sociallyengineering.com Blog

a james cameron movie is in it’s essence a porno: nothing but a fantastic look, unrealistic action and the thinnest of plots to get to the money shot.

finally it has been said aloud was has been apparent for years by an authority of the body no less, one of chicago’s finest, roger ebert:

” i am happy to say it brings back an element sadly missing in recent movies, gratuitous nudity. sexy women would ‘happen’ to be topless in the 1970s movies for no better reason than that everyone agreed, including themselves, that their breasts were a genuine pleasure to regard — the most beautiful naturally occurring shapes in nature, i believe. now we see breasts only in serious films, for expressing reasons.”

clearly a man with a preference and only the question remains to be answered:

“what-a good is all the violence in the world unless
it is toppled with limitless sex?”

after all is said and done, a final request remains to be completed, a task to finish off what has been started, the coupe de grace to the day and a simple entreaty to make it all worthwhile:

“put your fingers up my ass, are you deaf?”

while novel in it’s label, the notion of a “death panel” is hardly the concept du jour the extreme would have you believe. for years now the american medical industrial complex has operated quite successfully a variety of death panels offering a multitude of denied claims and final solutions under the palatable moniker “health maintenance organization”, more commonly referred to as an “H.M.O.”

somewhere over the rainbow way up high sits the king of pop in conversation not with the king of rock ‘n roll, but she whose life’s trajectory was similar to his own, judy garland.

“the king is gone but he’s not forgotten…”

and so the plot thickens with the saga of mark sanford’s mysterious disappearance with one question being “what was he doing in argentina?” if mystery is involved as well as argentina, it’s obvious that mystery booty must be involved…what else could drive a republican beyond his country’s borders without explanation than virally phenomenal ass?

conceivably rape in war is the precedent, yet the notion that a political ideology could be asserted through prison sex seems uniquely american. big government opponents and states’ rights advocates obviously can unite under the banner of encouraging the systematic sexual assault of prisoners thereby limiting the federal governments influence and the socialistic tendency to compassion for the human condition. perhaps mark sanford’s plans for rejecting stimulus funds ought to have included a plank for emboldening jailhouse predators…rather than a long walk to nowhere.

a bimbo acts like a bimbo at a gathering of bimbos and there is surprise? mercifully the flip wilson argument has not been trotted out but apparently the devil was nonetheless present at the event. while no new ground will be broken with this thought it must be repeated, isn’t it a bit oxymoronic to expect political correctness at a beauty pageant?

while it seems that the dick’s assertions regarding the results produced pretty much speak for themselves, wondering about the efficacy of torture is merely an exercise of day dream fancy since the answer is easily at hand if there was a genuine desire for it…simply ask the spanish inquistion.

“i cannot sign zee papers…”
“and why can you not sign zee papers!”
“because you have broken both of my hands.”

“i’ve done a lot god knows i’ve tried
to find the truth, i’ve even lied,
but all i know is down inside
i’m bleeding…”

with an invocation of imagery from the inception of the united states, quickly through time a journey is taken to the days of brother will kill brother. what an entertaining notion, that americans will take arms up against fellow americans for the purpose of militantly asserting what a democracy with its constitution and bill of rights does not afford them in the year two thousand and nine, namely unelected political power, an exception taken for granted the previous eight years by some. were it more astounding that the position advocated is tantamount to the poor fighting on behalf of the rich against the poor…

politicians hide themselves away
they only started the war
why should they go out to fight?
they leave that role to the poor…