?

Log in

No account? Create an account
(no subject)
polydad
A lotta threads in this fabric; let's see if I can get enough of 'em labelled to get started.

barking_iguana had a recent post about Republicans trying to blame yet something else on Clinton. Why can't they let go of him? He's been out of office for three years and isn't running for anything; why should he be a subject of discussion in the first place?

Two thoughts come to mind: 1.) They need a scapegoat, and Kerry doesn't have enough personality to make a decent target. 2.) Clinton actually got some sex while in office, and they're too jealous to be able to see straight.

Both thoughts actually work together. Most mainstream Christianity is based on the scapegoat system, and it's a very comfortable system for people who despise themselves. If I can put all my sins on the scapegoat, we don't have to look at *me*, do we? And who in their right mind would want to look at me anyway? Can you imagine *anyone* for whom Dick Cheney is an object of lust?

None of which is the direction I intended to be heading when I started writing. Connecting Power as aphrodesiac to sexual repression was where I'd been trying to go.

Re-set brain; try again.