Campfield’s Sexualized Fantasies

You know, blogging will bring you a lot of weird things, some good, some bad. You’ll meet interesting people. You’ll meet weird people. Sometimes, you’ll be off having a public discussion with a woman (say, Terry Frank) you had previously regularly accused of being an idiot only to find out that meeting her made you appreciate a little better where she was coming from and make you feel like you’ve been unfairly harsh, only to come home and go about your weekend completely oblivious to the fact that while you were driving over to said discussion, an elected official was fantasizing in public about your genitals.

Then you might find out at lunch today that, indeed, an elected official was publicly discussing your genitals, fantasizing about how you might talk about them to Terry Frank.

The rep.
on Sep 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Terry Frank: 9th amendment , 10th amendment. Free speech.

Aunt B: My (expletive) itches.

Terry Frank: Freedom, liberty, free market, constitution, personal responsibility, bill of rights.

Aunt B: F$%^ off!. My (Expletive) still itches!

Going to do battle with a mentally unstable person who has a tenuous grasp of the issues to be discussed has got to be a real treat for Terry. Hold out for the video. My money is on Terry. BIG.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I was upset about this. I even called the Butcher to complain.  But thank gods for brothers, right?  Because there’s a pause, and then the Butcher lets out this huge belly laugh, and says, “An elected official was talking like that?! Man, I feel bad for his wife.”

And true enough. There it is, right in the middle of the day, and Campfield is sharing his fantasies about how I will talk about my cooter (which of course must be diseased and itchy, because you know what an immoral slut I am) and Terry will show me up with her great knowledge of the Constitution and put this “mentally unstable” person in my place.

All that’s missing is the part where Terry throws me over her lap and spanks me until I admit what a bad, bad girl I’ve been.  I mean, Jesus, most folks have sense enough to keep their private sexual fantasies to themselves, but Campfield’s putting them out there in the comments on a liberal blog.

Here’s the thing, though. I can avoid him. Shoot, I can live my whole life without ever having to come in contact with him in person again.

But Frank’s got to see his creepy ass regularly.

And I sincerely feel bad for her about that.

I mean, yeah, being the whore in the madonna/whore set up has its drawbacks, but being the failed madonna (and we all must fail at some point) is no fun either.

How Convenient

You have to love the dudes who decide that curiosity is a vice after they’ve gotten theirs. You know, it was fine for Stanley Fish to be so intellectually curious that he’s been the dean of a university and written eleven books and gotten himself a gig writing for the New York Times.

But now that he’s firmly ensconced? Well, now’s the time to sit around and ponder what a vice curiosity is and how decent people don’t have it.  Especially not any whippersnappers that might be coming up and after anything that Fish has.

Seriously, I cannot believe, sometimes, that this kind of stuff gets published.  In a major American newspaper, which relies on people be curious about what happened yesterday in order to stay in business, publishes an article about how God hates curiosity?  That struck no one there as strange?

And I’m almost embarrassed to quote you this part:

Griffiths builds on the religious tradition in which curiosity is condemned because it distracts men from the study and worship of God, shackling them, says Augustine, “to an inferior love.” But curiosity can also distract men from secular obligations by so occupying their minds that there is no room left for other considerations. These men (and women) fail to register the pain of animals subjected to experiments in the name of knowledge, pay no heed to the social consequences of their investigations, and take no heed of the warnings issued in Marlowe’s “Dr. Faustus,” Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” H.G. Wells’ “The Island of Dr. Moreau” and Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” (not to mention the myth of Pandora and the Incredible Hulk).

Seriously. Not considering that animals feel pain during experiments is not a failure of too much curiosity. It’s a failure of too little. And notice how he has to throw in the “(and women)” there part so that he can condemn Pandora! Not that he’s bothered to consider women in any other context in the piece.  He doesn’t even blame Eve for being curious about eating the apple.  And his list of things we must heed warnings from?  Don’t get me wrong. I’m a literature person.

But to view every piece of literature that can vaguely be construed about being about science that Fish is aware of as a morality tale? An allegory that can be given one to one correlation to real life? And from which we can draw real life lessons about curiosity?

Right, because drawing lessons about unchecked power before Fish has achieved it is inconvenient. Wait for him to get it and then we’ll get a thoughtful discussion in the New York Times about how wanting unchecked power is probably bad and anti-God.