Blogging too much

I have been Blogging too much. I'm afraid of getting square eyes. Am I too late?


This is where a Blogging addiction gets you. I'll have to go get a lube now.

So You want to be a Slave?

...is much like the oceans of the world, broad deep and varied.

As with nature it ebbs, flows, changes and has logic and language all it's own. It is no secret I am a traditionalist. I began my journey into this world over 19 years ago, before the World Wide Web existed in the form we know today. In other words, I was doing this before AOL existed.

In our world "all slaves are submissive (sub's) but not all subs are slaves". In the more traditional or older practiced protocols, the slave is the highest form of submissive. To be recognized as a slave is an honor and a form of accomplishment. In a sense with traditional lifestyle practitioners, a sub plays at living it. A slave lives it. This is a common view among long time RT (real time) BDSM folks much to the dislike of VT or virtual (cyber ) players. This piece of writing isn't about cyber. It is a Traditionalist point of view about sensual slavery as a real lifestyle, not a cyber-sex (chat room) diversion or escape. I am here to help you ask the question, "Am I a slave ?"

The sub:

• Does pleasing and serving others give you a strange sense of inner satisfaction?
• When you were young did you always love to play the captured one or the slave girl/boy?
• Did you have to be the one who served the tea at the make believe tea parties as a little girl ?
• Does the thought of being owned, being property turn you on?

A submissive is one who hears the calling to submit, to surrender their control to another and not only obey, but serve. A sub lives to give of themselves to another; to see the needs of their Dominant come first. In doing this, the submissive fulfills a deep, aching, silent void within them.

Do not think just because someone is a submissive they are weak. To the contrary, some of the strongest individuals I know are sub's and slaves. Within BDSM there is a saying, "I'm submissive, not stupid ". What this ultimately means in my eyes is with "if you look down upon a submissive for being so, you have totally missed the whole point... and you're an asshole.

The "sub" differs from the slave in key area's. Technically, as much as I dislike it, you can "be" submissive and it is something you can "do". A submissive has a laundry list of things they will NOT do and conditions they will only serve under.

With the proliferation of on-line BDSM chat rooms and cyber "wannabes" the line between sub and slave has been seriously blurred. It is not uncommon now for the term "sub" or "slave" to be used interchangeably when in essence they ARE different things.

From my perspective, as a long time, real life practitioner, if you are Married or cyber, you can be a sub. However, until you are at the feet of your Dom (or Dominant) with their collar around your neck, you can't be a slave in the true sense of the term. If you are married and your Dominant is someone other than your spouse, I don't see how you can truly be a slave. The old saying applies here, "you can't serve two Masters (Mistresses)".

The Slave:

A slave is everything a sub is, but has taken it to a higher plane. Being a slave isn't something you just do, a slave is something you ARE ! It is more than submission, it is a state of mind; a state of complete and total spiritual surrender of your empirical essence to another. For a slave, life is about service, to their Dominant and others. A true slave lives to not only give pleasure, but be enjoyed as well. For a slave, there is NO greater pleasure than for their Master or Mistress to set them upon a task, use them sexually or have them used.

A slave in essence has few or NO limits. Their Dominant has absolute control over their, life, body, mind and soul. They find the act of someone having such power over them an immense turn on and comfort which completes their whole being. There are many forms of service but for simplicity I'm going to break it down into three:

The Pleasure slave:

This is probably the most common form of service otherwise known as sexual service. Everyone talks about pleasure slaves, many even make the claim but few truly understand what it really means or entails. A true pleasure slave exists to be used sexually. You have no say about when, where, how or who. That is now the right of your Dominant to decide, not you. Within this concept there are some givens which I will mention.

You are property or chattel, however you are valued property and your Master or Mistress WILL NOT, should NOT place you at serious risk. In other words, if your owner chooses to "give" you to another for their enjoyment, is the Dominant's responsibility to ensure safe sex or other arrangements are made.

A pleasure slave usually is a highly sexual being, or is trained to be. A smart Master or Mistress knows it is unwise to ever allow a pleasure slave complete satisfaction, for they are meant to be in a state constant sexual excitement. The latter is very important. Pleasure slaves understand they exist for one thing (basically) and one thing only; and they are to be ready at all times.

Do you have what it takes to be a pleasure slave?

Does the thought of being tied down, bent over and being used (Insert gratuitously fucked here) excite you?  Do you find yourself dreaming of being a sexual object boy / girl toy a central theme in your fantasies?  Have you found, during your past sexual encounters, you enjoyed pleasing your partner more than pleasing yourself? Is there a deep sensual fire burning within you to be set free? Do you find yourself wanting it all the time? At the core of your being are you a (for lack of a better word) a SLUT? Does the thought of someone else having complete control over your sexuality for THEIR pleasure call to you? Are you often consumed with thoughts of being loaned or rented out to others for their pleasure ? Do you want to be owned? Can you let go of everything that you think you are in order to find yourself? Are you intelligent, outgoing and capable of learning?

 

The Domestic slave: There are those who get great pleasure and dream of life revolving around "Domestic" service. A Domestic slave is just as dedicated as a pleasure slave but their calling is serving the needs of their Master's or Mistress's household. The best Domestic slaves enjoy picking up after their owners. They are consummate cooks, neat, orderly and it is their personal duty to protect their Dominants Castle from the forces of dirt. With a competent domestic slave at hand, a Dominant have never want of a clean shirt or warm meal. The Dominant is the spiritual backstop or anchor of their life. They are the caretakers of order for the Dominants universe.

The Business Slave: They are often called, "Executive assistants", "personal companions", "personal secretaries" and other such mundane names. Often they are not only a slave but an employee in some cases as well. Like the Domestic slave they bring order to a Dominant's universe, except they do it not only at the Dominants feet but in the business arena as well. It is not uncommon for the business slave to be responsible for running their Dominant's business and still be a total slave in mind, soul and body. Don't let this duality fool you, it is more than possible for a devoted slave, and competently run a multinational company. Being a slave is a reflection of WHO you are, not necessarily what you are capable of accomplishing.

Final Thoughts and points:

If you think being a slave is easy, mindless and a great escape from the responsibilities of your life decisions, you're wrong ! What makes an outstanding slave is this:

A great slave is intelligent, dedicated, motivated and loyal. They understand the Master (Mistress) / slave relationship is built on a foundation of trust and a consuming need to serve. Within their absolute surrender, they realize being a slave is HARD work and are not afraid of it.

Do not think the Dominant has it easy either. A slave requires immense care, time and work. A Dominant should not even consider taking a slave in a 24/7 relationship until he or she has matured. This is where many inexperienced Dominants set themselves and the slave in their care upon the road to disaster.

If you have made it this far, either in your heart or soul you "hear the call". If you don't, I hope you have been enlightened. If you do, look within, accept who and what you are. You have a road before you. Do you have the guts to walk that road?

If you truly are a slave soul, then you must follow it. If you don't you shall know NO peace until you do. There will forever be a singular void within your spirit you'll neither understand nor vanquish. This I know, "slave soul". I am your Yin. You are my Yang. We are two parts of a whole, a never-ending balance of opposing needs, locked together forming a singular and powerful universe and spiritual bond.

If this essay called to you I invite your comments, thoughts or opinions.

Slavery in America - not the BDSM ones..

[WARNING: Some images may disturb.] Slavery has been a part of human society since its beginning – and it continues to thrive today. This list looks at some facts about slavery that should (for the most part) be unknown to most of our readers. This is a look through history at how slavery has existed and survived through time.

10

Established In Virginia

Slavery was officially established in Virginia in 1654, when Anthony Johnson, a black man, convinced a court that his servant (also black) John Casor was his for life. Johnson himself had been brought to Virginia some years earlier as an indentured servant (a person who must work to repay a debt, or on contract for so many years in exchange for food and shelter – image of a contract above) but he saved enough money to buy out the remainder of his contract and that of his wife. The court ruled in Johnson’s favor, and the very first officially state-recognized slave existed in Virginia. Johnson eventually became very wealthy and began importing his own black slaves from Africa, for which he was granted 250 acres (at the time, any person importing a slave would be paid 50 acres per person). Eventually the unfortunate repercussions of this decision would come back to haunt Johnson when his land was confiscated and given to a white man because Johnson “was a Negroe and by consequence an alien.”

9

Disastrous Invention

In the second part of the eighteenth century, slavery was beginning to disappear naturally in the United States as farmers were planting crops that required far less manual work. Many slave owners freed their slaves and it began to look like slavery would die out completely. But things were to change. In 1793, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin (a device for processing raw cotton). This meant that a single man could process fifty times more cotton in a day than previously – making cotton a huge money making crop. This caused the almost immediate replacement of many crops with cotton, and slavery became once again firmly entrenched until its modern abolition.

8

The Word

The word “slave” comes to us from Byzantine Greek “sklabos” which was the name for the Slavic people. The reason for this is that the Vikings used to capture the Slavs and sell them to the Romans as slaves. The term only dates back as far as 580 AD as the Latin word “servus” was more commonly used before that for all kinds of servants – enslaved or not.

7

The Bible and Slavery

The Bible does not expressly condone or forbid slavery. In the New Testament, Jesus heals a slave and commends his owner for his faith. He does not take the time to condemn the slave owner for having a slave, nor at any point does he try to suggest that slavery is wrong. Saint Paul said this to slave owners: “Do not threaten [your slaves], since you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him” (Ephesians 6:9). The Old Testament goes a little further and reminds people to treat their slaves well. The most likely reason for this apparent moral discrepancy is that the Bible was penned at a time when slavery was not only widespread, but considered perfectly normal and moral – there was no reason to mention it as most people wouldn’t have considered it an issue worth thinking about. Slaves at the time were also generally treated much better than the slaves of modern times, and would usually end up being made free after a number of years servitude.

6

Land of the Free

Liberia is a small nation on the west coast of Africa, surrounded by Sierra Leone, The Ivory Coast, Guinea, and the Atlantic Ocean. In 1822, Liberia was founded as a colony by American slaves who had been freed. So thankful were the slaves for the efforts of President James Monroe that they named their new capital city after him (Monrovia). The area was populated by various native ethnic groups and the American slaves had a tendency to look down on them as uncivilized. In 1847, the freed slaves declared independence and the nation was officially born. For its first 133 years, the country was a one-party state dominated by the Americo-Liberians. Ironically, the Americo-Liberians and their children were the only people considered citizens and allowed to vote. Liberia is currently the only (and first) African nation to have an elected woman (Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf) as its head. Liberian English (the official language in Liberia) is a transplanted variant of the English spoken by African American slaves in the 19th Century. The freed slaves turned Liberia into a replica of the cities they left in the United States – as can be seen by the now dilapidated Masonic Temple above which is in Monrovia.A Mark Of Honor

In Africa, prior to the arrival of European slave traders, slavery was a normal part of life. The thing that makes it stand out from European style slavery was the fact that it was a sign of good reputation and honor if a slave owner treated his slaves with respect and kindness. The better treated your slaves, the more honorable and highly regarded you were. Manhandling a slave (as the Europeans were wont to do) was considered unethical and you risked your reputation if you did not feed, clothe, and provide quality surroundings for your slaves.

4

Charles Lynch

Charles Lynch was a farmer and American revolutionary from Virginia. During the American Revolution, he headed an irregular court which tried and punished loyalist supporters of the British. The sentences handed down were usually property seizure, flogging, or conscription into the army. After the revolution, Lynch became a member of the Virginia Senate. He is, of course, now famous for the term “lynching” or a “lynch mob”. Lynching of slaves initially started out as flogging, but within a short period of time this progressed to summary execution (usually by hanging). Lynchburg in Virginia is named for his brother John.

3

Ancient Practice

Slavery is an ancient practice; it is referred to in man’s earliest records such as the Code of Hammurabi (1760 BC, pictured above), the earliest known law code – from Babylon. It is mentioned in the Bible and some of the ancient philosophers (including Aristotle) believed that some men were born in a natural state of slavery – thereby making it moral to enslave that man (a nice way to justify it if ever there was one). Slavery in those days was often the punishment for debt – once the debt was repaid, the slave might be released.

2

Papal Permission and Prohibition

While the Catholic Church has repeatedly condemned the idea of slavery, there was a short period in the 15th and 16th centuries when it was allowed by special papal permission. The Pope who gave permission was Pope Nicholas V (pictured above) in 1452 when he issued a special bull (a formal letter issued by the Pope) allowing King Afonso V of Portugal to enslave pagans caught during wars. The pertinent text is:

“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”

In 1537, Pope Paul III returned to the traditional anti-slavery view of the Church.

1

Slavery Today

According to studies done by anti-slavery groups, there are currently more slaves today than at any time in history! Three quarters are female and over half are children. It is believed that there are around 27 million people in slavery right now. Furthermore, this number does not include people who are not technically slaves but are in a form of servitude tantamount to slavery. This is sometimes called “unfree labor”. The average slave today costs around $90 – whereas in the past they cost upwards of $40,000 (in today’s money). A study done at Berkeley University estimates that there are around 10,000 slaves in the United States at the moment. Contributor: JFrater

New GOP "Racist" Headache

After "Barack the Magic Negro" and other GOP racial gaffes, a top Young Republican official—who hopes to be elected chairman Saturday—laughs at a racial slur about President Obama.

by John Avlon | July 6, 2009 1:55 AM EDT

After "Barack the Magic Negro" and other GOP racial gaffes, a top Young Republican official—who was elected chairman Saturday—laughs at a racial slur about President Obama. The Daily Beast's John Avlon on a choice facing GOP brass: Lose the radical fringe, or never email, use social media or send out holiday CDs again. Avlon is the author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America.
Note to Republicans: Racist “humor,” the Internet, and political ambitions don’t mix. Audra Shay, vice chairman of the Young Republicans and the leading candidate to be elected its chairman on Saturday, is now the latest in a growing list of GOP officials learning this lesson the hard way, based on pictures of a now-deleted Facebook page obtained by The Daily Beast.
“This is still America… freedom of speech and thought is still allowed… for now any ways… and the last time i checked I was a good ole southern boy… and if yur ass is black don’t let the sun set on it in a southern town…” 
On Wednesday, Shay—a 38-year-old Army veteran, mother, and event planner from Louisiana who has been endorsed by her governor, Bobby Jindal—was holding court on her Facebook page, initiating a political conversation by posting that “WalMart just signed a death warrant” by “endorsing Obama’s healthcare plan.” At 1:52, a friend named listed as Eric S. Piker, but whose personal page says his actual name is Eric Pike, wrote “It’s the government making us commies… can’t even smoke in my damn car… whats next they going to issue toilet paper once a month… tell us how to wipe our asses…”
Two minutes later, Piker posted again saying “Obama Bin Lauden [sic]  is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals.”
Eight minutes after that, at 2:02, Shay weighed in on Piker’s comments:  “You tell em Eric!  lol.”
Click Here to View Image of Facebook Comments
Shay now claims that she was only responding to Piker’s first comments, not having noticed the second.  The eight-minute gap between the second post and her response strains the credibility of this defense.
It didn’t take long for other posters on Shay’s page to do the math.  First, Derek Moss wrote “What’s disheartening is the use of the word 'coon' in 2009. Wow… I’m usually outnumbered about 500-to-1 on Audra’s threads so go ahead, lemme have it, I deserve it.” He apparently expected to be criticized as among this crowd for calling out the racist comment. 
Cassie Wallender, a national committeewoman from the Washington Young Republican Federation, then wrote: “Someone please help a naïve Seattle girl out, is Eric’s comment a racial slur?” She answered her own question one minute later: “Okay, why is this okay?  I just looked it up.  ‘It comes from a term baracoons (a cage) where they used to place Africans who were waiting to be sent to America to be slaves.’ THIS IS NOT OKAY. And it's not funny.”

Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. By John Avlon. 304 pages. Beast Books. $15.95.

This was followed soon after by the chairman of the D.C. Young Republicans, Sean L. Conner, who wrote “I’m really saddened that you would support this type of racial language. ..wow! Thanks Cassie for standing up…”
Shay was silent on this exchange, but soon word started spreading throughout the Young Republican circuit, open to GOP members under 40.  Significantly, Shay then “de-friended” Wallender and Conner—in the world of Facebook, that means cutting off relations—after calling her out, but kept Piker as a “friend” (subsequently, it appears their profiles are no longer linked).
“If Audra really did find these remarks to be 'outright disgusting,' then why was her response to immediately de-friend those who made statements against Eric's blatant racism?” Wallender wrote yesterday in a letter to the Young Republican National Committee. “I was blocked for stating that Eric's racist comment was "NOT OKAY. And it is not funny." Please take a moment look at the entire screenshot linked above, and ask yourself: which comment would lead you to de-friend someone, mine, or Eric's?”
In the face of the “coons” comment, Shay’s main concern seems to have been damage control. She deleted the controversial exchanges from her page (but not before screenshots were taken) and tried to tamp down the fire internally. Almost eight hours after Piker’s comments, and Shay’s ensuing “LOL”, Shay posted a Facebook status update stating that neither she—nor her Young Republican political slate—“condones the use of racial slurs on my wall…. It is not right to nor appropriate to talk that way and will not be accepted!”
At 10:31 p.m., a friend named Dale Lawson raised the P.C. defense, writing “the over reaction to it was a little amusing.”  Then her friend Piker came roaring back: “I agree with dale… this is still America… freedom of speech and thought is still allowed… for now any ways… and the last time i checked I was a good ole southern boy… and if yur ass is black don’t let the sun set on it in a southern town…”
Click Here to View More Facebook Comments
On Thursday morning, the leading black conservative site HipHopRepublican.composted a story on the exchange. One of the site’s founders, Lenny McAllister, author of the upcoming Diary of a Mad Black PYC (Proud Young Conservative), quickly released a statement of condemnation, which provoked a flurry of emails from Shay supporters and ultimately Shay herself. “Throughout most of my interaction with Audra and some of her supporters over this issue, there was a strong defense of her actions,” McAllister told me.  “Audra and I eventually got to a place where she apologized to me personally about the whole incident, but others have wondered if her public statement was an apology or merely political posturing.”
More than 36 hours after the comments were first posted, Shay released a statementcondemning their “disgusting” content, which she said she was “not aware of” when she posted her response. She then spends the second half of her statement pointing a finger at the real culprits for the “web of misconception and untruths”: her political opponents at the Young Republicans. “It is a disgrace that these types of political attacks are taking place and once again, it proves that my opponents will stoop to the lowest levels to steal this election from the jaws of victory.” Shay did not respond to emails sent to her personal account requesting comment.
Taken by themselves, the exchanges on Shay’s page might be dismissed as an isolated ugly incident.  But there’s a pattern emerging from the fringe of the GOP grassroots. Three weeks ago, former South Carolina State Election Director and Richland County GOP Chairman Rusty DePass “joked” on his Facebook page that first lady Michelle Obama was descended from a gorilla which had gone missing from a local zoo. Days later, Tennessee state legislative aide Sherri Goforth emailed out an image labeled “Historical Keepsake”—showing august portraits of all the presidents of the United States, ending with a pair of googly-eyes peering out from a black background to symbolize President Obama. When confronted, the aide to State Senator Diane Black said only that she regretted sending the image to the wrong email list and from her government address. She was “reprimanded” by her supervisors but not otherwise punished (a forced furlough at Memphis’s National Civil Rights Museum would have been an inspired penalty). And of course, all this has taken place after Chip Saltzman’s bid to be RNC Chairman was derailed by his decision to mail out a parody CD featuring the song “ Barack the Magic Negro.”
“It seems like some of us Republicans are taking our conservative message, mixing it with personal prejudices and racist views, and calling it patriotism,” says McAllister.  “You can cover cyanide with chocolate, but you still can't call it candy.” 

This pattern of racial remarks from grassroots Republican politicos highlights a real problem: As the party tacks right, it seems increasingly reluctant to challenge folks on its fringe for fear of offending the base—even, in this case, by failing to immediately rebuke racist supporters on a Facebook page. Let’s say that Shay’s “LOL” response was the online equivalent of nervous laughter, the kind of passive response to racist jokes that may have once been considered acceptable in pool halls and country clubs of the past. In the Internet era, it offers indelible evidence of acquiescing to something evil in our politics. There is a fear-based paralysis, a lack of moral clarity, which is in direct contradiction to their historic role as the Party of Lincoln.
This story is still unfolding. The election for chairman of the Young Republicans will be held this weekend at their national conference in Indianapolis and a new urgency is now infusing the vote. “I saw something that was morally wrong, and as a conservative I took it upon myself as an individual to stand up, and I do not regret it at all,” Wallender wrote in her letter to the committee. “I was attacked for wanting better for Young Republicans—in my lifetime of work for the Republican Party I have never been accused of being a "RINO," until now, by Audra's supporters.”
It will be interesting to hear what Governor Jindal and other influential supporters of Audra Shay’s candidacy will say about this incident. In a response to my request for a comment from RNC Chairman Michael Steele, his communications director Trevor Francis stated simply but firmly, “This type of language is inappropriate, and is not representative of the views of the Young Republicans.”
With their party at a crossroads in the wilderness, Young Republicans have an opportunity to send a message and set a direction this weekend. Will they embrace the ideals of the Party of Lincoln, and the “Battle Hymn of the Republic?” Or turn toward the self-segregating notes of “Barack the Magic Negro?”
John P. Avlon is the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics. He writes a weekly column for The Daily Beast and is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Previously, he served as chief speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.

GOP Politician Confirms What Was Long Suspected: Republicans Intentionally Feed the Racism, Anger, and Paranoia of the Far Right

GOP Politician Confirms What Was Long Suspected: Republicans Intentionally Feed the Racism, Anger, and Paranoia of the Far Right

By David Corn, Mother Jones Online
Posted on August 4, 2010, http://www.alternet.org/story/147732/gop_politician_confirms_what_was_long_suspected%3A_republicans_intentionally_feed_the_racism%2C_anger%2C_and_paranoia_of_the_far_right

It was the middle of a tough primary contest, and Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) had convened a small meeting with donors who had contributed thousands of dollars to his previous campaigns. But this year, as Inglis faced a challenge from tea party-backed Republican candidates claiming Inglis wasn't sufficiently conservative, these donors hadn't ponied up. Inglis' task: Get them back on the team. "They were upset with me," Inglis recalls. "They are all Glenn Beck watchers." About 90 minutes into the meeting, as he remembers it, "They say, 'Bob, what don't you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that. And he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn [the US] into a Muslim nation.'" Inglis didn't know how to respond.

As he tells this story, the veteran lawmaker is sitting in his congressional office, which he will have to vacate in a few months. On June 22, he was defeated in the primary runoff by Spartanburg County 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, who had assailed Inglis for supposedly straying from his conservative roots, pointing to his vote for the bank bailout and against George W. Bush's surge in Iraq. Inglis, who served six years in Congress during the 1990s as a conservative firebrand before being reelected to the House in 2004, had also ticked off right-wingers in the state's 4th Congressional District by urging tea-party activists to "turn Glenn Beck off" and by calling on Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) to apologize for shouting "You lie!" at Obama during the president's State of the Union address. For this, Inglis, who boasts (literally) a 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, received the wrath of the tea party, losing to Gowdy 71 to 29 percent. In the weeks since, Inglis has criticized Republican House leaders for acquiescing to a poisonous, tea party-driven "demagoguery" that he believes will undermine the GOP's long-term credibility. And he's freely recounting his frustrating interactions with tea party types, while noting that Republican leaders are pushing rhetoric tainted with racism, that conservative activists are dabbling in anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nonsense, and that Sarah Palin celebrates ignorance.
The week after that meeting with his past funders -- whom he failed to bring back into the fold -- Inglis asked House Republican leader John Boehner what he would have told this group of Obama-bashers. Inglis recalls what happened:

[Boehner] said, "I would have told them that it's not quite that bad. We disagree with him on the issues." I said, "Hold on Boehner, that doesn't work. Let me tell you, I tried that and it did not work." I said [to Boehner], "If you're going to lead these people and the fearful stampede to the cliff that they're heading to, you have to turn around and say over your shoulder, 'Hey, you don't know the half of it.'"

In other words, feed and fuel the anger and paranoia of the right.
During his primary campaign, Inglis repeatedly encountered enraged conservatives whom he couldn't -- or wouldn't -- satisfy. Shortly before the runoff primary election, Inglis met with about a dozen tea party activists at the modest ranch-style home of one of them. Here's what took place:

I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there's a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life's earnings, and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, "What the heck are you talking about?" I'm trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, "You don't know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don't know this?!" And I said, "Please forgive me. I'm just ignorant of these things." And then of course, it turned into something about the Federal Reserve and the Bilderbergers and all that stuff. And now you have the feeling of anti-Semitism here coming in, mixing in. Wow.

Later, Inglis mentioned this meeting to another House member: "He said, 'You mean you sat there for more than 10 minutes?' I said, 'Well, I had to. We were between primary and runoff.' I had a two-week runoff. Oh my goodness. How do you..." Inglis trails off, shaking his head.
While he was campaigning, Inglis says, tea party activists and conservative voters kept pushing him to describe Obama as a "socialist." But, he says, "It's a dangerous strategy to build conservatism on information and policies that are not credible...This guy is no socialist." He continues:

The word is designed to have emotional charge to it. Throughout my primary, there were people insisting that I use the word. They would ask me if he was a socialist, and I would always find some other word. I'd say, "President Obama wants a very large government that I don't think will work and that spends too much and it's inefficient and it compromises freedom and it's not the way we want to go." They would listen for the word, wait to see if I used the s-word, and when I didn't, you could see the disappointment.

Why not give these voters what they wanted? Inglis says he wasn't willing to lie:

I refused to use the word because I have this view that the Ninth Commandment must mean something. I remember one year Bill Clinton -- the guy I was out to get [when serving on the House judiciary committee in the 1990s] -- at the National Prayer Breakfast said something that was one of the most profound things I've ever heard from anybody at a gathering like that. He said, "The most violated commandment in Washington, DC" -- everybody leaned in; do tell, Mr. President -- "is, 'Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.'" I thought, "He's right. That is the most violated commandment in Washington." For me to go around saying that Barack Obama is a socialist is a violation of the Ninth Commandment. He is a liberal fellow. I'm conservative. We disagree...But I don't need to call him a socialist, and I hurt the country by doing so. The country has to come together to find a solution to these challenges or else we go over the cliff.

Inglis found that ideological extremism is not only the realm of the tea party; it also has infected the official circles of his Republican Party. In early 2009, he attended a meeting of the GOP's Greenville County executive committee. At the time, Republicans were feeling discouraged. Obama was in the White House; the Democrats had enlarged their majorities in the House and Senate. The GOP seemed to be in tatters. But Inglis had what he considered good news. He put up a slide he had first seen at a GOP retreat. It was based on exit polling conducted during the November 2008 election. The slide, according to Inglis, showed that when American voters were asked to place themselves on an ideological spectrum -- 1 being liberal, 10 being conservative -- the average ended up at about 5.6. The voters placed House Republicans at about 6.5 and House Democrats at about 4.3. Inglis told his fellow Republicans, "This is great news," explaining it meant that the GOP was still closer to the American public than the Democrats. The key, he said, was for the party to keep to the right, without driving off the road.
Inglis was met, he says with "stony" faces: "There's a short story by Shirley Jackson, 'The Lottery.'" The tale describes a town where the residents stone a neighbor who is chosen randomly. "That's what the crowd looked like. I got home that night and said to my wife, 'You can't believe how they looked back at me.' It was really frightening." The next speaker, he recalls, said, "'On Bob's ideological spectrum up there, I'm a 10,' and the crowd went wild. That was what I was dealing with."
Inglis acknowledges he's intimately familiar with extreme politics. He was part of the GOP gang that went after Clinton and impeached him for the Lewinsky affair:

I hated Bill Clinton. I wanted to destroy him. Then I had six years out [after leaving Congress in 1999] to look back on that, and now I would confess it as a sin. It is just wrong to want to destroy another human being and to spend so much time and effort trying to destroy Bill Clinton -- some of it with really suspect information. We went on and on about Whitewater. We had talked about the strange things about Vince Foster's death. The drug dealing at Mena airport. So in the six years I was out, I looked back and realized, "Oh what a waste."

When he returned to the House in 2005, Inglis, though still a conservative, was more focused on policy solutions than ideological battle. After Obama entered the White House, Inglis worked up a piece of campaign literature -- in the form of a cardboard coaster that flipped open -- that noted that Republicans should collaborate (not compromise) with Democrats to produce workable policies. "America's looking for solutions, not wedges," it read. He met with almost every member of the House Republican caucus to make his pitch: "What we needed to be is the adults who say absolutely we will work with [the new president]."
Instead, he remarks, his party turned toward demagoguery. Inglis lists the examples: falsely claiming Obama's health care overhaul included "death panels," raising questions about Obama's birthplace, calling the president a socialist, and maintaining that the Community Reinvestment Act was a major factor of the financial meltdown. "CRA," Inglis says, "has been around for decades. How could it suddenly create this problem? You see how that has other things worked into it?" Racism? "Yes," Inglis says.
As an example of both the GOP pandering to right-wing voters and conservative talk show hosts undercutting sensible policymaking, Inglis points to climate change. Fossil fuels, he notes, get a free ride because they're "negative externalities" -- that is, pollution and the effects of climate change -- "are not recognized" in the market. Sitting in front of a wall-sized poster touting clean technology centers in South Carolina, Inglis says that conservatives "should be the ones screaming. This is a conservative concept: accountability. This is biblical law: you cannot do on your property what harms your neighbor's property." Which is why he supports placing a price on carbon -- and forcing polluters to cover it.
Asked why conservatives and Republicans have demonized the issue of climate change and clean energy, Inglis replies, "I wish I knew; then maybe I wouldn't have lost my election." He points out that some conservatives believe that any issue affecting the Earth is "the province of God and will not be affected by human activity. If you talk about the challenge of sustainability of the Earth's systems, it's an affront to that theological view."
Inglis voted against the cap-and-trade climate legislation, believing it would create a new tax, lead to a "hopelessly complicated" trading scheme for carbon, and harm American manufacturing by handing China and India a competitive edge on energy costs. Instead, he proposed a revenue-neutral tax swap: Payroll taxes would be reduced, and the amount of that reduction would be applied as a tax on carbon dioxide emissions -- mainly hitting coal plants and natural gas facilities. (This tax would be removed from exported goods and imposed on imported products -- thus neutralizing any competitive advantage for China, India, and other manufacturing nations.)
Here was a conservative market-based plan. Did it receive any interest from House GOP leaders? Inglis shakes his head: "It's the t-word." Tax. He adds, "It's so contrary to the rhetoric we've got out there, to what Beck, Limbaugh, and others are saying."
For Inglis, this is the crux of the dilemma: Republican members of Congress know "deep down" that they need to deliver conservative solutions like his tax swap. Yet, he adds, "We're being driven as herd by these hot microphones -- which are like flame throwers -- that are causing people to run with fear and panic, and Republican members of Congress are afraid of being run over by that stampeding crowd." Inglis says that it's hard for Republicans in Congress to "summon the courage" to say no to Beck, Limbaugh, and the tea party wing. "When we start just delivering rhetoric and more misinformation...we're failing the conservative movement," he says. "We're failing the country." Yet, he notes, Boehner and House minority whip Eric Cantor have one primary strategic calculation: Play to the tea party crowd. "It's a dangerous strategy," he contends, "to build conservatism on information and policies that are not credible."
Asked if there are any 2012 GOP contenders who can lead the party in a more credible direction, Inglis points to Rob Portman, a former House member who was President George W. Bush's budget director. But Portman is now running for Senate in Ohio. He's not 2012 material. What about Sarah Palin? Inglis pauses for a moment: "I think that there are people who seem to think that ignorance is strength." And he says of her: "If I choose to remain ignorant and uninformed and encourage people to follow me while I celebrate my lack of information," that's not responsible.
 

After winning six congressional elections since 1992, Inglis is now a politician without a party, a policy maven without a movement. And in a few months, he will be without his present job. He has no specific plan yet for his future. He mentions looking for "private sector opportunities" in a sustainable energy field -- or an academic or think tank position. Becoming a lobbyist is another option he has started to mull.
Inglis is a casualty of the tea party-ization of the Republican Party. Given the decisive vote against him in June, it's clear he was wiped out by a political wave that he could do little to thwart. "Emotionally, I should be all right with this," he says. And when he thinks about what lies ahead for his party and GOP House leaders, he can't help but chuckle. With Boehner and others chasing after the tea party, he says, "that's going to be the dog that catches the car." He quickly adds: "And the Democrats, if they go into the minority, are going to have an enjoyable couple of years watching that dog deal with the car it's caught."
David Corn is the Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones and the co-author of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush. He writes a blog at davidcorn.com.

A Cautionary Tale of a Reluctant Dominatrix: PERMANENT OBSCURITY

from: http://www.thefetishcorner.com/a-cautionary-tale-of-a-reluctant-dominatrix-permanent-obscurity-a-novel-richard-perez/

a novel Richard Perez

March 6, 2011 By sithefet Leave a Comment

Article by Carla Melendez
Book Review by Carla M.
Dommes are all the rage these days — from Melissa Febos to Elise Sutton. Take it as a sign of shifting gender roles, take it as a sign of female empowerment, take it as a sign of embracing a subculture that just years ago was considered freakish and taboo. Richard Perez’s novel, PERMANENT OBSCURITY explores the world of dommes and “dominas,” particularly from the point of view of two down-and-out East Village wannabe artists who enter it partly out of curiosity, partly out of desperation.
This is by no means a politically correct book — even regarding BDSM culture; the story involves drugs, which as some may or may not know don’t mix with that world, or shouldn’t mix with that world. And this is partly the point of this cautionary tale. Shifting gender roles does not grant anyone the license to abuse others; with power comes responsibility. So maybe the most obvious question this story asks is: How can you dictate to others when you can’t control yourself?
The narrator of this story is Dolores. And she and Serena are best friends; both are young. Both have drug issues. It’s Serena, the more self-confident of the two, who takes ads on Craigslist for willing male subs. Dolores, although dominant by nature, is conflicted and can’t identify that way, and that would make her the more middle-of-the-road character:
“Oh, right,” Serena laughed. “I forgot how you hate being a top.”
She said it sarcastically, but I thought it was true. I mean, it was more responsibility than I wanted.
Usually.” (p. 142)
The story of PERMANENT OBSCURITY hinges on empowerment vs. being powerless; and it underscores the debilitating, soul-sucking quality of addiction, which undermines any possibility of control. And this is the major dilemma in the arts. Addiction of some sort seems to come with the territory. Who and what are artists, poets, writers if not addicted and compulsive people?
The central premise of PERMANENT OBSCURITY revolves around a dream of defining one’s own destiny. Early in the book, Dolores and Serena strike out as photographer and fetish model to produce a layout for a LA publisher, and from there a seed is planted: some possibility of a future project, which evolves into a movie idea. Not just an implausible fantasy, but a real possibility. If only Dolores and Serena can contain their neurotic need for self-sabotage. To put their plan into effect they rely on what’s familiar: putting out an ad on Craigslist, but this time for a writer (who also becomes an agent/author of destiny). With the writer aboard, script approval at hand, they seem, literally, to be in command of their own real life narrative. (The only thing the writer doesn’t deliver is a story ending, which, significantly, he promises to deliver “in person.”)
By hook or crook, Dolores and Serena get the necessary supplies to fulfill their plan: boosted camera, lights, moving van, media. But then fear and the dragon of meaningless rears its ugly head. What are they doing? Why are they doing it? It’s a question that artists continually ask themselves. Now add doubt and drugs to the equation. Then add massive drugs to dull the doubt and self-criticisms and what you concoct is a recipe for disaster, which is how this story unfolds. The Dominatrix film staring Serena, filmed and co-directed by Dolores, devolves into a face-sitting horror show/farce scripted by either Marquis de Sade, Eric Stanton, or David Lynch.
PERMANENT OBSCURITY may not sound like a pleasant story and in many ways it isn’t; yet what makes it palatable is the narrative voice of Dolores, an impulsive and often comically conflicted character, unaware of her own darkness and the depth of her own self-destructive nature. Some have called this a black comedy, and by turns it’s very funny. But in the world of the arts, where desperation and addiction rules, it stands as a warning to anyone who might let control slip away — would-be dominatrix and artist alike.
Book available on Amazon.
PERMANENT OBSCURITY: Or a Cautionary Tale of Two Girls and Their Misadventures with Drugs, Pornography and Death by Dolores Santana
(as told to Richard Perez)
Paperback: 464 pages
Publisher: Ludlow Press
ISBN-10: 0971341540
ISBN-13: 978-0971341548
About the Author

Originally from Cranston RI, I now live in Brooklyn. I’m a freelance writer, songwriter. I also manage a small fetish apparel shop and collect Burlesque memorabilia.