Somebody out there likes Emily Morse

This isn’t a stream-of-consciousness thing. You have to be conscious for that. No, this is like someone wandering alone in a forest, trying to find a way out.

Even Robert Frost had two roads that diverged in a yellow wood when he chose the one less traveled. I feel like someone who has been airlifted from the comforts of civilization and dropped in the middle of a vast forest without a compass.

Here’s my dilemma. Why does everyone in the universe love Emily Morse?

In my mind, the question poses a problem to be solved, a scientific exercise, sans emotion, a search based on pure logic, much like Fleming’s search when he accidentally stumbled across penicillin and created drug-resistant STD’s.

The trouble is, when I’m in a problem-solving mode, logic sort of falls by the waysde. My mind is all over the landscape. Spock I ain’t. In fact, I may even create a fantasy or two to help my thinking. So bear with me if I fantasize a little.

I don’t know who or where the people are who love Emily. All I know is that a whole lot of someones have been regularly clicking a post I wrote about her in September 2007. I don’t get it. The post wasn’t about sex at all but about career choices. I wondered why educated, highly intelligent and beautiful young women choose careers in the sex business.

And yet my simple essay has brought a sustained hit load that today amounts to about a third or more of all visits to my site, which are scant anyway and apparently would disappear entirely if not for Emily.

At the risk of offending anyone in my family who knows and respects my avoidance of crude language, this actually pisses me off. I spend a lot of time and brain power writing seriously about politics and American culture without drawing a single hit.

In fact, a review of a book-in-the-editing stage about the Japanese-American experience in America brought zilch. That was sort of embarassing because I wrote the review to impress my daughter who was editing the book.

It’s even gotten so bad that the name “Gavin Newsom” doesn’t rate a response. Only Emily.

What the hell is it about this girl anyway? Just because she’s beautiful and talented and knows all about sex toys and pole dancing and 46 erotic techniques is no justification for goddess status.

Let me clarify something right now. I’ve never met Emily or anyone who knows her. So I do not use words like goddess to suck up to her. I’m just stating a fact of life. She must be a goddess or else her name in an obscure blog post wouldn’t draw global attention.

To learn more about the feminine version of charisma, I have thought about asking her to be my Facebook Friend, but the humiliation of sending out those damned Friend Requests and receiving a message back that calls me a bottom feeding scum sucker is a wee bit embarassing. I have a very low humiliation level and its been strained to the breaking point.

You don’t believe me? I’ve had about 500 Friend Requests ignored or returned with vile names directed at me. Even several high muckamuck politicians who accept friends just to prove how popular they are have failed to respond. The failure of a pol to communicate with a citizen stings. I mean, I’m not Dan Noyes. I don’t ask embarassing questions.

I have this eerie feeling that the few friends I do have are only my friends because they feel sorry for me. They remind me of my grammar school days when a couple of girls gave me a Valentine’s Day card out of pity, and one of them was my sister.

I wonder if Emily would respond to my pity tactic. Used to work in high school. And in these trying days, the quest for knowledge demands innovative sneakiness. But on reflection I think it is better to remain Facebook celibate. Once we have a Facebook friend, we can’t tattle behind their backs. At least I can’t. Inside, I have this Willie Brown tendency to stand in the presence of a lady. Real men trash only ladies they don’t know.

So, for the time being, I’ll continue from afar trying to figure out Emily’s draw and puzzling about why so many people have clicked on that innocent post.

Hmmm. I wonder if it’s because the title is Sex with Aunty Em.

Sex trumps everything

Mark Twain said the following about the subject over a hundred years ago in his book Letters from the Earth.

“…the human being…naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys…The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything–to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and all women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined…”

No kidding.

I wonder if copulation includes politicians screwing the public.

Like, when a politician brands someone a traitor and wins an election or helps enact a law raising taxes on the lower classes, is the climax kind of like a male ejaculation or a female G-Spot orgasm?

These are merely philosophical matters, though. SFBG is into real-world sex. It just released the results of its 2008 Sex Poll.

I have a hunch that some of the respondents fudged their answers. A few of the stats seem to contradict Mark Twain and human nature.

For example, one question was “What gets you in the mood?”

An overwhelming number of respondents named booze of one kind or another and/or some other mind-altering stuff like coke and weed.

I didn’t take this survey but if I had, I would simply have written in “an attractive (to me), willing, able, and substance-free partner.”

My theory is simple. Why would I want to numb the pleasure of it all? Contrary to popular belief, none of the named substances enhances sex. Besides, when a person wakes the morning after, wouldn’t he or she want to remember the experience sans black holes in the brain?

The named substances, rather than enhancing the pleasure of sex, actually lower inhibitions. That translates into the courage to approach a potential partner. In other words, many people think about sex but are abject cowards when it comes right down to actually initiating and participating in it without assistance.

How does Mark Twain factor into the equation? Two possibilities in my mind. He was probably talking about people’s fantasies. Humans dream a lot about sex.

Or, he was probably drunker than a skunk when he wrote it. Grandiose hyperbole is often a side-effect of mornings-after when we get together and brag about things we don’t remember.

Add On: I just wrote this post to see how many people would click on the site as a response to the word “sex” in the title.

The Party of God

At the risk of taxing the limits of Fair Use, I’d like to start this with a quote from Beyond Chron, followed by an extract of a story from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Here’s the Beyond Chron excerpt written by Randy Shaw:

“… after winning re-election with over 70% of the vote, why does San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom still appear less than happy in his job? Why has he been so testy with reporters, dissatisfied with his staff, and acting on the defensive when he just won an unprecedented political mandate?”

Many reasons come to mind, but I think the Union-Tribune in its piece on God and the Election written by Lionel Van Deerlin is a good starting point when we try to understand Newsom’s malaise. Here’s what Van Deerlin says:

“And what to do about San Francisco? Mayor Gavin Newsom admitted to an amorous affair with an office staffer, the wife of his campaign manager. City-county supervisors thereafter passed a resolution proclaiming office romances to be unavoidable and therefore OK.

Under the baroque dome of San Francisco’s City Hall, from now on, foreplay is fair play.

Folks aren’t like that in Iowa, no siree.”

Van Deerlin’s thoughts mirror the article I wrote a few days ago about Newsom helping Hillary in Iowa. I called Hillary’s move a mistake because Iowans don’t quite breathe the same air as San Franciscans. In fact, virtually all of the states are like Iowa when it comes to accepting the libertine approach to personal behavior.

Newsom’s testiness, dissatisfaction, and defensiveness may partly result from a dawning realization that his political ambitions beyond the state of California at this moment are sorely limited. Iowa could well be a metaphor for the vast “Heartland” of America when it comes to a separation of State and personal behavior.

And complicating the matter, the Republicans have done a masterful job of fogging the distinctions between the two. Today in the minds of most people, liberal and libertine are the same and California is in the forefront of both liberal political policies and libertine personal behavior.

I am certain Newsom understands the dynamics. His frustrated ambitions are doubtless a factor in his crankiness. But unless and until he and his tacticians can reverse the flow of right-wing linguistic revisionism, he isn’t going to go anywhere beyond California in terms of political office

On the other hand, I may be far off of the mark. He could just be in a funk over a lousy two days in Hawaii.

p.s. What does “The party of God” have to do with anything? From reading Van Deerlin’s article, seems he’s placed Gavin in the context of Evangelical Christian Republican politics. Feels like he added Newsom almost as an afterthought.

p.p.s. Gavin’s tax on sugary drinks has also caught the attention of the national media. Heartland folks drink Cokes and Pepsis by the barrels full. They aren’t going to favor anyone who favors a tax on their Nectar of the Gods. As Van Deerlin says, “No siree.”

p.p.p.s I’m having a helluva time formatting with WirdPress. I may never figure it out. Sorry for the screw up. Please be patiend.

Benefit Magazine and other minor matters

Benefit Magazine’s on-line version is up and running.

If you remember, Benefit was widely regarded as Gavin Newsom stash spot for ex-paramours. However, a search of the mag’s contents turned up no hits for Newsom, Tim Gaskin, or the other names we know so well.

The magazine has been off-line for several months, beginning a couple of months before the election. I theorized then that Benefit’s reputation and certain racy-sounding names on its staff roster could be embarrassments to the Newsom re-election campaign. Hence, it’s sudden and unexpected disappearance.

The election is over now and, voila!, Benefit reappears, albeit in a completely different format and in a more subdued tone. It’s easier to navigate than the old version, but at this moment it seems to have limited content. Maybe the new owners and management team will flesh it out as time passes.

For Bloggers, the mag has an RSS feature which means, I suppose, you can receive automatic updates with a feed reader. I haven’t tried this feature yet but I intend to and report on my success or failure.

I see patterns in events around me, and I have long believed that the election would mark a turning point for Newsom. He can relax now and indulge himself, run the hedonistic mile anytime he wants as long as he keeps it within the boundaries of good taste as defined in San Francisco. However, if he plans on a shot at governor or senator, he may wish to curb his natural rambunctiousness.

And now, we may soon learn more about “The Book.” You know the one I’m talking about. If I were advising the author, I’d say, “Forget it. It ain’t worth the heartburn no matter how much you ache to get your story out. There are easier and better ways to move on and make money at the same time. With your charisma, you could easily guide young people down the right path. E-mail me and I’ll give you some more hints.”

Ha, ha, ha. The part about the e-mail is a joke. Ain’t gonna happen. No way, Hoe-say.

By the way, what the hell is charisma? I see it used but never bothered to check it out. Standing alone, the word sounds like some kind of teenage ailment.

No City Hall Romance?

Shades of…who?

The SF Weekly Snitch a few days ago carried an interesting headline: “Daly Fondles Scepter of Purity: Plans to Ban City Hall Romance in Tuesday’s BoS.

Branding Daly an habitué of “the far right” because he wants to outlaw consensual sex between city department managers and their employees seems like a stretch to me.

It isn’t true at all that a liberal or a progressive who opposes sex in the workplace is by definition a far right kook. More probable in my book anyone who believes in unlimited humping on the taxpayer’s dime has never run a city or anything else.

Had such a restriction been in effect when the Gabster became mayor, one hell of a lot of public funds and workplace disruption could have been avoided.

Daly’s proposal makes sense in principle, but the devil is always in the details. The language ought to make it crystal clear that the rules apply to elected officials as well as your normal run of the mill apparatchiks.

San Francisco may have a long and distinguished history of sexual freedoms. So what? The city does not have a history of taxpayer funded sex breaks with a sex-break room on every floor, each complete with coffee, donuts, and cigarettes, as a literal reading of Snitch’s article would lead some bureaucratic literalist (or mayor) to just do it. That ole slippery slope in action.

It’s clear that Daly’s proposal doesn’t stand a chance of a snowball in hell of making it anywhere beyond his imagination. So, why should the Snitch waste space talking about it? And why should I waste blog space?

I can only speak for myself, but bitching and moaning is a good relaxant, almost as good as sex.

There they go again

The party of Reagan, that is, the Grand Old Party, the party of compassionate conservatism (an oxymoron if ever one existed), the party that opposes gay marriage.

The Republican Party is rapidly overtaking the state of California in the race to see who can produce the most sex scandals in the shortest possible time.

Right now they are neck and neck. In fairly quick order, California had scandals in San Jose, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

Not to be outdone, the Republicans ran through Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who became enmeshed in the D.C. Madam controversy.

Then along came Idaho’s Senator Larry Craig and the foot tapping caper.

Now, today, Richard Curtis, a Washington state Republican member of the state legislature, resigned in a gay sex scandal.

The irony? All of California’s scandals have been of the heterosexual brand while the Republican treat have been running 2-1 gay versus hetero.

The gay Mecca of the universe, California, Land of Liberal Loonies, turns out to be straighter than the Party of Political Perfection.

Another interesting angle: The story of the latest Republican gaffe is carried in the International Herald Tribune, French edition.

You think folks over yonder don’t get it?

Okay, your guess—which of the contenders will become the first to reach four scandals? Hetero or gay?

I’m putting my money on the Repubs and gay.

The odds are propitious.

Compassion in action

How do you like these apples…?

“If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care.”

Or these…

“I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I’d do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info.”

Take a look at the whole story as well as the source of these ravings here. The Baltimore Sun report is informative, comprehensive, and disturbing.

The quotes above are in reference to the story I mentioned in the previous post about Keith Olbermann’s interview of Hillary Clinton, one of many topics she waffled on and the one edited out of a subsequent transcript of the program, or at least the transcript I read.

The lead-off quotes above are about a 12-year old boy who made the Democrats’ weekly radio address this past Saturday, speaking in favor of the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a program vehemently opposed by the Texas Twerp and his cavemen.

Following the radio address by this child, conservative print and web media cavemen leaped on the story. One noted ranter and raver actually drove past the home of the boy and proudly wrote about it later. This particular personality if you can call her that is probably one of the more disturbing of a whole herd of Twerp followers.

The Democratic response to the Swift Boating of a 12-year old boy and his family has been muted in contrast to the conservative drumbeat. The failure of Democratic leaders to attack the Republicans with an equal level of ferocity is a prime cause of the tactics used successfully by the right to attack quadriplegic Vietnam hero Max Cleland and uninjured but nevertheless decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry. Hillary Clinton’s failure on the Olbermann show to demonstrate a scintilla of emotion is emblematic of the malaise of the Democratic Party.

Now…the cavemen have selected a 12-year old boy as their punching bag. What next? A comatose toddler lying on the street in San Francisco or New York, denied emergency care because the baby’s parents don’t have health insurance? Their probable criticism of the child? “The little twerp shoulda picked his parents better.”

Ain’t compassion wunnerful, wunnerful?

Postscript. You’ll notice I carefully avoid names here. You can probably figure out why. I’ve been hassled before by atavistic bozos. I’ll settle for the label “coward,” a common term applied to me by several liberal friends and a couple of conservative friends who, although somewhat odd and a little dense, at least contain themselves on the golf course. Do liberals play golf? I’ve never met one.