Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » In Defense of Governor Sanford

In Defense of Governor Sanford

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I must say as a lifelong conservative (no “neo-con” I), I find the liberal charge of hypocrisy against Governor Sanford to have some merit. Even if it is rather opportune and morbidly gleeful, like the macabre glee of a buzzard as it flies over and circles its next meal — here the proverbial, bloodied carcass of the day’s daily roadkill. Of course the true issue here is much deeper and more profound than just a simple act of dalliance on the part of Sanford.

Nevertheless my first reaction in justification of his behavior was to compare it to the abdication of King Edward VIII from the throne of England for the sake of his great love for the American divorcée Wallis Simpson. My second impression was what I elicited from hearing him being described by some liberal, Democrat pundits as a man undergoing a “midlife crisis.” Well, I see it rather differently. In fact I am reminded of what one of my former professors of the Classics described when commenting on the rather eccentric, insufferable and annoying behavior of a male colleague of hers, whom in addition, I had the misfortune of having endured while a student of his in Rome. Well, she very accurately and aptly characterized him as a fifty-ish male undergoing “male-menopause.” How precise and right on she was! (By he way, I also characterized him as a fifty-ish “hippy” as well.) And Governor Sanford seems to fit this bill in spades (definitely as undergoing “male menopause” however definitely not a hippy, or at most a “hippy” wannabe).

But again, I must re-emphasize the point that there are broader and more meaningful issues at play here. There are very fundamental and profound issues concerning scandal herein and how the different players; how the political parties and factions are viewed and portrayed by both the talking heads of the “lame” main-stream, liberal media elite and by the American public generically. First and foremost, whether fairly or not, conservatives when it comes to personal, sexual dalliance and to sexual scandal in particular; are viewed and criticized as hypocrites, a fundamental charge which currently in America is probably, if not the very worst charge politically, certainly is right up there at the top of such accusations and allegations. And as such it is literally the political “kiss of death” for conservatives.

Again, whether fairly or not, liberals when it comes to sexual dalliance and the scandal thereof, therein; are viewed much more differently. Essentially it’s lowlife, immoral, scumbag, liberal cock hounds will be lowlife, immoral, scumbag, liberal cock hounds and no one save for moralist prudes, social conservatives and puritanical, Christian hypocrites really gives a rat’s ass.

General rule of thumb: conservatives when caught with their dipstick in the honey jar, are evil, puritanical, Christian hypocrites; while liberals in a similar situation are, well, ho-hum, what’s wrong with that, and tsk-tsk, titter-titter, isn’t that what lowlife, liberal, immoral, scumbag cock hounds do? Surely boys will be boys and lowlife, liberal cock hounds will be lowlife, liberal cock hounds. So end of argument, end of debate, end of story.

But I still cannot dismiss this seeming, as George F. Will would describe it, this “cognitive dissonance” and seeming contradiction in terms; and yes, bit of hypocrisy and typical, liberal double standard as I see it. For the question still remains, why are conservatives, hypocrites when they dally; and liberals are as pure as the driven snow when they partake of some extracurricular, fancy fucking and indiscriminate and gratuitous inter and intramural sticking and dipping of their dipstick (or joystick for the IT geeks of the world) in the ‘ol jelly roll, sweet honey-pot, hairy clam/oyster, little boy in the boat, etc.? Does this not bespeak of an ingrained, unfair, biased, grossly hypocritical “double standard?” Why is it that a social conservative is an utter hypocrite when he behaves like a normal, typical, immoral, corrupt, narcissistic, solipsistic, liberal satyriac; while the latter (the liberal) always gets off “scott free?”

Simply stated, good ‘ol boy liberals will simply be good ‘ol boy liberals and what’s a little pussy anyway (and now in this day and age, a little sodomy, homosexual buggery and pederasty too)? You know, it’s only sex which is no different and no more routine and normal than any other natural, bodily function. Because actually sex is nothing more than the mere exchange of bodily fluids between two consenting adults (usually, but sometimes more, especially when it’s with two or more women, as most men usually like to fantasize).

Now we also must look to the militant, extremist, femmee-Nazi, man-hating, lesbian feminists who have pointed out that all heterosexual sex between men and women is in fact rape. Which rather confuses me, is the male by nature and definition the rapist, or is it the female? Cause I truly must learn and know for a certainty who is fucking whom? Cause I must confess and admit that after fifty years of fucking I am now quite confused by that definition. Again, who exactly is fucking whom and who exactly is the rapist and who is the rape-ee?

But to continue. First off, let’s get our facts straight here.  All politicians, especially liberals, are geeks, are essentially C-minus at worst and C-plus at best — nerds. But they are also “rock superstar” wannabes with all the desired advantages, benefits, “perks” and emoluments which are ancillary and requisite with ‘rock super stardom” such as great fame, celebrityhood, notoriety, money and wealth, literally princely sums, and of course, the greatest attraction of all, sexual “groupies.” Which means to say, pussy, lots and lots of it, with absolute, promiscuous and gratuitous free love with the requisite fawning, exquisitely gorgeous women throwing themselves at said “rock superstars” and bestowing their many sexual favors upon the former quite relentlessly and gratuitously in an orgy of free sex and “fancy fucking.” Of which the more the better. In fact, where gratuitous excess is the norm and a standard requirement so that the greater the number of partners, the better and more satisfying it be. Well, C-plus and C-minus students (geeks and nerds) have every right to dream, whether they dream of the possible or of the impossible or of the utterly improbable.

And the geekiest of the nerdiest wannabe, rock superstar, Johnny Holmes, long-dong-silver, porno superstar, womanizing, satyriacal cock hounds have always traditionally and historically been liberal Democrats. Basic rule-of-thumb, when it comes to Republicans, toujours cherchez l’argent; and when it comes to Democrats, toujours cherchez la femme. Simply stated, when it comes to Republican scandal, first and foremost always follow the money trail; and when it comes to Democrats, always follow the pussy “tail.”

So this most recent spate of Republican sexual scandal, both heterosexual and homosexual is kind of odd and strange, it is truly in fact a rather unique departure from the norm. Yet even though the list of Republican sexual dalliance in the past two years or so, e. g., Governor Sanford and Senators Vitter and Ensign on the heterosexual side, and Senator Craig and Congressman Foley on the homosexual end; seems to be much longer than usual, it is still my contention that such a departure from the norm is truly more of an aberration and anomaly than it is an exception to the rule. Such dalliance is uncharacteristic of conservatives and when it does occur I maintain it is more of a rara avis, in fact, an avis rarasissima, than anything else.

While the opposite seems to be true of the liberal Democrats as well. While there are still plenty of liberal cock hounds in government, both heterosexual and homosexual, e.g., former Governor Eliot Spitzer, former Senator Kennedy, former President Clinton just to name a few on the heterosexual side and Congressmen Frank and Stubbs and former Governor MacGreevy on the homosexual end; they all seem to get a “pass” on their sexual proclivities. Nevertheless, the seeming majority of recent scandals amongst liberals are fiduciary in nature which also is decidedly out of character and against their historical and traditional grain.

Well, perhaps I spoke too soon, for the Democrats have been corrupt and on the take since Tamany Hall, in fact, they invented corrupt, pay-to-play, big city, machine politics over two centuries ago. And to be sure, the Republicans soon copied them after the Civil War. But the trend of the past 60 years has been that corrupt, big political-machine, pay-to-play politics has been primarily in the hands of liberal Democrats as especially evidenced by our current president and his former chief-of-staff.

{A brief footnote here. Allow me to belabor this point somewhat and to characterize, describe and epitomize this trend of liberal, financial and fiduciary corruption with two words – Bernie Madoff. Which is not to say that Charles Rangel, Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Chuck Murtha, Blago, William Jefferson, as well as the many liberals at Goldman Sachs, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear-Stearns, et al, et al, et al; do not deserve some mention too. For it appears since Rostenkowski and Bill Clinton, the liberals have rediscovered money, not only to merely finance their political campaigns, but also to personally line their own pockets as well, and those of their closest friends and allies and family members too. Liberals have learned that it is not enough just to allocate and print money, but that it is also quite socially just, intelligent, reasonable and necessary to enrich themselves and theirs in the process too. For surely one must ask the question, are not these liberals really and truly doing God’s work, and if they are, then don’t they deserve to grease their palms a little too? Oh well, alright, make that a whole lot?

Goddamnit, you know it’s God’s good work they’re doing out there in Washington and throughout the state capitals and up on Wall Street too. So let us cut them some goddamn slack – but of course not Republicans – because Republicans evidently are not doing God’s work. Cause they just keep the dirty lucre for themselves and their cronies, cause they truly are the “money lenders in the temple” – and I emphasize it’s the people’s goddamn temple, where they screw the little guy, starve Granny and deprive children of food and medicine, shelter and clothing, and toys too, etc., etc.. End of footnote.}

But to return to Governor Sanford, I have to state unequivocally and categorically in his defense that there is more to this affair than meets the eye, in fact there are many quite reasonable explanations for his seeming erratic behavior and even more irrational and confused, almost incoherent explanations for that said, sad behavior. There are at least two fully mitigating and exculpatory explanations for this seeming dalliance on his part: The first and foremost mitigating circumstance, is that his seeming abrupt and irresponsible departure to Buenos Aires, was not as mindless and unplanned for and grossly irresponsible as the liberal, media-elite have depicted and characterized it (which of course is simply de rigueur and to be expected); and of course, as was argued by his obvious political opponents both locally and nationally, but also incredibly from within his own political party too.

So what would you say or think if I were to categorically state and prove that Governor Sanford went to Buenos Aires primarily on state business and that furthermore this woman was central and integral to that state business, more so than anyone in the media or in Sanford’s not so loyal opposition would or will ever admit? No, this was not a matter of a secret, clandestine and furtive love tryst. But rather it was strictly a matter of business, of legitimate business between a sovereign, American state, and a sovereign, foreign nation. Again to re-iterate and re-emphasize the point, this was solely a matter of serious, legitimate state business and NOT “monkey business” nor “hanky-panky” either. As I understand, this woman was privy to delicate and sensitive information which was and still is central and seminal to this very important matter of business and affairs of state so crucial to all parties concerned. It could have literally meant several hundred thousands of jobs, good-paying jobs, in the near future and indeed and in fact, within a matter of only a few months’ time. So again, no monkey business here, just cold, calculating, mundane, prosaic business.

The second mitigating factor is that this was also essentially a humanitarian effort which was so very selflessly, nobly and altruistically rendered by governor Sanford. But governor Sanford is a rather modest man who does not lead his own parade nor beat his own drum of support in phony praise and self-adulation. Rather than going public when he learned of this woman’s terrible, medical affliction he volunteered quietly to help her through her ordeal. She has a medical condition known in scientific circles as Pili pubici cunni manu linguaque quotidie enumerandi sunt, that requires her pubic hairs (and for those of you with a substandard, worthless, liberal public-school education, here pubic hairs translates into “pussy” hair) have to be counted by both hand and tongue, each and every single one of them “bad boys” – every single one of them mind you – at least once or more each and every single day, preferably once in the morning and once at night – and sometimes even more than that.

Well, noblesse oblige, Governor Sanford was only too willing to help this lady in her hour (or hours) of need and to do so, so nobly and selflessly and altruistically and above all else, to “do it” so privately, so as to spare her the shame and discomfort of her truly terrible affliction. What a really great and noble man he be! Servicing, I mean, treating her condition so selflessly and genteelly. I mean to say it’s not every man who would so dutifully and honor bound count all her pubic hair (again, for those of you with a public school education, that means her pussy hair) and where necessary pull them apart with his teeth and then count them with his tongue. Again, what a truly great and really noble and genteel man he be.

{Yet another footnote. Look here dear readers, Pili pubici cunni manu linguaque quotidie enumerandi sunt (literally the the pubic, cunt hairs must be counted by hand and tongue on a daily basis) truly is a terrible affliction whose treatment requires painstakingly, delicate care and consummate devotion and dedication. For no haphazard, inattentive, uninspired, sloppy tongue will do. Look here, this ain’t no laughing matter nor grounds for mindless tittering and gratuitous derision – it ain’t no joke, not at all. This is serious, goddamnit – as God is my witness. Cause when a person, a woman with her condition undergoes this delicate and gentle treatment she is often, nay, almost always prone and subject to moan and groan, and if done properly to shout and scream in utter orgiastic ecstasy – I mean in great pain and discomfiture. And to see this actually go down – I mean happen – is truly and genuinely heartwarming and evocative of great lust and libido – I mean Platonic and spiritual love. Which is truly emblematic of the tender care Governor Sanford had to give and bestow upon this hapless woman so evilly and tragically afflicted. So you, my dear readers, must understand and recognize to what great noble, gallant and altruistic lengths Governor Sanford went to and how truly pure his motives were in servicing her – I mean in medically, treating and alleviating her terrible condition. For you see it was all clinical and his motives were absolutely pure. Cross my fingers and hope to die. End of footnote.}

But I still cannot help but feel that the smugly, gleeful charges of hypocrisy leveled against governor Sanford by the liberal Democrats are nothing less than typical and de rigueur; are simply the same old “boiler palte” and “talking points” which are so thoroughly timeworn, banal, trite and hackneyed; and again, as such, are simply to be expected of them. And so this all somehow seems to me to ring so very hollow of them. Admittedly, the broader moral issue here does involve lewd, innuendo-filled, sexual scandal and the perception of this sort of salacious behavior strongly implies hypocrisy – of saying one thing but of doing yet another, particularly its opposite. It in fact becomes a matter of “do as I say” and not of “do as I do” which clearly smacks of both hypocrisy and of a hypocritical double standard as well,

But the moral issue of illicit, gratuitous sex with its ancillary or concomitant issue of hypocrisy goes even further. Yes, conservatives not only promote high moral standards for the nation, but they also demand them, which makes them in the eyes of many secular, anti-Christian, anti-American liberal-progressives, nothing less than puritanical prudes and scolds. And worse yet, Christian busybodies who are the complete and total embodiment of Dana Carvey’s “church lady” of “Saturday Night Live” fame. And when conservatives fall from their state of grace as so many have in the recent past, they are charged with hypocrisy which again for most of them is the proverbial, political “kiss of death.”

Well, I confess that I do find such behavior to be hypocritical, but I also find a great deal of irony in it too. Cause if conservatives are moral hypocrites when they get caught with their collective joy/dipsticks in the collective honey pot/jelly/jam roll, then what are liberal Democrats when they likewise are caught in flagrante delicto? The standard response of course has been and still is: It’s only sex, no big-ee, so what’s the damn problem here anyway? How could anyone possibly question a little, well, oh alright, a whole bunch of “doin‘ what comes naturally?” Damn, for Christ’s sake, it’s only sex. I mean, what’s with you people anyway?

The irony herein lies with the question: if it is a mortal, cardinal sin for a conservative to behave like a liberal; then doesn’t that make liberals by both definition and nature, doesn’t that make them moral and ethical pond scum and all-around, all-purpose hypocritical scumbags too? The reason ironically that liberals can level the charge of moral hypocrisy with impunity against conservatives who have gone astray, and make it stick; even while they get a free pass when they themselves behave like moral slime; is perhaps due to the unstated, unspoken but visceral and ineffable understanding that liberals have no moral standards whatsoever in the first place. And because liberals are thoroughly amoral and unethical they are therefore immoral and hence not subject to the protocols, dictates and propriety of common morality and common decency. We therefore must assume that liberals are innately and inherently moral and ethical scumbags in the first place and therefore again, not subject to or to be measured by or held to any standards of moral and ethical decorum, propriety and probity whatsoever.

Surely the reasoning and general understanding here is that we all know for an ontological certainty that liberals are immoral pond-scum, slime-dog, scumbags; so why charge them with moral and ethical hypocrisy? I mean, what’s the point? They know they are moral slime and state as much themselves (in so many words) so why accuse the sinner of his sin when he revels in it so greatly and willfully? It’s like accusing a leopard of having spots – I mean so fucking what and whoop-dee-do.

Yes we conservatives have a problem with the many charges and allegations of moral hypocrisy brought against us, but so too do the liberals in a similar but opposite fashion. You know, sometimes it’s not the clearly stated and defined, annunciated allegation and depiction and characterization of “it” that “gets you” – but rather it is often the unstated and visceral, gut understanding and assessment of “it” that bites you in “the arse” and “gets you” in the long run. So you liberals had better be a lot more careful with your accusations of hypocrisy and with your utter glee and joy over the downfall of a few truly, hypocritical conservatives here and there. Cause there but for the grace of a nebulous, undefined, moot being greater than oneself, go thee.

There is one more item I would like to address very briefly which has been left out of the mix here. It is a standard liberal “mantra” in this issue, one which is constantly raised but unfortunately in my opinion, one which is never truly answered and responded to adequately. The standard liberal mantra is couched in the rhetorical question “whose morality is it anyway?” And how dare these social conservative, moralists and puritanical Christian hypocrites, these busybody, proverbial “church ladies” dare impose their religion and code of morality and standards of self-righteous, sanctimonious, moral decency and respectability upon me and everyone else too?

Well, I am neither a Christian nor a very religious person, in fact one could reasonably call me a non-religious sort who is also thoroughly irreligious and iconoclastic, what many would call a non-believer. In fact an all-around skeptic – not too cynical mind you, but plenty skeptical and of course, quite jaded too. So when the issue of “whose morality is it anyway?” arises, I have one, very simple answer. It is everyone’s morality!

Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor – is everyone’s morality. And all these “thou shalt nots” are also as secular as they are God given (or allow me to express it another way lest I offend any secular, agnostic and atheistic liberal-progressive by the mere mention of the word “God”); all of these “thou shalt nots” are as secular as any secular, manmade and devised and created statutory law imaginable. Therefore I maintain that morality is not just a matter for religion and religion only, but rather morality is everyone’s concern – even for amoral and moral-relativist secular, liberal-progressives et al.

But even more so morality is the ultimate and natural concern of government as well as every other facet of the leadership of any nation, state or civilization (whether through its cultural, intellectual, or religious, or social, or financial, or military, or artistic, or spiritual and governmental leadership). To paraphrase Will Durant, ‘the purpose of government (and ultimate duty, obligation and responsibility, in fact and in essence, its moral imperative) is twofold: is to both instruct and enforce morality’.

So when liberals lament rhetorically “whose morality is it anyway?” Then follow it up with their additional mantra that “government cannot or should not, nor ought not legislate morality;” they are woefully wrong on all counts. If government is not to be a leading force in determining, instructing and enforcing morality, then who is and what is its purpose? Is it solely to regulate Yogi Bear’s defecation habits in Jellystone Park?
Yes Cicero had it absolutely right, “Salvus populi suprema lex est.” The national safety (law and order, safety and well-being) of the people is the highest law of the land. But that begins with and is concomitant with the very basic duty, obligation and ultimate responsibility of government to both instruct and enforce morality.

I see essentially two basic reasons for this obvious confusion and ambiguity on the part of liberals as to morality and that of their own and that of government’s role in this process. First, they are so woefully and damnably confused and confounded by their own amorality, moral relativism and immorality that they no longer understand the necessity nor the moral imperative why they should, ought and must know, understand and distinguish the differences between right and wrong, good and evil, and morality and immorality. Or secondly, they truly know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, morality and immorality; but they are such dedicated, amoral, moral relativists that they indeed and in fact are truly that evil and purposefully and willfully so.

Simple rule-of-thumb: In all things liberal, it is either a matter of being utterly ignorant, gullible, stupid and confused (which can easily be explained by having been educated, stultified, stupefied, proselytized, brainwashed and zombified by our liberal-lefty colleges and universities and liberal, governmental, statist public schools); or it is simply and solely a matter of being that willfully and purposefully evil.

{Yet another footnote – again. Yes indeed, I have clearly and openly declared my agreement with Will Durant’s philosophic principle that the purpose of governance is twofold: is to instruct and enforce morality. Well, how dare he/I say this! Yes, I fully understand that in the eyes of liberal-progressives and quite ironically most libertarians, such a credo is considered to be either absolute heresy and apostasy or simply to be utterly obtuse and stupid. Both the liberal-lefties and the libertarians (truly odd and strange fellows in this bed, where one is representative of totalitarian statism and the other liberty) hold that the notion of the legislation of morality by government to be a non-starter. For them, the mantra that government should, ought and must not legislature morality; is an utter, irrefutable and self-contained truism – an absolute “absolute”; held by them with a religious fervor approaching zealotry and fanaticism, for as they see it, it is solely a matter of patently obvious and self-evident logic and common sense. So how can I say the former, how can I say that both liberals and libertarians are wrong on this issue? Easily. So allow me dear readers to “splain” myself:

The mistake of both the liberals and the libertarians in this issue is that they confuse and conflate morality with behavior; as is especially evidenced by the liberals with their over reliance and adherence to moral relativism as well as Social Darwinism and Social-Scientific Determinism. Yes, I concur that it is neither the province nor domain, and for that matter, neither the obligation, duty and responsibility of government to dictate personal, individual behavior; with its consequent desired results and outcomes. Again, however it is, as Will Durant points out, the responsibility of government to both instruct and ultimately to enforce morality. To do so is in fact a moral imperative, but it is also a shared obligation, duty and responsibility of all participants; especially of the leadership in every and all sectors and aspects of any society, civilization, culture, state and or nation.

Ironically the liberals pontificate about the need for government to refrain from legislating morality through its instruction and enforcement; yet in the same breath, through the agency and flawed reasoning of its own moral relativism, Social-Darwinism and Social-Scientific Determinism, liberals demand that we not only study behavior; but that we also through the agency of the social, so-called, non-science, psychobabbler, supposed sciences, that we eventually determine behavior, modify and modulate it, and ultimately proscribe and dictate it. Well, I oppose that with every fiber of my body, mind and soul.

Yes, again, I still maintain that government must lead in both instructing and enforcing morality. But what we cannot and must not do, and here I find some solace with the libertarian view, is that we must not legislate personal, individual behavior and dictate the outcomes and results of that so thusly modified behavior. To the contrary, what we must do is to establish moral parameters through moral instruction, and when those moral parameters and borders are broken and violated, we must then punish and or incarcerate those transgressors and malefactors who so violate those moral parameters.

Not to do so, as the Greek Tragedians maintained, is not only a stain and form of pollution upon society, but any and all unrequited crime is also in fact a deadly cancer upon the body politic and very life blood of any society, nation or state which will eventually destroy and kill the latter. So, yes indeed, we must legislate morality, and we must uphold those moral parameters, and we must dutifully establish and instruct them as well. For not to do so is to either create the utter lawlessness of anarchy and chaos; or the utter lawlessness of statist tyranny and fascistic totalitarianism. But enough heaviosity – back to the “gov.”}

Now as to Governor Sanford, his infidelities and the charges of hypocrisy against him: When it comes to principle, personal honesty and integrity, and the conviction of one’s own principles and remaining true to them; I am an absolute hard-liner. Simply stated, if one is going to “talk-the-talk” one had better “walk-the-walk.” So Governor Sanford it is high time for you to go, and go posthaste, as in like five minutes ago. Yes, your true personal mandate – one of principle, conviction and personal honesty and integrity – now demands you leave, step down and say sayonara and shuffle off to Buffalo, again, posthaste as in fifteen minutes ago.

Or let me express it thusly: It is now high time for you, Governor Sanford, to “get the hell out of Dodge.” Or, to express it more in terms of immediacy which one of my former, Parris Island, Maine Corps, drill instructors was so wont and very fond of saying, “all I want to see is (a flash and hazy blur – my addition and worthless two cents worth) elbows and assholes.” Harsh and severe, n’est-ce pas? Yes, but also appropriate, condign and morally and ethically just and consistent. So again, for the umpteenth time, it’s high time for you, dear governor Sanford to say sayonara, bid us all a fond farewell and adieu, and just simply shuffle off to Buffalo.

But before I finish here, I must say the following: This is not a case of “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Rather in this case, considering who is casting the stones, mostly liberals of course, who do it with such great glee, joy and relish; this is more an instance in which they who are with much, much, much sin, nay, more sin than even the devil could possibly accept, tolerate and endure; let these sinners (liberals) cast their many stones and be happy and satisfied (a condition which they shall never attain, because liberals have an insatiable appetite for casting stones, especially against conservatives and Christians, in fact, in this regard they are truly implacable and unappeasable). So cast away, but be forewarned, if thou cast-eth too many-eth stones-ith, they just might boomerang-eth on thee-ith.

Powered by

About Irvin F. Cohen

  • Ruvy

    Before I even tried to read this, I wanted to see how many pages you had taken up with this essay of yours, Irvin. Boy, you are long-winded!

    I try hard to keep my articles under four pages for a reason. Those of you intelligent enough to read them will get terribly bored otherwise. I admit, I don’t always succeed. But Irvin, events in MY neck of the woods are a whole lot more eventful than in your neck of the woods.

    If you had the sense to come to Israel to live (and go to synagogue and bless the congregation when they called for kohanim), would you be able to keep your articles about this place under 20 pages?

  • Ruvy

    Oy vey!!! I did slog through your 10 pages of “article”. I could have accomplished more sitting on the toilet defecating – you know, taking a shit, dumping a load, filling the Palestinian Authority refrigerator. I didn’t do Latin or Greek, or I could have stuck in a half dozen more euphemisms drawn from the languages of the savages of Ionia and Rome.

    Your talents are truly wasted writing about American political figures. They are so pathetically boring! And what is a nice Jewish young geezer like you doing worried about Christian morality? Who gives a damn!

    You are a Child of Israel, a descendant of the High Priest, Aaron. What does the alleged morality of American pagans have to do with you? You demean yourself, dipping yourself in shit. You shouldn’t.

    Come home Irvin. If you want to write about hypocrites, tear apart Israeli politicians, who are far worse than American ones because the prices they exact with their hypocrisy is so much higher.

    Believe me, with your writing style, you’ll give the bastards heart attacks – they are not used to being put down in four different languages in one article. They’ll fall over like tenpins – especially the real self-righteous ones with the guilty looks, the long beards and the kippot on their heads.

    You have a great future being a bum here with an acid pen!

  • http://www.carminasaturaqueamericana.com Irvin F Cohen

    Thank you Ruvy.

    I guess, I suppose.

    Sorry, but as much as I love my Jewish brethren and the state of Israel as both an idea/ideal and as an actual nation-state, whether for good or evil, I must confess and declare unequivocally and dogmatically that I am first and foremost an American.

    I must also confess that I have had a divided loyalty in this matter throughout my entire life, from the time I first went to Hebrew School 55 years ago, till Marine Corps boot camp in 1967 at Parris Island. I graduated a week after the Six Days War and was in the envious position of having become one of a handful (literally a number which could be calculated on one hand with a few digits left to spare) of resident “super Jews” in the eyes of my fellow Marines (Jarhead/Leatherneck/dumbass fellow Americans).

    I suddenly found myself in a dilemma when I asked myself the questions, “am I in the right military in the right war? And don’t I really belong in Israel fighting for my Jewish brethren and for my Jewish heritage?”

    Well I decided to stay and fight for America, but that burning issue has always been in my mind ever since then. In fact it arose again and was brought home to me with greater impact with the Yom Kippur War in 1973. I had just gone back to college and was dedicated to the overplayed concept of the pursuit of the all mighty, all powerful, all-doors opening, absolutely necessary gateway entrance of a college degree and supposed, so-called education; into the upper echelons of American society and its vaunted middle and upper middle classes. But if I was going to waste the next three or more years of my life, I was determined to attain and achieve a meaningful education – so therefore my study and pursuit of the Classics.

    Well as fate would have it, I was already over a year into this so-called, supposed great sojourn when the Yom Kippur War leapt onto the scene and my latent ambivalence towards my own divided loyalty was then also reawakened. So I muddled over this issue for a dew days and then decided quite stoically and fatalistically to join the Israeli Army. But this is where “toujours cherchez la femme” also comes into play.

    I had a “schicksa” girlfriend, very young, in fact ten years my junior, but very beautiful, and very mature, in fact much more mature than I (ever was or will ever be). In fact I cleverly and secretly referred to her in a rather cutsie-wootsie fashion as the “eighteen year old” which, when i revealed this little secret of mine to her, to my utter surprise and joy, she delighted in and found extremely amusing. Well she was the very first to whom I revealed my intention and determination to give up everything for the sake of Israel.

    Her advice to me was to cool my jets and not be so rash and to wait a few days and see how things might turn out. Her point: maybe I didn’t need to go, maybe the Israelis would reverse their fortunes and seeming dire straights, and in the final analysis would crush and ultimately defeat their enemies. And in my deepest desires, if allowed, to absolutely annihilate the motherfuckers too; so that there would finally be peace in the Holy Land, in our ancestral homeland – oh how truly fucking naive I was!

    Well, I took her advice to heart and in the space of less than a week the Israelis turned the tables on their enemies, kicked ass and took names. Well, events bore out her advice quite well and I no longer felt any urgency nor exigency nor necessity to run off to Israel – for they had things under control as usual.

    But you must understand Ruvy, that this girl was what all good Jewish “boychiks” secretly and not-so secretly pine for; for you see she was a divine, dynamite, blonde, blue-eyed, très sensuelle et sexy, utterly desirable “shicksa” goddess with a hot-hot-hot dyn-oh-myte body and a perfectly, divine and beauteous face simply to-die-for. And so consequently I stayed.

    I know that must me make me rather craven in your eyes. But we men, all men, whether Jewish or gentile, have been put on this earth by both God and nature with only one purpose, and I emphasize, with one only – simply stated, to be “whupped” as in “pussy whupped” and to be brainwashed and thoroughly trained and indoctrinated into liking and in fact just simply adoring and craving it more than life itself.

    At any rate, a year later I transferred to another university across the country and that ended our great romance. For you see, I really was that stupid and even more so, my fantasies and masculine libido drove me to believe that I had to spread my immature, adolescent sexuality and stupidity to greener pastures throughout the land. Yeah I really was that immature and stupid – as all of us men truly are.

    And what pray tell is the point of all of this? The point is, as much as I love Israel and the concept of a national, Jewish nation state, nevertheless, I am still first and foremost an American. And will remain as such till my last dying breath (which seems at this point in time, to be a lot sooner than I would like).

    By the way, I consider reform Jews to be essentially Christians and a lost cause. Worse yet they are quite typically libs, commie-libs and atheistic leftists ad nauseam, ad infinitum. As for Conservative and Orthodox Jews, I respect and consider them to be real Jews. But as I likewise detect in you, I am rather disquieted and often angered by the Ultra-Orthodox Jews too.

    So Sholom for now Ruvy, but know this and know it quite well – I like you and your stuff, but sorry bro’, ain’t goin’ nowhere from here (save for my grave).

  • Ruvy

    NU? You got laid by a shiksa? Big deal!! So did I! More than once, and by more than one shiksa! And right around the same time you were having your great romance, I was screwing this hot piece in every position I could get my not quite in shape body to go in. It wasn’t love, but it sure was lust in the grand tradition of “the old daunce”. It was grand. But in her heart, she hated Jews (some comment would slip out now and again), and that pretty much determined that no matter what she said later, and no matter how good she was in bed, the serpent of Jew-hatred would come out sooner or later and bite me – more likely than not right in the balls; there was this minor matter of “a Jew is the child of a Jewish mother”. I think you get the idea.

    The only good thing the “reform” Jews ever did in history was to try to get rid of this matrilineal shit. But like you said, they are essentially Christians playing yid. The ones I really feel sorry for are the Christians who convert to Judaism under a “reform” rabbi – or rabbit, or whatever you call the women who call themselves “rabbi” in the “reform” movement. The converts really love Judaism – and what they are getting from the “reform” is a thin watered down gruel of a heritage. If G-d is good to me, there is this woman who I’m trying to help make aliya. She loves, G-d, she loves Israel – but she converted under a “reform” rabbit – oops, I mean rabbi. I’ll have to teach and teach and teach, and so will my wife – so this kind woman will comprehend the deep, rich heritage she bought into when she walked away from Christianity.

    Look at it this way, Irvin. I’m going to be very frank (or george, but NOT peter) with you. WHEN the US dollar loses its reserve status, your standard of living will plummet right through the floor. This is not a matter of if anymore, but when. If you will have died before this, it won’t matter. But if you are still alive, it will be a matter of catch as catch can, and you hint that time and chance have indeed happened to you.

    Things will get very unpleasant, to put it politely. It’s no way for an old guy to suffer. I fear for what will happen to my father-in-law in the assisted living center he is in with the hot and cold running nurses. When their salaries are worth nothing, they won’t show up. They also have families to feed.

    Plans are being made here to deal with the crisis that will hit you and all your fellow Americans like a boat-load of elephants shit. Israelis have lived through hyper-inflation before, and will have to deal with a very unstable world economy that you will bear the brunt of in the States. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, and that is America’s future.

    So, give the Promised Land another look, will you? A flag – any flag, including the blue and white one of the Zionists – is just a cloth. You have a heritage that goes back 106 generations or so that you can at least enjoy in your final days or years – whatever it is that G-d chooses to grant you. And in Israel, even on the crowded buses, they give an old guy a seat. “Grampa” they’ll tell you in Hebrew, “sit down and relax.” Who knows? you might even meet a pretty girl here!

  • Fingal O’Flahertie

    As a shegetz, I wholeheartedly agree with both of you. Shiksas are much better in bed than Jewesses. I’ve had more than enough disappointing sexual encounters with Jewesses to confirm this dour view. Since Ruvy in particular seems like an expert in Judaism, perhaps you can explain what it is about Jewesses that makes them such inhibited sex partners. And lest you blame this on my own inadequacies, suffice to say that I’ve no complaints from the many shiksas I’ve bedded.

  • Ruvy

    Fingal, you have my sympathy. Not deep sympathy, mind you, it can disappear after my cup of coffee.

    The hot Jewish girls are here in Israel, and they are cute, and they pump out kid after kid after kid, and they stay cute. But stay in America, Fingal. We like to keep the good stuff to ourselves….