going to do, where better to do it than where they can reliably find him during daytime hours? Does Aaron Walker's "First Amendment rights" also guarantee him the right to endanger everybody who happens to be in a building with him?

Again, I'm not trusting everything that Bill Schmalfeldt is putting out there as concrete fact. I don't trust him any more than I trust Aaron Walker. But Schmalfeldt is putting up some documentary evidence (no matter how illegally gained or, possibly, published.) That's something Walker hasn't done. He's asked us to take everything he says on faith and that faith is increasingly ill-deserved.

The fact is that the narrative that Aaron Walker has spent months putting up is rapidly falling down. Despite the fact that I don't like him or his politics, the Schmalfeldt narrative makes sense and the Walker one simply doesn't. I have no doubt that if Walker himself had a subordinate in his position, that he wouldn't hesitate to fire him.

The only reason I care about this story at this point is that well-meaning conservatives are being expected to finance this fraud and score political points from it. And it's nonsense, from beginning to end. Pretty much everyone who has inserted themselves in this tawdry, dumb drama has an interest in it that they're not telling you about.

Both sides are using it to drive up readership and donations to their respective cause. Both sides hiding important, material facts that you ought to know before you separate yourself from your hard earned money.  And both sides are using "lawfare" to mitigate their retarded Internet pissing matches.

If you give money or support to either side, you pretty much deserve what you get, which is bound to be ripped off. 

Caveat emptor, folks. Caveat emptor.


The Full Disclosure Part of the Program:

1) I had a pissing match with Aaron Walker on Twitter a few months ago about Mitt Romney's tax reform plan, which ended with him blocking me because he thought I was talking to him like he was an idiot, which he was. I'd show you that transaction, but he blocked me before I could finish.

In my personal opinion, Aaron Walker isn't especially bright and wildly touchy about it for somebody who insists on being a loudmouth blogger. I get called all kinds of shitty things. I only block people for it when they bore me.

2) I also got into it with Lee Stranahan, who I believe is the worst person walking the Earth today, on Twitter.

During the Treyvon Martin clusterfuck, Stranahan took it upon himself to name a woman who had accused George Zimmerman of molesting her, even though the statute of limitations had long expired. The allegation became public due to leaked grand jury testimony, but so did Stranahan's identification of the witness.

It was then that I first said in public that I was glad that I hadn't involved myself in the Kimberlin saga and Stranahan immediately blocked me.

Weeks later,Schmalfeldt republished Stranahan's address on the web and ol' Lee ran to the police like a pussy and started begging people on the Internet to buy him a new house, mere weeks after revealing a potential molestation victim's name. So fuck him. He might be the worst scumbag of all.

3) I follow pretty much everybody's allies in this stupid story on Twitter (except for Walker and Stranahan, who blocked me because they're dipshits,)  I don't, however, interact with Kimberlin's allies because I don't want to associate myself with people willing to defend someone willing to commit murder, however long ago that was. I'm pretty "pro-life" that way.

4) I linked to Walker's arrogantly self-described "blockbuster post," but nothing from Kimberlin for the simple reason that Kimberlin hasn't bothered put anything out there under his own name. What I won't do is let Kimberlin have an internet sock puppet make his case for him.

5) the use of Brietbart or any variation thereof should not be taken to mean that those I ascribe the term to are employees of Brietbart,com (although several of then were) or acted with Andrew Brietbatrt's knowledge. Most of the activities contained in this article occured after his death on March 1, 2012. The descriptor should be taken to mean known associates of his or those who engage in his style of sleazy journalism.

6) I'm of a mind that convicted criminals - particularly those convicted of perjury or fraud - should be prohibited from being involved in the operation of tax exempt organizations in any way. The Breitbratians are more than willing to imply that Kimberlin should be barred from doing so, but aren't willing to say the same about, say, Ali Akbar of the National Bloggers Club, which makes them massive hypocrites. Republicanm criminals are still criminals and, given the party's "tough on crime" stance, are probably worse.  

My position is that if you're convited of a crime that inherently involves dishonesty, the government shouldn't later allow you to operate a tax-exempt organization that depends entirely on honesty and transparency. And that should apply to both Brett Kimberlin and Ali Akbar. Neither should be in the positions that they are, in my opinion.

If you can't vote, you shouldn't be heading a 501(c)(3) and since most Republicans feel that convicted felons shouldn't vote, ever, that puts Mr. Akbar in a precarious position, shouldn't it?



In fairness, if either Aaron Walker or Brett Kimberlin (or their legal representatives) want to respond to anything that I've said in this space, I shall let them do so, unedited. It should, however, be understood that I will assume no liability for anything that is said in their responses and shall indicate so in same. If I have made any factual errors, I will be glad to correct them, provided that on the record evidence of such is provided to me.

So far as I'm aware, neither side has afforded this opportunity to the other. My impartiality is guaranteed since I believe both sides are whining cunts, neither deserves to win, and both are wasting valuable court resources.

Having said that, any communication to me in this regard should be considered for publication. I don't like any of you, nor am I willing to be serectly spun by you. "Off the record" and "Deep background" won't apply in this case. If you write to me, do so expecting that you'll be writing to the public.

More likely than not, I'll unfollow everyone involved on Twitter and in Google Reader sometime next week. This isn't a "free speech" case as much as it is moron-on-moron violence, and I can visit my ex-girlfriend's old neighborhood to see my share of that.

Being accurate can be helpful: Postcards from the outer blogosphere

I had a lot of hope for blogs ten years ago. I really did. That was especially true of political blogs.

When the blogosphere started picking up steam in a significant way after 9/11, I thought that there was a strong potential for it to circumvent the traditional media's narrative and the insipid talking points of the political parties. Because it is so decentralized, I thought that independent, thoughtful voices could insert themselves into the conversation and at least partially influence it.

Let's face it, since the advent of television, political discourse has suffered from the simplistic interpretation of the media and the used-car-salesmanship of the parties. Consequently, people have grown less informed and more cynical about their own democracy, a pretty astonishing feat when you think about it. Proper cynicism usually requires some level of knowledge and experience.

Ideally, I thought that blogs could get around the short attention span theatre of television and buttress more informative forums, such as books and long-form magazine articles. Y'know, the kind of shit that you can actually learn something from and actually challenges what you already believe. Because newspaper op-eds are limited to about 700 words, they're almost as bad as TV. There's no room for historical context, or even fact. Just opinion. And that opinion is usually retarded precisely because it doesn't consider facts or historical context.

Being the eternal optimist that I am, I thought that blogs could actually be a tool to make people smarter and actually think for themselves for a fucking change.

Christ, was that ever stupid.

What never occurred to me was that blogs could be monetized and that bloggers had higher ambitions. Once the initial big bloggers started making a living from their hobbies, and getting book deals and TV gigs, everybody wanted to.

When that happened, blogs not only mirrored TV, they mirrored the very worst of it, specifically Fox News and MSNBC, which are little more than fact-free zones populated with hot chicks that are thrilled to be promoted from working at Hooters. But because the news is classy, they don't refer to their fucking bloggers as such. They're "online journalists," which serves only to further discredit journalism. Party spin doctors started feeding talking points to bloggers when said spin doctors weren't already bloggers themselves.

If anything, blogs are now even worse than cable news, which is at least held to the minimum standards of professionalism, basic fact-checking, and being at least somewhat good-looking. And when they don't rely on the work product of the very "lamestream media" that they continually try to discredit, bloggers rely on each other, which is immeasurably fucking worse.

So the entire political blogosphere can be divided into two camps: Red State and the Daily Kos. They're both headed by the least charismatic people to be featured on a television show that isn't Cops and cater to audiences that are more partisan and less informed than even the writers on them. The only difference between the two - and it pains me to say this - is that Erick Erickson isn't a half-bad writer. Sure, he's wrong and everything, but he's wrong in a much more readable way that Markos Whateverthefuckhisnameis is.

My own experience is interesting. The people who tend to like me most are far more liberal than I am. This is because I focus my attention mostly on the modern conservative movement. I also tend to agree with liberals on social issues because I don't think that you can have a small government while favouring a state that regulates consensual personal behaviour. My liberal  friends like the fact that I insist that governmenr be paid for, while ignoring that I would sharply limit what it does and when.

Conservatives are displeased with me (to put it mildly) for the same reason. I would have a considerably smaller government than even they desire. And I insist that their pie-in-the-sky nonsense wishlist of programs and tax cuts be paid for.

Both misunderstand my purpose. I ultimately would like to see an informed, consistent conservatism annihilate liberalism (specifically economic and foreign policy liberalism, the latter of which too many conservatives have embraced.) To do that, I necessarily think you have to leave social decisions to individuals, just as modern conservatives would economic issues. But if that conservatism isn't informed and consistent, the Left may as well win because we'll only destroy ourselves.

Look, I know how to be successful, influential blogger who has lots of readers and makes money from their work. It isn't hard, really.

You always, always reinforce what your audience already believes and never challenge those core assumptions, regardless of how intellectually inconsistent or ridiculous they might be. You keep your posts under 800 words, which obliterates the possibility of putting anything that happened before last month in some kind of historical context, You mercilessly attack the other side, while justifying or ignoring the excesses of your own. Of course, if you can find a marginal cartoon character, like  Jeremiah Wright or David Duke on your own side to denounce, that makes you look "fair." Whatever you do, make sure that cartoon character isn't Sarah Palin, lest you be denounced as "sexist" by people who spent sixteen years making Hillary Clinton jokes.

You link-whore relentlessly, and suck up to folks with audiences larger than your own. And you never disagree with your own side in public, no matter how damaging to your credibility doing so might be. Look at the high level of support George W. Bush had among very conservative Republicans during his spending spree and military adventurism, or the very liberal support for Bill Clinton during his corporatist term in office.   Then look to what those former supporters say about them now.

I could write pieces like this.

At this point an exercise in simple arithmetic suggests that any nation breaking even on its balance of trade would have to tax 100% of its private sector value production in order to balance this size of government with adequate revenues. That would be the 100-100-100 Plan that replicates what would happen if Herman Cain and Nancy Pelosi ever submitted a joint tax reform proposal.
 
Given a $14Tr US GDP, Krugman is implying a year in which the government executed $7Tr in expenditures. With no change in revenues from recent years Krugman is advocating a $4.5Tr annual deficit. He opines this will prevent a depression. That a tenured professor at MIT who writes a widely-flogged column for the NYT actually believes this is the case depresses me to the point that I need another Gin and Tonic.

Thankfully, I was well into my cups of Maker's Mark when I read those paragraphs by Repair_Man_Jack for a couple of reasons.

First, a "100-100-100 Plan" would necessarily require a 300% tax rate, which defies even the most basic laws of both mathematics and common sense. Cain's "999" plan was as crazy as a shithouse owl, but it only would have put in place a 27% flat rate, which most economists agree a flat rate needs to be.

Repair_Man_Jack's analysis also presumes that Krugman's plan wouldn't rely heavily on deficit spending. As much as I can actually make sense of the Red State article, it seems to operate on the premise that people like Professor Krugman believe in balanced budgets, which they don't.

In fairness, Krugman's spending proposals differ from Paul Ryan's only in the scope, and even then, not all that much. You can't properly cost the Ryan Plan, because he won't tell you what tax deductions he'll eliminate to reduce rates. So, for the purposes of costing, you have to assume that he won't eliminate or reduce any. And you have to assume that Ryan's fifteen-year-away Medicare reforms will cost roughly the trillion dollars that Bush's 2005 Social Security reforms would have, if not more.

Second, Paul Krugman is a tenured professor at Princeton, not MIT.

If you can't get the top line of Krugman's easily verifiable CV right, how can you possibly be expected to credibly attack his ideas? And Paul Krugman's economic ideas are among the easiest in the world to credibly attack! Shit, if your target is a Nobel laureate and you want to discredit him, a good start would be getting where he works right.

When I read this Red State nonsense last night, I skimmed through the comments and saw that no one pointed out Jack's factual errors. As of this morning, they still wasn't corrected.

Such is life in the echo chamber, where you strive mightily to convince people who already agree with you, in a neatly-packaged realty-free zone.


And before my friends on the Left start throwing high-fives my way, don't. I just spent six weeks watching Canadian liberals arguing on their blogs about the purity of their position on abortion, which almost no one in this country considers an issue. The dynamic on your side works exactly the same way, you just amazingly seem to be even less disciplined about it.

If anything, my problems with the modern Right stem exclusively from its insistence on acting exactly like the Left.

"Reminds Me of Childhood Memories"

I don't tend to talk about my childhood much, mostly because I've spent decades repressing it. This is because I hate children even more than I hate myself.

Children are short, smelly and can't hold their fucking liquor. Christ, I'm not fully convinced that males under six feet tall are even human, which should tell you all you need to know about my feelings towards kids. I'd be completely comfortable if the voting age was raised to thirty-five and everyone under twenty was subject to being fired out cannons during wartime.

Whenever I'm forced to remember that I was once like that I feel like going Hemingway. I therefore tend to stuff my childhood into the same tiny ball of rage deep inside of me that makes me the world-famous blogger that I've become.

However, from time to time, external forces bring memories from my shorter days surface, sometimes even refreshing ones. This occurred most recently on Tuesday.

It started out innocently enough. I was checking my e-mail at work and I received a notification that startled me. I was being followed on Twitter by something called LesbianAssWorship.Net (or @LesAssWorship to you uncouth swine.) That's when it all came rushing back.

I think I was five years old. Maybe six. And it was a holiday when it was cold outside, so it was either Thanksgiving or Christmas. Whatever it was, we were having turkey. Anyhow, we were sitting around the holiday dinner table and I guess I looked a little sad. Life, you see, was out to get me even then and I was even worse at hiding my disdain than I am today.

Suddenly, my elderly grandmother pounded her fist on the dinner table, causing a turkey leg to fly off the serving plate and into my lap, and holler "Nothing soothes a crisis of the spirit like Lesbian Ass Worship! Nothing!"

It didn't stop there, either. She went on and on for almost an hour. According to her, straight men could worship lesbian ass, too.  It was almost like hearing Stephen Hawking expound upon theoretical physics. There was just no arguing with the fucking woman. She was crazed in ways that I had only previously seen in National Geographic. And there was no shortage of crazy in my grandmother on a normal day.

Finally, my father fired a tranquilizer dart directly into her neck and the peace of my home was restored. Even today everybody in my family referes to it as "That strange and horrible night that grandma went nuts about ass-eating."

As deeply and darkly strange as that evening was. I still can't say that she was actually wrong. As an adult, one of my sexual heroes was the grand dame of lesbian porn, Janine Lindemulder, from whom a learned a great deal about tonguing a lady from both the front and the back. And every women I've ever been with considers me something of a sexual MacArthur. and that night, over thirty-five years ago, was an enormous gateway in my becoming the man I am today.

Who knew that Twitter could be so rewarding?