“The Politics of Sex”
February 19, 2003
Tom Ridge, Bush’s guy in charge of Homeland Security, was on TV yesterday trying to convince Americans they need to go to the hardware store and purchse large amounts of plastic, rope, and duct tape. I was unsure if he was talking about security against terrorist attacks or Sadomasochism so I called a friend of mine, Sady (not her real name), who just HAPPENS to be a Dominatrix in Santa Monica.
I asked her about these suggestions of what we are being asked to purchase and she thoughtI i was joking, laughing it off with an,”Oh, Mike, why are you always looking for trouble?” But when pressed harder, she began to crack.
“Well,” she offered, “if Tom Ridge called here saying he needed plastic, rope and duct tape, i would have to assume he wanted me to inflict some sort of punishment on him, which, by the way, he probably deserves.”
So I wasn’t nuts to come to that conclusion after all, I thought to myself. So, was Tom Ridge trying to subliminally pass his personal ritualistic beliefs on America off as Homeland Security, in a sick attempt to satiate a suppressed sexual appetite? Sady gave me some insight into this strange new world of dark sexualality and the connection to goverment. She explained:
“I get all kinds of customers here…politicians, policemen, doctors, lawyers…you name it. But if you look at someone like, say, Bill Clinton, someone who acts on his sexual drive, despite the moral and finacial problems it may cause, he has less desire to inflict harm on others. In a sense, his affairs are, in a way, an act towards dealing with issues he has. People like George Bush or Donald Rumsfield take appear to take a high moral ground. But in reality, they are very jealous of people like Clinton because they are every bit as deviant as Clinton and see much of themselves in Clinton. They can’t deal with this so a way of letting off steam, if you will, is to flex some muscle. War is a very aggressive, manly thing and a men develop a real (or imagined) identities when they win. Of course, I am not trying to reduce this very serious conflict to something like sexual politics. But, the real clue is in the timeline that basically says, ‘this has to be done now, not in three weeks.’ If peace were truly the objective, then the USA would be fine with waiting 3 or 4 months, if that’s what it took for the world to be a safer place. But our government knows it can win a war in the middle east, very easily, and would rather reap the political benefits now, as opposed to later, when Bush begins his re-election work and the econony becomes a larger target by Bush’s aversaries.”
Jesus Chrysler, I thought. What the heck is Sady doing working as a Dominatrx? She oughta be on MSNBC or FOX or CNN or something like that! So, it was becoming clearer to me; this whole war thing is giving the Bush adminiatrationa serious hard-on and quite frankly, they are getting tired of “dry humping” Iraq. I know just how they feel.
See, when I was 16 years old, I went on a double date with my best friend, Charly, and neither of our dates were willing to “put out”, much to our chagrin. So we tried to convince them WHY it was a good idea to put out, which is what Bush is doing when he comes on tv, trying to convince Americans we need to bomb Iraq NOW, this minute. But instead of getting into someone’s knickers, he’s trying to get into Iraq. Now, the way I see it, the nations OPPOSED to war are kinda like those girls that wouldn’t put out; no matter what we said or how we said it, their answer was no, no, no.
We were trying to get in their knickers (which is kinda like trying to get permission to bomb IRAQ-in this particular story) but were rebuffed at every turn. We couldn’t understand why they kept saying no. Their position was, “Why do you NEED to get it in our knickers TONIGHT?” We couldn’t answer that question. It was a good question. Why NOW? I guess it’s America’s turn to answer that question. BUSH and Rumsfield better hope they do better than Charly and I did.