Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Skinner » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Skinner
Posted by Skinner in Editorials & Other Articles
Fri Mar 24th 2006, 01:47 PM
Like other high-profile opinion-makers in Washington, if it's 11:00PM Monday through Thursday, my TV will -- without a doubt -- be set to the cable news version of Must-See TV. I am referring, of course, to the blockbuster smash TV news juggernaut on MSNBC known as "The Situation with Tucker Carlson." Which is not to be mistaken with the "Situation Room" on CNN, which is crap. According to its own website, "The Situation with Tucker Carlson" has the singular virtue of being very, very fast. In fact, they say "The show is so fast, it's changing the pace of news." In news industry jargon, this unprecedented change in news "fastness" is universally referred to as the "Tucker Carlson effect," and it has sent shockwaves through the entire news business, from the mighty New York Times down to the lowly blogs, all of which are now extremely fast. This has forced the producers of "The Situation with Tucker Carlson" to respond in kind with even greater increases in fastness, to the point where it is now just a blue-tinted blur with a bow tie hanging ominously in the middle of the TV screen.

Fortunately, I was jacked up on speed Wednesday night, so I was capable of super-human feats of perception. The typical hyper-fast presentation of "The Situation with Tucker Carlson" appeared to slow down to a much more tolerable speed which would allow mere mortals to decipher its arcane secrets. And what I found was shocking.

Tucker Carlson's guest was Michael Hainey, the Deputy Editor of GQ, who shared the findings of an anonymous female writer in his magazine who declared that Republican men are better than Democratic men in the sack. If you're a Democrat like me (and maybe even if you are a Republican), your reaction to this piece of news was probably similar to that of a member of this very website, who responded in typical Democratic Underground understatement: "OMG... PUKE!!! GQ Magazine says repukes better in bed, WTF?!?"

OMG PUKE WTF, indeed.

At that moment I resolved to find this offending article, read it, and then expose it as yet another outrageous fraud perpetrated by Karl Rove to smear patriotic Democratic males as wimpy, pathetic metrosexuals.

My suspicions were reinforced by the ridiculous specimen of a man that Rove hand-picked to present the story on Tucker Carlson's show, and who is apparently himself a Democrat. I can promise you that Michael Hainey has never chopped wood, watched NASCAR, or farted in his entire life. But he has apparently been known to have stuck his finger in an electrical socket on occasion:



After searching the Internet in vain for an hour or so to try to find a copy of the article, I at last gave up and decided to walk to my friendly neighborhood newsstand to procure a hard copy of the April 2006 GQ magazine. I am not an avid reader of GQ, but I seem to remember that they usually had pictures of men on the cover. So imagine my surprise when I saw this:



Want to see it even bigger? Go ahead, click the picture. It's okay. Nobody is watching.

Since I am an American male who also happens to have a mailing address, I immediately recognized the woman on the cover. I do not know her name, or if she has a name, but I do know that she is mailed to my home every few weeks, embarrassment-free, courtesy of the Victoria's Secret company. And then she is mysteriously removed from the stack of mail before my wife even knows that she has arrived in our home. She does not need to know. I love my wife dearly, but it's really better that she not be involved in this.

So there I was, standing in the newsstand, and I immediately became nervous because it crossed my mind that the cashier behind the counter, upon seeing the image of a half-naked woman on the magazine cover, would conclude that I was purchasing pornography. Or worse he might think I'm buying one of those ridiculous men's magazines with names like "Stuff," "Loaded," and "Maxim" which are kinda like pornography, except without all that distracting nudity. Furthermore, this was the newsstand in my own neighborhood and you never know who might see me there. (This is why I usually drive way, way out to the suburbs when I am purchasing pornography.) After a few moments of paralysis, I finally built up enough courage to pick up the magazine and walk over to the cashier. He took my money, and started to reach for the dreaded "opaque black plastic bag" which is the bag they use when you are buying pornography because the magazine cover doesn't show through. Determined to show the world that 1) I was not embarrassed, and 2) I was not purchasing pornography, I told the cashier that I did not need a bag. I carried the magazine out of the store, bag-free, although I did hold it with the front cover facing inward so nobody could see it. Fortunately, the back cover was a rather non-offensive credit card advertisement.

When I arrived at the office, I sat down at my desk and began to inspect the cover of the magazine more closely. I was dismayed to see a teaser on the cover referring to "The New Christian Sex Craze," and for a moment I feared that perhaps the anonymous author might be right about Republicans. I thought that the evangelical wing of the Republican party was my ace-in-the-hole, with their uncontrollable Falwellian impulse to ban abortion, contraception, sex toys, skirts that show too much ankle, and any form of sex that involves the tool of Satan known as "female pleasure."

I was much relieved to open the magazine and find out that "The New Christian Sex Craze" is actually known as "Saving It For Jesus," which sounds a whole lot to me like the Old Christian Sex Craze. At least GQ has a sense of humor. They've got one article about Republicans being great in bed, and another in the same issue about how they're not actually going to bed. Except to sleep. At which point the Christian bestseller Every Man's Battle claims that they might experience (in the words of GQ), "a cycle that occurs roughly every seventy-two hours and often ends in a viscous nocturnal discharge onto the sheets and blankets of their bunks. These rhythmic spasms are nothing to fear..."

Gee, "anonymous," you really nailed it. These guys are sexual Gods. I particularly like the part of the article that describes them taping a piece of white paper to the cover of GQ to cover up the photograph of Jennifer Anniston. They claim that they enjoy the magazine "for its helpful dress tips and lively arts reviews" (lively arts reviews?) but they are "troubled by its cover shots." I bet these pantywaists read Playboy for the articles. Zing! Take that!

Scoreboard: Me 1, Republican Pantywaists 0.

Democrats are on a roll. But wait, there's more. Let's go to the lightning round...

New York: Democrat
Los Angeles: Democrat
Miami: Democrat
San Francisco: Democrat
South Dakota, Mississippi, Utah: Republican, Republican, Republican
Banning Sex Toys: Republican
Banning Sodomy: Republican
Banning Abortion: Republican
Banning Contraception: Republican
Banning Adultery: Republican
Bashing Gays: Republican
Bashing Women: Republican
Susan Sarandon, Sheryl Crow, Dixie Chicks: Democrat, Democrat, Democrats
Gopher from "The Love Boat," Tony from "Who's the Boss?": Republican, Republican

Lightning Round Score: Democrats 19, Republicans 0. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

But I was still troubled by anonymous's candid take on the current state of Red v. Blue America, bed-ways. So I decided to take this dispute all the way to the top. To the one person who could settle, once and for all, who is the best. My wife.

So I called her office and asked her the question. After telling me that she was "in a meeting" and that she "can't talk now," I finally convinced her to answer the question. "It's Democrats, right? Democrats are better, right?" I asked. Let the record show that the answer was, and I quote, "Sure, honey. Whatever you say."

Furthermore, I can verify -- contrary to the claims made by anonymous in her article -- that my wife has, on occasion, said that I am "so big" and also that "no, really, three-and-a-half inches is actually very big, I swear."

Read it and weep, Republicans.
Discuss (87 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Profile Information
Profile Picture
Skinner
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
David Allen
53937 posts
Member since 2001
Washington, DC, USA
I am the owner and co-founder of Democratic Underground.
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.