Laid-Less in Seattle

(This is a Tacky Smutty Rant)

(You have been warned!)

Cast of Big Bang Theory

One of the more unusual tropes TV and movies is the character or characters who do not have sex. Thus I use the term Laid - less; i.e., they don't get laid - have sex.

Usually such characters are male, and surprisingly rare female. Why this is so is a bit of a mystery but may in part be explained by the various patriarchal norms of our society which push and praise men for being sexually adventuress and do not do the same for women. Certainly  there seems to be an expectation that men will and must really want sex. That this is a bit much is of course obvious.

Now a Laid - Less character can be divided into several types.

Classic Laid - Less.

This character constantly thinks about sex, centers his life around his quest for sex, or more specifically for a cunt he can shoot his load into; although a mouth or ass will probably do.

To this character, almost always male, women are simply holes for him to fill with his jizz and morning, noon and night he is constantly on the lookout for such holes to fill. Basically to this character women are masturbation machines to wrap around his dong to get him off and they exist solely for that purpose. 

Another characteristic of this trope is the acres and acres of whining that the character engages in about his lack of sex. Whining about why don't women want to fuck with him. What is also characteristic of this type of character is the vast sense of entitlement. Such characters believe that they are entitled too and deserve sex with "hot" women and a vast disservice is being done against them when they don't get sex with "hot" women.

A key point here is that the women must be "hot"; incredibly attractive. Women who are not "hot" can be ignored, and / or denigrated. It is "I deserve hot women!". Why? Well because I am a man and if I want something I deserve it and I only want to fuck with "hot" women. 

In this scenario the character does not look at himself and see if the problem is at least partly with himself and then work on changing his attitude and / or behavior. The character "knows" he doesn't have to do a thing, he is entitled to sex with "hot" women and he doesn't or should not have to make any effort at all. And if he fails - well the problem is that the women don't understand him, like him and their just, dumb, evil, bitches etc. You see - he doesn't have to do anything he is just entitled and having to do anything is just not in the cards and of course monumentally unfair.

Allied with this the character is frequently not even remotely, "hot" charming, bright or even moderately entertaining. Frequently the character is, stupid, not good looking, a boor, bastard, creep, boring, a poor dresser etc., and yet still feels absolutely entitled to sex with "hot" women. The fact "hot" women may prefer "hot" men is often characterized as just so unfair. Why? Well who really cares what women want?!

A classic series of examples of the laid - less character was the show The Big Bang Theory. The four leads during the earlier seasons were Laid - Less. Only three were however Classic Laid - Less. Sheldon was indeed Laid - Less but not terribly interested in sex and basically could careless. The other three, Raj, Leonard and Howard were utterly obsessed with filling women's cunts with their dicks, constantly whining about not getting laid and thinking of women has masturbation machines and feeling a vast sense of entitlement to have sex with "hot" women, which they no doubt felt was their "right". 

To them women were simply objects, holes to be filled. They engaged, especially Howard, in all sorts of creepy, entitled behavior. Neighbour Penny, (The local "hot" woman.), was the frequent object of their lust, attempts to manipulate and otherwise be the series of holes they wanted to fill.

Thus 3 of the leads on The Big Bang Theory, were for the earlier seasons classic entitled incels, who felt they were entitled and deserved sex with "hot" women; such women were conceived has basically little more than masturbatory envelopes to be filled by their penises until they ejaculate.

A further example of the entitled laid less character is Fez from That Seventies Show. In episode after episode he whines to just about everyone about his perpetual case of blue balls and his desperate need to fuck a woman. He went around constantly looking for a hole to fill with his raging hardon. But of course the hole he had to fill had to be a "hot" woman. Nothing else would do.

Most of his dialogue seemed to consist of endless complaining about his need to fuck and women were just holes for him to stick his dick in until he came. On That Seventies Show he was constantly surrounded by "hot" women who he felt owed him a fuck, for it was the only reason they seemed to exist for him. In the show Fez was apparently never told to shut up about his perpetual blue balls, told to masturbate or simply hire a sex worker. Instead his incessant whining and writhing about his blue balls was sadly tolerated, when his balls and cock should have been cut off and stuffed down his throat until he died putting an end to the torment of his friends. Just another entitled incel. 

Who cares Laid - Less

There is of course, although far rarer in media, the laid less character who just doesn't give a shit about sex. 

Two classic examples of Who cares Laid - Less are Sheldon and Amy. For them the constant obsession with sex of three of the leads is utterly pathetic and absurd, which it most definitely is. Now of course eventually two of the blue balled, constantly whining about sex, and their need for hot cunt, incel pieces of garbage eventually get the cunts they needed to stuff, mainly because they are so pathetic in their never ending search for hole.

Sheldon is of course an entitled asshole, who uses his high intelligence as a get out of jail card constantly, in order to excuse and evade the consequences of his obnoxious, rude, exploitive and narcissistic behavior, but at least he is not a incel, constantly whining about his PDS, (Pussy Deficit Syndrome).

Amy, his soul mate, is fortunately not the entitled asshole that Sheldon is, and unlike Penny, and Bernadotte she is not there simply to provide a flesh envelope for Sheldon's deprived cock. She actually is a companion to Sheldon not just a hole to fill.

Unlike the classic Laid - Less the Who cares Laid - Less do not center their lives around sex and filling holes, or finding something to fill their hole. They actually have lives ands interests outside of sex and do not suffer from PDS, or DDS. (Dick Deficit Syndrome.) They have better things to do than obsess over sex and their poor deprived privates. They can take sex or leave it. 

The Fake Laid - Less

This is the character who whines about, being alone, not having sex, while at the same time having lots of actual sex and basically nothing to complain about.

A classic example of this type is George from Seinfeld. This character whines a lot about his lack of a girlfriend and acts often like he is so sex deprived, i.e., Laid - Less. In actuality George had plenty of girlfriends, (More then Jerry.), and so had many cunts to envelope his lonely, starved cock, and fill willing cunts with his jizz.

So why the whining? Here again it is entitlement syndrome. George feels he is entitled to have sex with lots and lots of Women, (Hot Women only of course. The fact George isn't remotely hot is irrelevant of course.), and poor George isn't getting all the sex with hot Women he "deserves". All of this is his point of view. Women exist for him has flesh envelopes to enclose his throbbing cock and bring him to a climax, and unfairly not enough hot Women are doing that for him, because only his needs matter. 

It is once again incel like behavior

Then there is the Asshole / Hate Full Bitch Laid - Less.

This is the individual whose suffering from PDS and DDS is such that they take out their lack of dick or cunt by being insufferable assholes etc., to everyone. Their hatefulness literally screams "I need DICK!", I need CUNT!". This character type is pretty much a stereotype, often in the portrayal of older women, or women who had never been married, (Old Maids.), whose lack of sex supposedly made them angry, bitter and very, very hateful.

An excellent example of the sexually frustrated, bitter, hateful asshole is the character Blanche on the British soap Coronation Street. In the show she was an angry hateful, bitter old crone from hell. When she discussed or mentioned the sexual deeds, or misdeeds of her neighbours came up, in all her judgmental screeds of righteous anger was the all to obvious jealousy and rage that her cunt was not enclosing dick and squeezing jizz out of it during a awesome climax. And of course that her mouth and ass was not also enclosing a throbbing dick to a creamy, satisfying ending.

A variation of the above is Asshole etc., Laid - Less who is getting plenty of sex but it is not the "right" sex or with the "right" person so the Laid - Less despite getting plenty of sex is as bitter, hateful and all round horrible as the Asshole etc., because they are not getting what they really want and think they deserve.

The classic example of the above is Marie Barone from the sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond. 

Despite the fact Marie as a awesome amount of hate sex with her husband Frank, she still acts like a truly hateful, horrible succubus from hell, like she is very, very sexually frustrated and suffering severely from DDS. Given that she has a far from incidental sex life - what gives?

Well it is sort of obvious. Marie's relationship with her son Raymond is emotionally incestuous and he is very much a "Mommy's Boy". So what does that mean. Well she hates and despises Debra, Raymond's wife, because Debra took her son away from her, when she, Marie, should be the only woman in Raymond's life. Marie emotionally feels she is Raymond's true wife, lover etc. Of course Marie consciously would deny this, but her "true" love is Raymond and Frank is a poor substitute.

Marie thus desires that Raymond's dick be enclosed by her cunt, that her ass and mouth receive and swallow Raymond's dick. That Raymond fill her with load after load of his jizz. Marie is, in effect, deeply frustrated, sexually, because she is not fucking her son.   

The defining characteristic of the Laid - Less character trope is a serious obsession with sex, or perhaps more accurately an obsession with the lack of sex to the point of near or actual derangement. Such characters, think constantly about sex, talk about it endlessly to everyone in the whole world, morning, noon and night, and if they are not, frequently, taking out their lack of sex, by being annoying, bitter assholes from hell.

Cast of That Seventies Show.

    

Lady Heather's Complaint

Lady Heather

(Melinda Clarke)

Lady Heather  was a character in the long running show CSI. She started out has a Dominatrix running a (legal) brothel in Nevada and ended up becoming a therapist. In the show she had various run ins with the regulars especially  head honcho Grissom.

John Galt is a character, Messiah, in that door stop of a novel Atlas Shrugged, written by Ayn Rand. The character is one of the ultimate Mary Sue creations aside from being one dimensional.

I thought it might be fun to have the two characters meet.1

This is your Brain on Star Trek

Cast of S.T.T.N.G.

The following is several numbered, humorous, lists regarding Star Trek. I found them on my computer and I think I've been carrying them around in my data files for over ten years. I'm not sure if they are still available on the web. So I'm putting them up here. They are in some cases a bit dated but still funny.

Enjoy.

The Mulla



Nasrudin teaching





In the Muslim world there as been since early on movements of philosophical mysticism. Most of them are grouped under the name of Sufism, which means “woolly minded”.1 Sufism is not a religious belief system but a movement although various Muslim religious sects have arisen out of it.2

The influences on Sufism are Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and most notably Buddhism. However the influence of ancient Middle Eastern and Eastern traditions of wisdom should not be overlooked.3

One of the techniques of Sufistic contemplation is that of contemplating the “meaning” of various stories, sayings and jokes. That aside from having a surface meaning the stories etc., has layers of deeper more profound, mystical meaning.4

Thus we get to the Mulla mentioned in the title. The Mulla’s name is Nasrudin and no he is not a real person. He is a device to teach and to entertain. He is in the stories, jokes etc., the everyman, and he is commonplace, stunningly stupid and amazingly wise depending on the story. He is in other words as unreal as the Kilroy in the saying “Kilroy was here”.5

So now we get to the real point of this posting some of the stories. However before I go into the stories I must mention that some of the stories I am using come from a collection put together by Idries Shah. Idries Shah, (1924-1996) was a controversial character to put it mildly for all sorts of reasons. However in this case it is because his translations of material were often slipshod and his account of Sufism is not to be trusted. So it is with trepidation that I use Idries Shah’s collection of Nasrudin tales.6

Self Abuse Insanity

And Mark Twain

Mark Twain

In the 19th century Doctors all over the Western World were bravely fighting a mighty scourge that threatened to destroy society, the family and finally all civilization. They bravely fought this mighty “scourge” despite the insidious way it infected the purest of minds, leading them down the road to degradation, decadence and depravity, (The three Ds). In their never ending battle to fight this evil the Doctor’s never for one moment slacked their vigilance and gave the enemy any respite.

Slant Sayings

Moose greets Cat? Or is it Cat greets Moose?
Here are just a few of my favorite twisted sayings.

Whats mine is mine and whats everyone else's is mine also.

Do unto others before they do unto you.1

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until next week.2

May the Lord have mercy on you because I will not!.3

The greatest thing since sliced bread.4

A rolling stone goes nowhere fast.

Sex without love is an empty experience but as empty experiences go it is one of the best!5

Murphy said “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong”. Murphy was an optimist!6

Canada could have had American technology, British government and French culture, instead Canada got British technology, French government and American Culture.7

Always tell the truth unless a lie is more convenient.

The only Christian died on the Cross.8

Putting others ahead of yourself is a sure way to get ahead.

Other people’s deaths are always worth while if you personally benefit.

With royalty lay on flattery with a trowel.9

To everything there is a season and that includes getting herpes.

Always remember that a man will sooner forgive the murder of his father and / or mother than the theft of his property.10

Government – Hands off my Medicare!!11

God save the Queen she ain’t no human being.12

There is no there there!13

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice macrame.

I used to miss him but my aim is improving.14

Before you blow kneel first.

I saw, I conquered, I came!

Blessed are the cheese makers.15

I may not be Mr. Right but I am Mr. Right now!

You can’t escape death, taxes and running out of toilet paper.

Never let your moral sense prevent you from doing what is right.16

Those are just some of my favourite slant sayings. Some are my own, or at least I think they are others are from things I’ve read and heard.

1. No idea where I got that one from although it definitely is not something I thought up.

2. IBID.

3. IBID.

4. My own perverse variation of “The greatest invention since white bread”.

5. Woody Allen of course.

6. A known variation of Murphy’s Law.

7. A common Canadian joke.

8. From the German philosopher Nietzsche.

9. From the British politician Disraeli.

10. From the Philosopher Machiavelli.

11. From a Teabaggers rally.

12. From the Sex Pistols song.

13. Attributed to the American Writer Gertrude Stein.

14. Title of a self-help book.

15. From the Film The Life of Brian.

16. From Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.

Pierre Cloutier

Revisiting Jerry Falwell’s Mother and Stanley Fish

Prof. Stanley Fish
This essay is not about Jerry Falwell’s mother instead it is about Stanley Fish says about Free Speech. What does Jerry Falwell’s mother to do with this? In 1983 Larry Flynn, publisher of Hustler, published a parody interview with Jerry Falwell in which Mr. Falwell remises about his first time. In this case his first time was with his mother in an outhouse! Mr. Falwell sued and lost. The various courts ruling that Larry Flynn’s freedom of speech rights were trumped Jerry Falwell and his mother’s damaged reputations. Well some people were disturbed by this outcome. One of them was Stanley Fish a Professor of Duke University and a noted Post-Modernist thinker. But then Prof. Stanley Fish entitled a collection of his essays There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and it’s a good thing too.1 The book contains a essay on Freedom of Speech, with the title above which is also used as the title of the book, which is about how Freedom of Speech doesn’t really exist and an essay about the libel case involving Jerry Falwell.

Through it all Prof. Fish manages quite simply not to get it.

For example he says:

“Free speech” is just the name we give to verbal behaviour that serves the substantive agendas we wish to advance; and we give out preferred verbal behaviours that name when we can, when we have the power to do so, because in the rhetoric of American life, the label “Free Speech” is one you want for your favourites to wear. Free speech, in short, is not an independent value but a political prize, and if that prize has been captured by a politics opposed to yours, it can no longer be invoked in ways that further your purposes, for it is now an obstacle to those purposes.2

Later Prof. Fish articulates the idea that freedom of expression assumes that some speech is meaningless or wrong to say. Really?

Prof. Fish is articulating a position which states that the demand for “Free Speech” is always inherently political and used to advance a position and that it is not a independent position. In other words it is always political and that no one really believes in “Free Speech” as an abstract value.

By arguing that “Free Speech” is political Prof. Fish brings it into the argument for debate, by assuming it is political he can argue that limitations on it are merely like “Free Speech” political positions. Thus Prof. Fish can argue for limitations on speech.

But then Prof. Fishes' point is that the crowd of anti “politically correct” pundits etc., have captured the ground of “Free Speech” so that arguments for “Free Speech” by “Liberal” or “Progressive” groups etc., have conceded that ground to the enemy so that the debate must shift to how “Free Speech” isn’t real and how it can be and is limited, so we can then discuss what can be banned.

One wonders how Prof. Fish with his assumption that “Free Speech” is always political tailors with people like Prof, Chomsky’ defence of Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson right to speak.3 Prof. Fish seems to think that “Free Speech” is purely a political act designed to advance a particular political position. This is false. To quote Chomsky:

But I’m saying if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. I mean Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. Right? So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you’re not in favour of freedom of speech. There’s two positions you can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want.4

Prof. Fish seems to be totally unaware of this sort of position.

Prof. Fish then goes into a rather useless rant about how speech related injuries can be hurtful and painful and should not be trivialized and then Prof. Fish talks about how a recommended solution that the solution to this is more speech trivializes the harm. That speech operates in the real world and that to treat speech like it was mere ideas forgets that they are actions.5

This of course a straw man and Prof. Fish’s statement that the more speech argument trivializes the “harm” speech can do is a nice example of Prof. Fish indicating that he is in the end not very radical at all. Chomsky among many others can tell him how the media is constrained by market and other forces to marginalize and largely shut out opinion contrary to powerful interests. Such that more speech is indeed a powerful tool and very much in the interest of the powerless and marginal. Further that constraints on speech will be controlled directly and / or indirectly by these powerful interests, so just how would the powerless and marginal benefit from that? Chomsky and others like him have a powerful distrust of the state and its various institutions and Prof. Fish is here indicating quite strongly an almost childlike trust in such things.6

The speech codes that Prof. Fish is here defending are of course under control of the institutions in question and Prof. Fish’s trust in the good faith of those institutions is touching and frankly naïve.

But then Prof. Fish “knows” that “Free Speech” is always about politics:

When the First Amendment is successfully invoked, the result is not a victory for free speech in the face of a challenge from politics but a political victory won by the party that has managed to wrap its agenda in the mantle of free speech.7

Really? I just wonder how this explains the ACLU defending the rights of Klansmen, Neo-Nazi and Fundamentalists to “Free Speech”. Given that the ACLU routinely defends groups and people whose positions are radically different from and contrary to ACLU positions on all sorts of issues.8

Prof. Fish does not seem to understand that the ACLU position and those who think along the same lines, is that you give opinions you despise freedom to be expressed, precisely to defend your own freedom to express your own opinions. Not as he seems to think that “Freedom of Speech” will lead in the end to “right” or “true” opinions to dominate. As for the Prof. Fish’s argument that speech can cause “harm”, well so what! The problem is that which speech causes “harm” is very much a personal matter. I have little doubt that I could easily find Conservative pundits, Fundamentalists who regard the speech of Fish and others like him has “grievous and deeply wounding”9, and of course causing untold harm, and therefore it should be suppressed.

Prof. Fish seems to be totally unaware that there are other grounds for attacking so-called Conservatives wrapping themselves in the mantle of “Free Speech”. One of course is the unmitigated hypocrisy of such a stance when many so-called Conservative pundits routinely call for the suppression of speech they do not like, and in fact have engaged in quite disgusting campaigns of attempted suppression. Or that Conservative educational institutions, Fundamentalist schools etc., routinely suppress “Free Speech” and other First Amendment rights but that Conservative pundits etc., pass over these offences in silence.10

Further that speech codes can be defended on the grounds that they are often vastly less restrictive than the arbitrary authority and grounds which the authorities who run those institutions can discipline for “bad” behaviour or words. Further that it is important to realize that these institutions being private institutions have a greater right to regulate the behaviour of the people who are privileged to be allowed into them. These arguments may be good or bad but they are certainly better than the convoluted stew that Prof. Fish argues for.11

But then in a rather convoluted series of passages Prof. Fish ends up arguing for regulation of speech, because in the end Prof. Fish doesn’t wish to hear speech he doesn’t like. Of course Prof. Fish is utterly unaware that there are people who don’t want to hear his opinions and wish to suppress them, using the very same logic he does.

What does this have to do with Jerry Falwell’s mother?


Reverend Jerry Falwell Well in 1983 Larry Flynn published, in his sex magazine Hustler, a vicious parody of Reverend Jerry Falwell reminiscing about his first time; first time having sex that is. Making it problematic Reverend Falwell was describing having sex with his mother in an outhouse. That is definitely really nasty! Certainly this is to put it mildly tasteless and certainly going after Jerry Falwell is one thing but his mother also?! Jerry Falwell sued for libel.

But then Prof. Fish ruins the whole thing by a couple of statements such as:

So what we have here is a false and malicious depiction of two people with the avowed intention of wounding one so that his ability to function as a minister of the gospel would be destroyed.12

Well poor Reverend Falwell! I note that Prof. Fish says this after admitting that the article says very clearly that it is a parody. It is rather interesting that Prof. Fish avoids any mention of Reverend Falwell’s own very well developed capacity for malice and cruelty. As for being a minister of the gospel many would disagree with that. But then the phrase is purposely designed to raise sympathy for Mr. Falwell. Forgetting of course that in the departments of political and economic power Falwell vastly exceeded Flynn. We are not talking about an innocent here. Then Prof. Fish makes it very clear that he doesn’t like Flynn very much or pornography or considers pornography a form of legitimate “speech” because it is not about politics. At this point Prof. Fish makes the comment about the founding fathers would not have considered obscenity true speech. So!?13 At that point it is hard to take Prof. Fish seriously.

This entire spiel is designed to once again support the idea that certain types of speech should be suppressed in this case pornography. This requires, in the present example, a demonization of Larry Flynn. I will simply tell Prof. Fish that he should read Gore Vidal’s essay Sex is Politics,14 if he seriously thinks pornography is not a form of speech.

Larry Flynn

Later Prof. Fish makes some comment that we already regulate speech with the rather obvious implied and direct contention that we should continue to regulate speech.15 Prof. Fish once again doesn’t get it. Everything that exists in human life is regulated one way or the other that is the nature of human existence and frankly even the most extreme free speech absolutist knows this. (Prof. Fish creates a rather absurd caricature of such a person). After all everyone with any sense knows about yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is not protected speech. The point is how much / how speech should be regulated. By redefining the issue to whether or not speech should be regulated at all Prof. Fish avoids this problem. Of course setting up the straw man of the position that the alternative to that position is one of no regulation, and demonstrating that such a position is simply stupid Prof. Fish once again tilts at windmills.

It is of interest that Prof. Fish admits that attempts to define a rational basis for declaring something obscene are contradictory, difficult and absurd but draws no conclusions that perhaps this indicates that trying to do so outside very narrow range of limits perhaps should not be done. Instead Prof. Fish believes that this indicates that perhaps deciding what is obscene should be deduced entirely outside rational discourse. Which of course would make it possible to ban pornography because he finds it personally icky. One again Prof. Fish forgets that many people might find his type of discourse also personally icky and so therefore it should be banned.

Now regarding the above case I wonder if Prof. Fish is ready to allow everyone to be sued who refers to someone has a “son of a bitch”, because after all such a statement calls someone’s mother a dog. In this case the piece was clearly indicated to be a parody and not to be taken seriously, and it is clear that the piece was an attack on Reverend Falwell not his mother. So frankly I agree with the verdict that rejected the libel claim. Despite Prof Fish’s insinuations the fact that Larry Flynn publishes pornography is simply not relevant in this case. But then it is clear that Prof. Fish doesn’t like Larry Flynn or pornography. So he is here basically arguing for allowing the suppression of pornography on the grounds it is not legitimate “speech”.

That said I still find the parody piece offensive and it would have been nice if Larry Flynn had published an apology to Jerry Falwell’s mother.16 In my opinion the piece was unnecessarily tasteless and Jerry Falwell’s mother should have been left alone.

In the end Prof Fish seems to have problems with freedom so I quote:

Those who do not understand that freedom has value in itself, though its expression necessarily produces evil as well as good, are poorly suited to the culture of democracy.17

1, Fish, Stanley, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.

2, IBID, p. 102.

3, A lot of nonsense as been written about this. I would just note that Chomsky’s defence of Robert Faurisson is solely a defence of his right to speak and not be silenced, not of Robert Faurisson’s utterly repellent views. I will forgo linking to or referring to any of Robert Faurisson’s works. You just need to Google to find his filth. See Wintonick, Peter, & Achbar, Mark, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1994, pp.175-191.

4, Wintonick et al, p. 184.

5, IBID, pp. 108-109.

6, See Chomsky, Noam, & Herman, Edward S., Manufacturing Consent, Revd. Edition, Pantheon Books, New York, 2004.

7, Fish, p. 110.

8, See the ACLU website, Here.

9. Fish p. 109.

10, See for example Wilson, John K., The Myth of Political Correctness, Duke University Press, London, 1995, and Jenkinson, Edward B., Censors in the Class Room, Discus Books, 1979. See also Weiner, Jon, Historians in Trouble, The New Press, New York, 2005. A classic action is the ouster of Ward Churchill who was ousted from his tenure position at the University of Colorado over alleged academic misconduct when the actual reason, (as determined by a trial) was some controversial, and frankly rather disgusting statements regarding 911 he foolishly uttered and wrote. I will not repeat them, just Google. Well Prof. Churchill won his wrongful termination suit. Basically a lot of so called Conservative pundits and others went baying for his blood and to get him turfed. They got more than they bargained for from Prof. Churchill. I still find his comments repellent but frankly the Universities teem with Profs having disgusting opinions that is no reason to fire them. See The Ward Churchill Trial, Here.

11, See Wilson, pp. 90-135.

12, Fish, p. 120.

13. IBID, pp. 120-133.

14, in The Second American Revolution and other Essays 1976-1982, Random house, New York, 1982.

15, Fish, pp. 128-130.

16. As far as I can tell Hustler never printed an apology to Jerry Falwell’s mother. I in all modesty suggest the following:

Mrs Falwell we would like to apologize for unintentially causing you pain and anguish. It was our intention to hit that hypocrite turd of a son of yours and it was a mistake to drag you into our dispute with him. So once again our sincere apologies.

17. Revel, Jean-Francois, The Totalitarian Temptation, Penguin Books, New York, 1977, p. 17.

Pierre Cloutier

An update for The Devil’s Dictionary

THIS POST CONTAINS SOME CRUDE / VULGAR LANGUAGE!

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!

Ambrose Bierce
In 1911 Ambrose Bierce, American humorist, published his The Devil’s Dictionary1, here are a few updates for a new version.

Accomplice – Someone who helps a criminal do a wicked act, who got caught and could not bribe, cheat, lie or dissemble his / her way out of it.

Asshole – An empty space, and / or a person who won’t sleep with you.

Born Again – The nearest thing a Fundamentalist experiences to an Orgasm. Also an impossibility given that you are only born once. A licence to boss everyone else around.

Christian – Debased and abused term misused by many. See Fundamentalist.

Criminal – Someone who steals, lies, kills etc., on a small scale; does not apply to those who do it wholesale see Politician, CEO etc.

Cunt – An empty space, and / or a women who won’t sleep with you.

Fucking – A pleasurable activity that must be made un-pleasurable and guilt ridden so that people who can’t do it will feel some pleasure denying others pleasure.

Heterosexuality – The true faith and only path to salvation, although only if done the correct way, (missionary position for procreation only with no pleasure). Every effort must be made to convert all humans to this true faith least they enjoy themselves.

Heresy – The losing side of an argument. An opinion you don’t like. Something to get indignant about.

Homosexuality – A Heresy. Which every effort must be made to stamp out least everyone be denied salvation. See Heterosexuality.

Freedom Fighter – Someone who murders, mains and devastates without scruple, who is on our side and therefore is not a Terrorist. See Terrorist.

Fundamentalist – Liar, Blasphemer, Heretic, and also brain dead. See Zombie.

Jesus of Nazareth – Guy who got nailed to a tree for saying wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other for a change. (See book Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy2). Although Jesus was Jewish he was of course not Jewish according to most of his followers. See Christian.

Living together – An illicit form of Marriage.

Luxury – Allowed only to those who have worked hard all their lives and their children wives, husbands, relatives, friends, parasites, politicians, thieves, liars, cheaters etc, who of course have a god given right to think the world owes them a living.

Marriage – Legal prostitution. See Prostitution.

Masturbation – Self sex, everyone can do so of course no one should do it. Bulwark of virginity.

Media – Teller of truths that are lies also providers of depraved sexual services to the highest bidder. Also known as ass kissers and butt lickers.

National Interests – The interests of the rich and powerful has against the interests of 95-99% of the population.

Orthodox – The winning aside of an argument. An opinion you like. Senility. See Zombie.

Political Correctness – Term applied by powerful, influential people to formerly powerless people complaining about powerful influential people abusing and libelling them. Also the whining of the powerless and abused as against the whining of the rich and powerful which is not Politically Correct but merely objective reality.

Politician – See Criminal and Accomplice. Someone who is out for his own interests but cloaks it in lies and subterfuge. Also a wholesale thief, liar, hypocrite, killer etc. Generally also a pet poodle of the rich and powerful. Noted for his / her brown nose.

Prostitution – Marriage without illusions. See Marriage. Disgusting activity in which only the providers of the service are depraved not the customers.

Sex – Wicked pleasurable activity indulged in by most and therefore must be made as guilt ridden and loathsome as possible. See Fucking.

Shrub – A smaller, more insignificant Bush.

Special Interests – Everybody except the rich and powerful, i.e.., 95-99% of the population.

Terrorist – Someone who murders, mains and devastates without scruple, who is not on our side.

Zombie – Master of Doublespeak. Those who think in a box the size a pin. See Orthodox and Fundamentalist.


1. A copy can be found Here. The Devil’s Dictionary and other works by Ambrose Bierce can also be found Here.

2. Adams, Douglas, Del Rey, New York, 1995.

Pierre Cloutier