God. God. God. God. GOD. God. GOD. GOD. Okay.

I can't believe I'm going to do this. What is the point of doing this? It's not like I'm being read anyways. But I'm angry, and I have to scream: Who the fuck is this fucking guy?

"Negroes vs. Black Conservatives"? See, that's just what you do. You set the motherfucking ground rules in double duh terms so that everybody can see what's coming. There's no such thing, this title implies, as a Black Un-Conservative. What there are, see, are Black Conservatives, and then there are Negroes. You can sense the trepidation in the man's fingertips as he lingers longingly over the keyboard, wishing he could put the other word in the title, the one that rhymes with plahziggers. And it's "vs.", as well, so there's a fucking wrestling match he's going to be talking about as opposed to motherfucking social issues.

In the minds of elite, white, liberal, socialist Democrats -

Oh yeah, the EWLSDies. They'll fuck shit up, man, the ewlsdies, they got this little world twisted round their finger, from Lenny Bruce to Teresa Heinz Kerry, the whole bunchavem's nothing but a little cooler-than-thou trotskyite clique of APPEASERS.

In the minds of elite, white, liberal, socialist Democrats, there is an unambiguous dichotomy between Negroes and black conservatives.

Oh, I see. He's invented this wrestling match, and now he'd like to denounce it. It's not something he's dragging out of the sewer, it exists in the minds of white people. Would you like to know, hey, I've got a little copy of Oxford's Shorter English Dictionary in my back pocket here, hey, see, buncha definitions, look they got one here it's for racism: it reads

(Belief in, adherence to, or advocacy of) the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, qualities, etc., specific to that race, esp. as distinguishing it as inferior or superior to another race or races; prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism based on this.

So basically, if you are assigning a characteristic to one particular race, say for example a tendency to see a dichotomy between one kind of black person and another which relegates one kind of black person to a lower caste depending on their political views, and you assign that characteristic exclusively, as you do when you use an expression like ewlsdies, then that there is a racist statement, sir. There has been so much repetition of the phrase "play the race card" in information circuits of a certain flavour that it's become fashionable to play it before one has even been dealt into the game. But fine, I know who he's talking about, he's talking about Streisand. Let's move on:

A glaring example of this truth is the racist bastardization of America's newest secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. And the support for this racism from corporate America to Bob Beckel to rank and file Democrats in leadership.

Grammatical seizures aside, there's a lot wrong here already. The terms "rank and file" and "leadership" are diametrically opposed. If one is a rank and file Democrat, then one is most specifically not in a leadership position in the Democratic party. So who's he talking about, if not every single Democrat there is? How ridiculous. I had to google Bob Beckel, never having heard of him before, and managed to find a fairly recent, lightweight piece he wrote on Ms. Rice in which he basically says she's in over her head. Is Massie saying he thinks she's not? Can he really think of anyone who wouldn't be? What's she going to do, butt heads with Cheney over untendered Iraq reconstruction contracts? As if. Also Mr. Beckel wrote his piece without once using words like "black" or "Negroes", so I'm not sure where he's getting that Beckel's is a "racist" bastardization. And corporate America? You can blame absolutely anything on those sons of bitches without it even meaning a damn thing since it's a polity everyone and noone belongs to. Corporate America is a schema, not an oak-and-veneer gentleman's club. Hasn't he been paying attention?

Rice is one of America's most accomplished individuals, notwithstanding women – as is Bush judicial nominee Justice Janice Rogers-Brown; as is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; as is Ambassador and senatorial candidate Alan Keyes; as is Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Colin Powell and the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. The aforementioned comprise a very small number of a very large and ever increasing number of conservatives who happen to be black.

Yes, I've seen all those faces on the cover of Black Republican Aficionado. I remember Connerly as the guy with the Racial Privacy Act, basically a "don't ask don't tell" clause for being black in California. Thomas Sowell writes for the Jewish World Review; if you go to their website the donation advert is an amazingly Pink Floydian picture of two white-cuffed white-skinned hands clasped over a psychedelic image. Some of the names Massie mentions belong to men of the scholar-TV pundit persuasion, and I don't mean to racially bastardize them because it's hard to become a scholar, or a Fellow, or a professor, but answer me this: wouldn't you say that there's a great demand for conservatives "who happen to be black" to appear on television as commentators or to write for ideologically motivated publications like the Jewish World Review or the National Review? Furthermore, that the prominence these scholars receive could lead one to the conclusion that there are as many African-American scholars who agree with the course of the Bush administration as there are those who do not? Which, by the way, like hell there are. Well-intentioned or not, these telepundits are contestants in a rigged reality show, and their national prominence is indicative of nothing, withstanding women or notwithstanding them.

It is interesting to observe that these are not the impuissant or recreant.

Yes it is indeed interesting to observe that these African-American people you've mentioned are neither impotent nor passive. Don't think you can disguise your abhorrent worldview with a thesaurus, Mr. Massie. What you mean to establish is that those African-Americans who disagree with any or all of those present on your list are very impuissant and recreant, and that these, to get back to your wrestling match, are the Negroes. Do I need to break out the OSED again?

It is further interesting to note that these listed are not recognized because of financial impropriety, illegitimate children, drugs, philandering, number of abortions, race baiting or complaints of whites holding them back. They are recognized for their hard work, honesty, integrity and diligence. They are recognized for their educational accomplishments, their personal sacrifices and their love for country.

Great. Yes, interesting, yadda yadda yadda. If you were white and stupid and you read this, what would you think?

This is not recrudence for elitist liberals and the Democrat Party – it is the continuation of that which they have stood for since their inception in 1840, when they wrote that efforts by abolitionists to interfere with questions of slavery ... endangered the stability and permanency of the Union. In 1852, the Democrat Party wrote they would oppose all efforts to oppose slavery.

He just went where?

Essentially, the Democrats' argument at the time was that an end to slavery would be bad for the economy. Fairly disgusting, but also a hundred and fifty two years ago, and we were talking about Condoleeza Rice, who's 49, and whose new office is (not coincidentally) enabling a massive expropration of resources from the Iraqi people in the interests of economic stability (which is not yet on the horizon).

From 1876 until 1960, Democrats successfully blocked all progress in civil rights. Prior to that, from 1860 to 1876, Republicans were singularly responsible for all black civil-rights accomplishments despite fierce opposition by Democrats.

Yes, Lincoln was a Republican. The Emancipation Proclamation was enacted by the then-governing Republican party, and these are things for which the Republican party should be proud. What about after 1960, though? What were the significant Republican contributions to the civil-rights movement when it, you know, actually existed as anyone now alive knows it? Oh yeah, they tried to STIFLE it.

Aaaanyways....

Liberal Democrats, aided by the true "house slaves," railed against Trent Lott, R-Miss., for his jocund comments celebrating the late Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday. While Thurmond was at one time a segregationist Democrat, it receives little notice that he switched parties in 1964, denounced his prior leanings and was the first Southern senator to hire a black in his senate office – something no Southern Democrat had ever done.

Lott's comments weren't specifically in support of Thurmond hiring a black in his senate office. They were specifically in support of Thurmond's 1948 bid for president, when he said that there was no army big enough to push desegregation on the southern states and force them to "admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." That's why Lott was roundly criticized for his jocund (thesaurus says: delightful, mirthful, pleasant, agreeable) endorsement.

Yet there is nothing mentioned by liberals per Christopher Dodd's, D-Conn., superlatives about the racist Klansman, Robert Byrd, D-W.V. His comments that Byrd "would have been right for the Civil War" were accurate in his Democrat mind.

Robert Byrd was a Klansman in the forties, and there's a much-quoted 1946 letter he wrote that urgently supports the KKK. But Byrd turned his back on the Klan soon after that letter. Thurmond did not denounce his prior segregationist leanings until 1964, after much bloodshed and lots of ugly behaviour made the segregationist ideology very unpopular and politically inexpedient. Dodd's remarks were to the effect that Byrd would have been a great leader for any part of America's history, including the Civil War. Any idiot can see that this is an endorsement of the man as a whole, not one specific historical moment in his thought.

Conservatives are always looking for the "reverse-get": the moment where some really scurrilous thing said or done by a Republican is somehow echoed by a Democrat. What follows a reverse-get is somewhat weird: they don't denounce the Democrat's supposedly egregious behaviour so much as celebrate it, because its existence proves some kind of bias against them in the media. Never mind that the circumstances of each event may be only superficially similar. The reverse-get is the attempt to obviate the first sin by exaggerating the second; the appearance is of the first being exonerated by default. But any time you see a reverse-get, understand: this is how a Republican apologizes. Take it as such, but remember that it is not an honourable one.

As I understand it, we are having this conversation (or rather, I am speaking into a windsock in the desert) because of one talk radio host in Madison, Wisconsin who compared Rice to Aunt Jemima. His point was that Rice has, by all accounts, been ineffectual in her role in the Bush administration thus far. So her new appointment strikes the people who feel that way as filling the void with someone who won't argue with the Cheney doctrine, the way Powell did. He's since apologized for the remark, but fuck him anyways. If that's how he feels, he's entitled to his opinion (and without the race-baiting comments, it's one with which I agree) but if you can't contribute something meaningful to the discussion, "Sly", maybe you should shut the hell up before you make things even worse.

Let's play a game.

Here's a sentence from Associated Press in a piece about the mortar attack in Baghdad which killed four, and wounded at least 12, employees of Global Risk Strategies.

Global Risk Strategies is a London-based firm that provides security in countries including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now here's the same sentence, sweetened to taste, on Jihad Unspun's release on same:

Global Risk Strategies is a mercenary firm that priveds ex-military personnel to support the American agenda, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Notice the typo. Notice also the way the exclusion of the words "in countries" makes the sentence make no damn sense whatsoever.

*in singsong voice* Someone's got an agenda...

The war desk is the privy of the semantician these days, what with Fox News' replacement of "sniper" with "sharpshooter", the National Post's "militant"/"terrorist" find-and-replace feature... journalists everywhere are bombing their language in order to save it... no wonder I'm so fucking confused.

"sorry everybody" is now to 2004 what "severed penis" was to 1993

The Barbara Kay thing has been affecting me lately, and so I've started seeing a certain phrase pop up over and over again. In fact, I typed "self loathing sorry everybody" into google, and it picked up 82,800 hits. Now, there's gonna obviously be a lot of bad teenage poetry and other dross in a net that wide, but scrolling through for a dozen pages or so I saw that about every third or fourth one was a reference to that site. So I tried "self loathing sorryeverybody.com" and still got 138.

Scuse the language, but what the fuck? Is this now the party line in blogsville? Hundreds of people post pictures reminding the rest of the world that there's Americans who are just as angry with their government as they are, some of which are actually pretty funny, and now those people loathe themselves?

Pretty fucking strong language. I guess either you hop on board the fuck-the-world boat or start seeing a shrink. Maybe we all should go see one; then we can ask her the definition of the word megalomania.

She pulled up my shirt to sign my tit and I said, "No. The book. Please."

I heard about H.O.P.E awhile ago when they protested Paris Hilton's book signing.

I guess it's sort of funny, but why on earth, if you feel so strongly about it, would you just not read a book you didn't want to read? Or not watch a tv show you thought was crap? Bad television shows are a blessing - watching one is like snorting up a line of ants you thought was coke. Coke makes you feel like having some more coke, like Carlin said, but nothing stops that train like a line of ants. And the thing is that you never can tell - Pamela Anderson's book might be some really, really important cultural artifact someday. Like Gilgamesh in Assurbanapal's library.

There's no accounting for taste. Who knows if one of the archaeologists who found all those stone tablets might not have browsed through Gilgamesh and said, "This is crap - show me where you found Corinthians"? What's important is that it was found, and history can judge it.

Also, please, find a better acronym and stick with it. Here are a few suggestions to get you started:

Hiltons Off Planet Earth

Hack Off Protruding Extremities

Helping Out Poncey Elitists

Harbourers Of Prissy Envy

Or you may find some further inspirations upon investigation of other fellow modern-day tomecidal maniacs. Careful with this stuff at dinner parties, dudes. Feelings of imperial entitlement take a lot of cologne to disguise.




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Speaking of imperial entitlement, remember that today is the last "Buy Something Day" for a little while. "Buy Something Day" returns November 27th.

Why, why, why do I subscribe to the National Post?

Barbara Kay does not require your apology.

Here's bits of her op-ed in the Post today...

What do incensed liberals do when their candidate loses? Some run dreadful Web sites. (One such), www.sorryeverybody.com, features pictures of people (and their babies and pets) "holding up written apologies to the planet" for Bush's re-election.

...was Bush's victory a coup by a military junta? Were the polls closed to Democrats? George W. Bush was returned to power in a free and democratic election. In whose name are these people apologizing and by what right?

(These) angry losers seem not to understand the nature of apologies. Individuals may apologize to others for their own wrongdoings. A company president may apologize on behalf of his employees for his company having caused public harm. A nation may apologize to the world through its leader, as Bill Clinton did in Rwanda, for having abdicated its moral responsibility.

But surely this is the first time in history that a group of people joined only by ideology and an unshakable belief in their own moral pre-eminence have apologized to outsiders on behalf of fellow citizens for whose actions they have neither the responsibility nor the authority to speak, simply because they freely and democratically elected the "wrong" man. These Democrats, and the Bush-hating world who find conduits to vent their rage in like-minded journalists, are really saying that 51% of Americans were more than misguided, they were guilty of thought crimes and immoral behaviour. (Italics mine.)

Apologies today, show trials tomorrow. No journalist should be celebrating this contemptible Web site. Their "apology" is illegitimate and cannot be "accepted" by anybody....

Here is the imperial liberal mindset: ...it is a virtue to spread messages of self-loathing -- for that is how the apology Web sites will be interpreted -- to America's enemies.

An apology for the choice made by your opponents -- whether it comes from the left or the right -- is an attack on the democratic process itself. As a vote of non-confidence in the will of the people, it is a subversion of the very premise of democracy, and an incipiently totalitarian impulse. (Once again, italics mine.)

I cannot imagine a similar scenario -- conservatives apologizing to the world for a Kerry win -- if the situation were reversed. All reasonable people understand... that the glory of democracy lies in neither side ever having to say it's sorry.
© National Post 2004

Pfft.

Here's what I wrote to her:

A website that features pictures of ordinary Americans offering apologetic notes to the rest of the world is "contemptible?" Come on, Ms. Kay. You don't have to agree with them, but your contempt is undeserved. Most of the rest of the world wanted Bush out. The only people who got to make the choice were Americans. Their apology may be unnecessary, but they believe someone should apologize for something. The Bush administration, which lied to its people, won't. Does their unfettered arrogance hold a key to civilized behaviour that an unsolicited apology does not? Those who voted Bush back in despite whirlwind deficits, a crumbling safety net and a faltering economy, won't either. Which is worse: self-loathing as posture, or the real thing?

As is common for the president you champion, you've gotten confused as to who your enemy is. All this website does is offer a simple connection between real Americans who tried to elect Kerry, and the rest of the world who in large part wished they'd succeeded. Your writings on the subject are about as conscionable as someone ripping up a get-well card for a co-worker they don't like.

"...cause when I lived in the ass of the world..." - Morrissey

Oh yeah? Well Ralph Klein HATES your kitty!

Ray Martin won in my riding! I've never been so thrilled to be wrong. The poorest urban riding in the province yanked Yankowski - sorry to get so "page six" on ya - and gave Martin about half of the votes cast here. I have never voted for a winner before, man.

There's more good news - the Liberal party made inroads in Calgary (possibly due to the influence of the hard-right vote being drained away to the shiny new recalcitrants of the Alberta Alliance) and stuck fast in Edmonton. Some of the Edmonton ridings were pretty fucking close - when you consider that the IMF rates Alberta the 40th largest economy in the world, you realize that there are nine people in Edmonton-Castle Downs who are going to need a stiff drink tonight, and that since their votes elected a Liberal over a PC incumbent, I should probably buy them one.

From there, though, the news is dull, gray and windswept. The PCs may have lost about twenty percent of the popular vote since the last election, but that still left them with a pretty comfortable majority, with at least 59 of 83 seats in the Leg' bagged and tagged. Not bad for a party with no platform to speak of (which is why all those "my (kitty / hamster / monkey / burro / husband / jizz) could've led the PCs to a majority" emails to the CBC coverage desk, etc.).

Then there's that voter turnout stat. Forty-four percent is abysmal, deplorable, the lowest ever. My math's always been funky, but less than half of less than half is less than a quarter, right? So this province's next four years has been committed to Klein by less than twenty-five percent of the eligible voting population. Yay. It's not that I wish for the chaos in Ukraine right now, but at least it seems like those people give a shit about the democratic voice.

Oh yeah, and the Socreds? One point two seven of the popular vote. A handful of us still do drive the Chevy to the levee.

your face on one side of the coin and your ass on the other!

Albertastan votes today. The outcome is not in doubt. My riding will go to Julius Yankowski, who inspired a swell of Liberal party hatred when he crossed the floor in the legislature to become a PC. In 2001, Yankowski proposed Bill 212, which would have allowed health care workers to refuse to participate in procedures that they don't agree with. Just as an example of how ridiculous this is, consider that it would have allowed pharmacists to refuse to prescribe Preven, the "morning-after pill", if they felt it to be morally right to do so. Also, Jehovah's Witnesses who worked in the health care profession would have been able, without consequence, to refuse to help with blood transfusions.

Hunnnhhh.

Weirdly, the Social Credit party who had a lock on ruling this province for decades and is now looked upon as a fringe dweller, has a platform that is actually sort of sensible. The Socreds are pilloried these days, mostly for their policy of issuing "prosperity certificates" to all Albertans. The current government does the same thing, but nobody calls it "funny money" anymore - they're energy rebates. Either way, it's vote-buying from a treasury padded to enormous size by royalties which, though they themselves are business-cushily small, are so numerous that the provincial government remains the most heavily rewarded of all the various players in the oil and gas industry here.

A taxpayer dividend, by any other term, is the neverending and completely Albertan solution to the neverending and completely Albertan conundrum of poverty amidst plenty, and every time they try it we all get an X-box for Christmas (in 1935, an X-box cost about $25) but none of our problems get solved. A gander of the Socred's platform reveals their subscription to the idea of taxpayer dividends has not wavered. As well, the Socreds would do nothing to tamper with the way the oil and gas industry is messing around with northern Alberta, piling on industry where there is no infrastructure to absorb it, planning for the future like the worst tetris players ever. But at least they get:

1) that the environment is in trouble, and Alberta farmers are suffering because of it.

2) that raising what is currently the lowest minimum wage in Canada and legislating benefits for part-time employees would be good, solid proactive ways of improving Alberta's quality of life.

3) that eliminating health-care premiums is not only a laudable goal but a possible one as well, given the size of our surplus.

The original social credit theory is more sound these days than ever: banks should be under a society's control to such an extent that the society's demands for basic quality of life are met. The problem I have with social credit theory is the end result - a blanket of money spread around to everybody equally, with no impetus to do things that are constructive with it.

The Socred dude in my riding is screaming nutbar Ken Shipka, who has been kicking around fringe parties for years selling the idea that the best way to close the shortfall in infrastructure, education, healthcare, whatever, is to simply have the Bank of Canada create more money to do it with. Simple, huh? While his ideas betray an almost childlike perspective on how money works, he at least knows that globalization is making the world sick, and the biggest villains are the banks. It would be almost worth it to throw a vote at Shipka, just for that.

Aw, for fuck's sakes, I'm going with the New Democrats. Someone really has to start to enter the fray of the Alberta leg and make some fucking noise, and the ND guy in my riding is the former leader of the party, a name candidate and a good guy. He won't win. But there is no choice. We have to start taking this province back from the hands of those who will never, ever give a shit about it.

Oldthink is crimethink. Doublethink is goodthink. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc.

January 26, 2001
Web posted at: 3:43 p.m. EST (2043 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Toby Keith was ceremoniously sworn-in as secretary of state Friday at the White House, with his wife, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney standing by his side.

The popular country singer was officially sworn in last week but Bush held the ceremony to emphasize the importance of Keith in defining America's new foreign policy.

"He is a leader who understands America must work closely with our friends in times of calm if we want to be able to call on them in times of crisis, " Bush said. "He understands our nation is at it's best when we project our strength and purpose with humility. He understands that if we do not set our own agenda it will be set by others, by adversaries abroad or by the crisis of the day.

"I know of no better person to be the face and voice of American diplomacy than Tobias Keith. His dignity and integrity will add to the strength and authority of America around the world," Bush said.

Keith thanked Bush for the appointment and promised to do his "very best to carry your message of freedom around the world, to commit the men and women of the State Department to that message so that we can show by our value system, by what we believe in, what the world can be for all those who are suffering, who are still suffering from totalitarian regimes." Keith said he will be a team player and not try to upstage Bush, who has little international policy experience.

"I look forward to playing my part, Mr. President, as you structure the foreign policy of the American people and take that foreign policy to the world -- a world that I think is on a new road to democracy and to freedom," said Keith.

After giving their short speeches, Bush and Keith left without answering any questions from reporters.

CNN Newspeak
Victory gin

a night at south edmonton "common"

The desolute emigrinings sloll ever dorewards - it must be the frigitation of the Monleys.

The Monleys run inconsolate in packs of heavy block, padded up and up and clawing surfaces, any blank flat shapes to scratch, they stare and scratch, at each other, at the malls. Funerals speed by, so fast and into dusks that sink and suck unconscious newsprint grey, exes squaring off and spinning as a chain of gears, keeping them hemmed, hawed, their voices freed to ghost in quiet salmon flora fresh from the docks. Laws adrift and rent outside the television fences. Prostitutes chuckle at their food. Animals tongue barbiturates. Red for death, green for hysteria, and it begins to snow.

The Monleys keep long ribbons tied to empty desks at home: they'd float away. Important ledgers blotched with melting snow lay piled in ruinous heaved from windows. Monleys follow them down. On cigarette accompaniments this blizzard tunes itself and sings the evening poison. The lagoon has frozen in. The giant organ is dismantled now and hauled to thaw in pieces. The city changes twice and twice again, the buses scream and halt. Broken windows peering out to dare for panes. A concrete turd sits squared and ready in the park. An obscene mouth lets loose its steam. All Hamlet's parches are borne to last exits, splayed, and split.

The Monleys know the poems of Century. Plantation charms pop the bulbs behind them actresses faces in hideous strobes, oh for just one seat to conform. Behold the parenting that's done here! Lordly dull connections all alight in humming interack switchbacks, ring roads orbiting the clothes born in fluorescence calved to term and slaved to machined, orange, clean flat squares. The buildings will not sit beside each other, a mess of iron filings on a shaking tray. They are magnetized in repulsion. The radios won't work.

All along Cacophony, what would you name a road that won't begin, the rearview mirrors don't just shrink the truth these days they outright lie, the gemini grope dry-lipped at sugared opiate, and everything below the knee is tarred in snot. The news (remember World?) is sold with drugs. The periodic table is engulfed in internecine war. The ants have all the honey now - the beehive's where the Monleys park their cars.

so many sad hipsters

This actually made me cry. It doesn't take long to get the idea, but give it time to wash over you.

P.S. Sorry about all the links lately; once I slip out of this dysphasic nightshift boogie I'll maybe be actually able to write something of my own.

words I have learned from Conrad Black

Gormandizing, rapacity, appetency, appetition, esurience, zazzle, salacity.

Thanks for the vocab, you uxorious usuring usurper.

"Blubblenumpkins"?

At least this won't be going anywhere. This woman should win some kind of award.

a cock ring

Yup.
Yup.
Yup.
Mm-hmm.

"bathers"

These are terrifying. They really close in on how a lot of our leisure activities are actually admissions of mortality. I don't know if that's a stretch but that's what I get out of them. The desaturation of the colours and the weird focus effects make the people - who were probably really enjoying themselves when so captured - seem to be in great danger. Drowning is certainly on the list of possible ends, but these people look as though they're being electrocuted, or deafened.

Thomas Zika, by the way. Don't know a damn thing about him except he got the photos from calendars and catalogues and screwed them around. Neat.

(found photo)

do not proffer sympathy to the mentally ill, it is a bottomless pit

You might recognize that as a little snippet of Burroughs' "Words of Advice for Young People".

I almost posted a comment on someone's blog. Many blogs, actually. Every American citizen with a four more years tag and none of the sense to see that the coming slaughter in Fallujah is patchwork to the Explorer their mom will haul them to go see Avril Lavigne with. None of it is real. A complete and unmarred snowglobe fantasy existence of cheeseburgers and coke for breakfast, a running text message captioning every waking moment to someone equally thrilled to be so totally captured... okay, who am I talking about? Them or me?

No, I know I'm stuck and I see the colour bars when I step outside my house. They don't. And what I wanted to say to them was that I hoped they would stay rich all their lives, because they didn't seem smart enough to claw out of the hurriedly expanding abyss that waits now and for the rest of Empire, for the poor.

This is another little snippet:

If you're doing business with a religious son of a bitch, get it in
writing; his word isn't worth shit, not with the good lord telling him
how to fuck you on the deal.

down where your paint is cracking / look down your backstairs buddy

somebody's living there and / he don't really feel the weather

and he don't share your pleasures / no he don't share your pleasures

look at his eyes / did you see his crazy eyes? - iggy pop