Culture

The Backlash Against Pussy Riot As Poster-Women for Sexy Free Speech Has Some Good Points, But Not Many

|

Before I point out that The Atlantic has a good point, let me first say that memory and outrage and whatever the hell catches humans' attention isn't fair; speaking from an American perspective, the Titanic is more famous than the Lusitania, the Holocaust is more famous than the Ukrainian famine or even the Great Leap Forward, and Thomas Kinkade sold a whole lot more paintings than did Vincent Van Gogh. It's frustrating when your cause or atrocity or gift is the one forgotten in favor of another, sexier, more inexplicably interesting one. Basically, mass taste, even in outrages, is mixed at its very best. 

In "The Kony-ification of Pussy Riot" Joshua Foust makes some good points. The three members of the feminist punk collective Pussy Riot who were sentenced on August 17 to two years in Russian prison for their February 21 "Punk Prayer" protest are victims, though they knew what they were doing and risking. Any time international attention is paid to victims of oppressive governments, it's probably a good thing. Still, Foust is reminded of the much-criticized Invisible Children Kony 2012 campaign from earlier this year, and its awkwardly Western optimism and desire for nosey intervention and world-policing.

Also, notes Foust, the obsession with the artistic and punk side of these women is excessive, to expect that that will change things in Russia. And it ignores other dissidents in Russia who didn't have their names printed on Madonna's back. The women's two year punishment is insane, and it's worse still when they have children at home, but if anything happens to them during that time, the world will definitely notice. Other protesters may not be so lucky.

Another Atlantic writer has previously noticed that the language used in Western media to describe the women has been pretty nauseatingly sexist, which the self-described feminist band may not appreciate. And Gawker today is riffing on some Vice staffers who got the Russian word for "hooligan" tattooed in "solidarity" on their flesh for the women. Writes Hamilton Nolan:

They got some tattoos—Russian tattoos. READ IT AND WEEP, PUTIN.

[…]

The tattoos about Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tibet, Western Sahara, Belarus, Burma, Chad, China, Cuba, Laos, Libya, and South Ossetia are going to take up a lot of space, but nobody said freedom fighting would be easy.

Yes, it's a bit trendy, but maybe it's sincere (an emotion I realise is not the forte of either Gawker or Vice) support for women who have an unpleasant two years ahead of them. Writing is perhaps more useful than tattooing, but gestures when a story means something to you are not necessary to mock, even if they are not helping as much as a comando raid to free the women might. The woman from the DC solidarity with Pussy Riot rally said she hoped that the band would see pictures of their supporters in bright colors and know that people were thinking of them. It's a good thought; it may be a little naive, but that's not the worst thing in the world.

Every Christmas Eve I toast the World War I truce, and war hasn't yet stopped. On occasion I wear a shirt that says "Raoul Wallenberg is my favorite superhero" and his true fate in the Soviet gulags has yet to be confirmed. So what? These are the stories that speak to me, though I have no logical reason to care. Maybe people who care about Pussy Riot are projecting, maybe they're being trendy, but maybe not. Why look the gift horse of solidarity and a hope for freedom in the mouth? And yes, Counterpunch, consistency in noticing atrocities is good. I also wish that the U.S. media paid more attention as a whole to some of their government's nastiness. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Putin is awful (he is) and whether or not these women should go free (they should).

At The New York Times, Russian analyst Vadim Nikitin points out that the women of Pussy Riot are not poster children for Western-style democracy, nor were dissidents from the Soviet era necessarily:

How many fans of Pussy Riot's zany "punk prayer" in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova's erudite and moving closing statement were equally thrilled by her participation, naked and heavily pregnant, in a public orgy at a Moscow museum in 2008? That performance, by the radical art group Voina (Russian for "war"), was meant to illustrate how Russians were abused by their government. Voina had previously set fire to a police car and drew obscene images on a St. Petersburg drawbridge.

Stunts like that would get you arrested just about anywhere, not just in authoritarian Russia. But Pussy Riot and its comrades at Voina come as a full package: You can't have the fun, pro-democracy, anti-Putin feminism without the incendiary anarchism, extreme sexual provocations, deliberate obscenity and hard-left politics.

Except for the condescending use of "zany" to describe an edgy, anti-state stunt, this is fair to bring up. A very uncomfortable Lew Rockwell blog post did the same thing, and managed to sound less opposed to jailing the women for two years than most mainstream media. And it's true, the women are more Russian, more bizarre, and less tidy poster children than most outlets have noticed. The truth is usually more nuanced and interesting than anyone's pet cause suggests. Still, Nikitin is incorrect when he writes that we need to accept all of Pussy Riot's wilder elements in order to be outraged on their behalf:

Unless you are comfortable with all that (and I strongly suspect 99 percent of Pussy Riot's fans in the mainstream media are not), then standing behind Pussy Riot only now, when it is obviously blameless and the government clearly guilty, is pure opportunism. And just like in the bad old days, such knee-jerk yet selective support for Russian dissidents — without fully engaging with their ideas — is not only hypocritical but also does a great disservice to their cause.

Some outlets have portrayed the case as a quest for freedom of expression and other ground rules of liberal democracy. Yet the very phrase "freedom of expression," with its connotations of genteel protest as a civic way to blow off some steam while life goes on, is alien to Russian radical thought. The members of Pussy Riot are not liberals looking for self-expression. They are self-confessed descendants of the surrealists and the Russian futurists, determined to radically, even violently, change society.

I don't have a vast understanding of this sort of art, or of Russian society, but to completely disavow the freedom of expression angle is wrong when the women themselves have talked that angle up to Vice and during their own closing statements at trial.

Writes Nikitin:

Pussy Riot's fans in the West need to understand that their heroes' dissent will not stop at Putin; neither will it stop if and when Russia becomes a "normal" liberal democracy. Because what Pussy Riot wants is something that is equally terrifying, provocative and threatening to the established order in both Russia and the West (and has been from time immemorial): freedom from patriarchy, capitalism, religion, conventional morality, inequality and the entire corporate state system. We should only support these brave women if we, too, are brave enough to go all the way.

Wrong. Fans of free speech, as quaint as that term may be to Nikitin, should support these women no matter how radical, offensive, or alarming their views come off as. And the women, it's safe to say, among their other beliefs, also are for free expression, or opposed to the level of oppression that is coming from Putin's Russia.

Come the day when Russia is a nice, healthy democracy and Pussy Riot are at the gates of America, trying to overthrow our system and institute some sort of Democratic-Socialistic-Surrealist-Matriarchy, we can talk about disagreements. For the moment, there's nothing else for advocates of the individual to do but support these women and hope they get home sooner than two years from now.

Reason TV on the DC solidarity rally for Pussy Riot:

NEXT: Meet This Year's "Most Heroic Vendor" at New York's Vendy Awards!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s frustrating when your cause or atrocity or gift is the one forgotten in favor of another, sexier, more inexplicably interesting one. Basically, mass taste, even in outrages, is mixed at its very best.

    Nice rant. Stirred up this classic in the back of my head.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBfygUiS50g

    1. To die unsung would really bring you down
      Although wet eyes would never suit you
      Walk through no archetypal suicide
      Die young is far too boring these days

      To think, within a few years Kurt Cobain would put a fresh coat of paint on that beaten horse.

      1. Helmet references?

        They’re on tour with Toadies, if you’re into some early 90s nostalgia.

  2. Lucy — “consistency”, not “consistently”.

    Will now get back to reading the rest of it.

    1. “Soviet area” was probably meant to be “Soviet era”.

      1. Fixed ’em both, thanks.

        1. Kick Putin in the Soviet area!

          1. Oh if I could, I would!

        2. And Gawker today is riffing on some Vice staffers who got the Russian word for “hooligan” tattooed in “solidarity” on their flash for the women. Writes Hamilton Nolan:

          And here I thought “flash” was just some new fangled way the kids today refer to their dicks. I was impressed as hell at their commitment, that’s for sure.

          Imagine my disappointment when I RTFA’d.

  3. Every Christmas Eve I toast the World War I truce, and war hasn’t yet stopped.

    +the internets for that one Lucy!!

    1. Hurray!

      I love the truce so.

      1. Personally, I raise more than one glass on 11/11 – I do wait until after the 11th hour, however.

        1. Long as you celebrate armistice day, not veteran’s day.

  4. This navel-gazing is ridiculous in the extreme. One can oppose some women being sent to prison for two years for expressing themselves without having to fucking soul search about every other thing in the world they believe in, do, or say.

    1. Look, I don’t know about your navel, but mine is AMAZING.

      1. Pics or GTFO.

        1. This is my blog, buddy!

          1. Just kidding, I know who is really in charge of Hit and Run.

              1. Lucy=Lucifer.

                Think about it.

                1. PHOSPOROSLUCIFER
                  SAY MY NAME

                  1. Fiddlesticks. Just imagine there’s a carriage return somewhere in there.

                2. I was thinking more along the lines of psychiatric help for a nickel.

                  Somebody’s got to listen to Doherty after RP’s brush-off treatment by the GOP.

              2. Epi… If Santa ran this place it would be much more popular, you moran.

            1. Hit and Run

              Wait, did they take away your ampersands?

              1. The dark night of the ampersands fell across us all.

                  1. So too did Porgy ? Bess.

                    1. Hey, how did you “?”.

                      Wait, now I did it….TAKE THAT SQUIRRELS!

            2. Master Blaster?

            3. It’s the squirrel overlords!

        2. I say this because Warty has bragged about his beautiful navel for years. When I finally saw it… Oh, god… Oh, my dear god…

          1. Fortunately for the rest of us, he gets it waxed regularly.

          2. It contains multitudes.

            1. And most of them have given up and are just waiting for the sweet release of death at this point.

            1. Basically.

                1. Please tell me there are thousands more!

                  1. Please tell me there are thousands more!

                    You called?

                    http://jreuter.hubpages.com/hu…..-Lovecraft

                    1. Yes!

        3. Pretend you don’t even want to see them, Sug. Some women find indifference irresistible.

          1. It’s true that I have never found much erotic about the navel.

            1. Deeper ones are good for slurping apple schnaps, but not much else.

              Oh, I see what you are doing . . .

      2. How deep is yours? I can fit half my pinky in mine.

      3. I’m sure it is, Lucy, but it can’t be nicer than mine.

        Back on topic, this shit is just about different KULTUR WAR factions trying, as they always do, to bring their KULTUR colored glasses to bear on anything and everything. Oh noes, Pussy Riot members do crazy sexual shit as protest art! That means supporting them is bad, because orgies are bad, because my KULTUR WAR faction is sexually repressed! Oh noes, they’re self proclaimed haters of capitalism! That means supporting their freedom of speech is bad, because they believe in a different system!

        This shit is so god damn tiresome. Everything get boiled down to TEAM/KULTUR WAR bullshit by these people, whose lives must be the most frustrating experience ever, because they can’t just like or do anything without having to put it through their filters.

        1. I’m sure it is, Lucy, but it can’t be nicer than mine.

          NAVEL FIGHT!

          THE BELLY KIND, NOT THE OCEAN KIND! JUST TO BE CLEAR!

          1. Oh, I thought it was the citrus kind.

        2. Hey, without the KULTUR WAR, we can’t justify anything and everything for the common good.

    2. You have to remember Episiarch, Western Feminism is a totalitarian ideology. That means no one can be in the middle. Everyone is either with them or against them. Therefore, if you don’t support the whole ideology, you are just as bad as the Russians who sent these women to jail and have no right to complain on the band’s behalf.

  5. and Thomas Kinkade sold a whole lot more paintings than did Vincent Van Gogh

    That’s because Van Gogh was objectively anti-life, Lucy.

    1. Comedy. Gold.

      1. And the Rockwellites continue to be baffled why we make so much fun of them all the time.

        1. Fuck you, you Koch-tREASON stooge.

          1. Hahaha, they do hate the Kochs. I wonder if any of the Koch PAC or the Kochs themselves ever donated to RP?

        2. Honestly, is Kinkade any more ridiculous than about 90% of what is in the MOMA or the Tate Modern?

          1. What’s ridiculous is the KULTUR WAR shit in the link. I could give a fuck about Thomas Kinkade and his affordable mass-market arts.

            1. But a lot of modern artists are nihilists and most modern art is shit.

              1. Your non sequitur is very true.

              2. So? If you don’t like it, don’t buy it or go to those museums.

                1. I don’t. But I don’t buy Kinkaide either. I never got the Kinkaide hate. Who am I to say he is worse than respectable artists like Warhol or Pollack?

                  In some ways I have to admit that I kind of hope in a couple of hundred years Kinkaides are going for millions of dollars and all of contemporary stuff that is going for millions now is valueless. That is not because I like Kinkaide. I don’t. I just hate the rest of the art world that much. I think they deserve to have Kinkaide be the only late 20th Century artists who achieves lasting fame.

                  1. I think they deserve to have Kinkaide be the only late 20th Century artists who achieves lasting fame.

                    Ok, yeah. That would be pretty awesome.

                    1. Okay, that would be pretty funny.

                    2. Kinkade will be gone. A footnote joke in the history of art, like America’s odd mental dysfunction that let Family Matters stay on the air that long.

                      Art lasts because of it’s ambiguity, it’s ability to be interpreted and reinterpreted. Kinkade is as unambiguous as a stop sign or a McDonald’s commercial.

                    3. What is ambiguous about someone like David? There is nothing ambiguous about a painting like the Oath of the Horati. It is flat out revolutionary propaganda. But it is still great art.

                      Kinkaide seems boring to us now. But who knows what future people will think.

                    4. What is ambiguous about someone like David?

                      Because the other part of the equation is craft. Kinkade pumped out hundreds of banal portraits that pretty much all boil down to a single banal idea.

                      He was a commercial genius and he knew his market–but so does Lady Gaga, and that fact doesn’t make her music high art.

                    5. Remember Steven Mallory, the artist from The Fountainhead, who created kitsch which, though deplorable, still radiated his abundant talent?

                      Thomas Kinkade is not that guy.

                    6. If there is one work of art from the 21st Century that is remembered, I hope it is THIS: http://polyesterdreams.com/images/dino.jpg

                  2. It’s the schlocky nostalgia that artsy types despise.

              3. Do you mean modern art or contemporary art? Most art of any movement is probably shit, but modernism was pretty interesting. Art is not just pretty pictures or technical difficulty.

                1. When John says modern art, he’s using it as a proxy for “Piss Christ”

                  1. Read my posts Randian. I am careful to use the word contemporary or “that which is in the Tate Modern or MOMA”. I understand what modernism is. And yeah, it was not piss christ and some of it was not bad.

                    But I stand by my contention that if both the MOMA and the Tate burned to the ground, there wouldn’t be much lost.

                    1. I too am bored by a lot of contemporary art, though I do love some stuff that John probably hates (e.g., Mark Rothko?I just fucking love color sometimes). But Kincade is just weak. Weak, weak sauce. Compare him to the luminists?this “painter of light” crap is nothing but crap, and it looks pathetic and fake next to something like Thomas Cole.

                    2. Kinkaide is terrible Nicole. But God it would be funny to see him outlast a lot of the other assholes out there who are just as bad but don’t know it.

                      And there are a lot worse than Mark Rothko. I don’t hate him so much as find him boring.

          2. It’s the moralizing tone of breathless nonsense that I’m mocking.

            1. It is pretty funny and over the top. I will give you that.

              1. Oh modern art is often the worst, but so is Kincade. No false dichotomies now!

                1. While politicians murder, rob, lie, and exploit, while bureaucrats and the State’s other lackeys leech off and persecute us, this gentle artist, this devout servant of the Almighty, will celebrate Easter this year in the immediate presence of his Savior.

                  I just she’ll just quietly ignore that he drank himself to death and rumors have swirled for years that he was a particularly violent drunk at that.

                  Not to mention his legal shenanigans that shuttered many galleries that made the mistake of selling his “art.”

                  1. In a bygone era, he would have made a fine Pope.

                2. Marcel Duchamp remains my favorite artist, I think, because he’s one of the only people in art who was neither breathless, nor a moralizer. Wasn’t an amoral breathalyzer, either.

                  1. To be clear, BarryD, I was referring to the LRC article Warty posted.

                    1. Yeah.

                      The fact remains that Kincade was a an amoral breathless moralist in need of a breathalyzer.

                  2. Duchamp is great. He is all of the things that art should be now. Get beyond simple representation and start to really work on getting to what art is and what it does. Too much contemporary stuff gets political or is just trying to fuck with people.

                    And everyone, please remember that, especially when talking aesthetics, modern is not a synonym for contemporary.

          3. The ridiculous is often a good thing in art. Kinkade’s lack of ridiculousness is part of what makes his art so empty and vapid.

            1. There was a ton of ridiculousness in Kinkade’s art. It’s just that everyone that bought it doesn’t recognize it.

              1. And if Joe Biden’s job title were “comedian” we’d all think he was great.

        3. Norman Rockwell was night and day better than Kincade. And when do we make fun of people who like his stuff?

          Oh, wait, you mean Lew.

          1. You know what would be cool? A painting of Murray Rothbard in an old-timey barbershop.

    2. Egad. Nice find, Wartster!

    3. Little known fact – Kinkade worked for Ralph Bakshi on Fire and Ice

      1. Kinkade wasn’t that bad. I mean, someone has to make jigsaw puzzle art.

        1. Let’s see, Thomas Kinkade or MC Escher? Can’t decide.

          1. Which one would you rather look at for an hour after a bit of the medical-grade stuff?

            I think you know the answer.

        2. Real men put do Jackson Pollock jigsaw puzzles. Real women, too.

        3. Did you invent that description? Because, suddenly, I have understanding.

          1. No. I think the jigsaw people invented it.

            1. They are brilliant and secretly rule much of the world.

    4. There’s another difference. I have a Van Gogh on my wall, but no Kinkades.

  6. Why are you surprised that a wannabe tyrant is going out of his way to make excuses for a real tyrant, Lucy? Power is what men worship.

  7. Again, getting disproportionately punished for the politically incorrect content of what one said while trespassing on someone else’s property happens here all the time. We call them hate crimes. Of course no one considers a racist on the lawn a free speech advocate. See also, Occupy Wall Street, Greenpeace and all the other protest organizations that invade private businesses and get arrested and then complain about how their freedom of speech was violated…

    The fact that we agree with the content of Pussy Riot’s rant doesn’t change the fact that they shouldn’t have trespassed in the first place. The notion that they are heroes while violating someone else’s property rights was absurd from the start. Of course, as libertarians we should also virulently condemn Russia’s sickening and disproportionate legal retaliation.

    On a related note, it’s kind of B.S. that Madonna is getting sued for $10M by activists in Russia for promoting gay rights “in front of children” at her concerts. If she loses, that will be more offensive to me than the PR stunt.

    1. So they are going to prison for trespassing?

    2. I believe that the church is owned by the government.

  8. 04 seconds in, a crochet knitted anarchist mask? I have not words.

  9. And nice rant, L.S. Very Gillespian.

    1. That is an honor I will gladly accept! Thanks!

  10. The point about looks in valid in this sense. The West gets angry about causes that have attractive ambassadors. Burma is a shitty place but hardly so shitty as to justify the attention it gets. There are a lot worse governments in the world that never get the attention Burma does. But Burmese government has the misfortune of having an attractive woman lead the opposition.

    Had this band been a bunch of fat homely chicks, a lot fewer people would care. And that is pretty sad.

    1. Age (67) to attractiveness ratio is ridiculously off the charts in her case. Every woman should be so lucky in that regard.

    2. It’s true, but it works both ways. No one pretends to care about what FEMEN‘s politics are, after all.

      1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..aine_2.jpg

        Whatever they want, I am for it.

        1. “Stop Raping the Country”

          Hey, can they come here? We need some of that stop-raping here, too.

  11. “And Gawker today is riffing on some Vice staffers who got the Russian word for “hooligan” tattooed in “solidarity” on their flash for the women.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvmcGY_VwvU

  12. While I think the Pussy Riot girls were unfairly railroaded by an authoritarian regime, let’s not forget that if they were nativsts and broke into a mosque in this country and attempted to blaspheme Mohammed they would have likely been charged with a hate crime.

    Or imagine the feminist reaction if a Christian punk band stormed a Planned Parenthood office and began singing anti-abortion songs. My guess is they would be called domestic terrorists by the Jezies and other feminist blogs. Just because our pols aren’t as blatant as Putin in their authoritarianism doesn’t mean we are a bastion of free expression like we pretend to be when other countries do something outrageous.

    1. That is a great point. What would breaking into an abortion clinic and playing a protest song get you in this country? I doubt it would be two years. But two years would not be out of the question.

      1. The FACE Act is the equivalent of the Putin regime’s enhanced-penalty laws in the PR case.

        So the Russians and Americans impose disproportionate punishments for trespassing in a building belonging to a state religion.

    2. I think that is one thing lost in the limpouts over Pussy Riot getting jailed–you can support their free speech rights without supporting the actions they took.

      In fact, the latter is basically just a bunch of FUCK YOU DAD nonsense. Keep in mind that this “band” is essentially a bunch of fem-tard goons who think that performance art is a stab against “the patriarchy,” and it’s essentially anti-Christian, not anti-authoritarian. One of their members became famous for shoving a chicken up her cooter, and in another incident, they cut down a cross in Kiev that had been placed as a memorial for the victims of Stalin’s gulags.

      Yes, they are victims of Pooty-Poot’s repressive regime. Are they sympathetic figures? Not in the least.

  13. incendiary anarchism, extreme sexual provocations, deliberate obscenity and hard-left politics.

    .750 isn’t a bad average.

  14. And Gawker today is riffing on some Vice staffers who got the Russian word for “hooligan” tattooed in “solidarity” on their flash for the women.

    Gawker has no room to mock anybody for anything. Ever.

    1. It’s a wonder that Gawker mocking Vice didn’t collapse the universe.

      1. Sort of like a Salon/Slate slapfest.

        1. I literally confuse those two sometimes. Same letters at the start, same length.

          One has Weigel and one has Pareene and Greenwald.

          1. You should always read Slate Lucy. It is like a photo of what the neurotic Washington liberal is thinking today.

            1. I used to read the one that fired Jack Shafer until they fired Jack Shafer. Which one was that?

              1. The comments are cracking me up today.

                One has Weigel and one has Pareene and Greenwald.

                I CANNOT TELL THEM APART

          2. Slate has Dear Prudie, Salon has the bipolar alcoholic who gives good advice to the truly fucked up and an uptight priss the rest of the time.

            1. Salon has the bipolar alcoholic who gives good advice to the truly fucked up and an uptight priss the rest of the time.

              So Hitchens is posting from beyond the grave?

  15. Unless you are comfortable with all that (and I strongly suspect 99 percent of Pussy Riot’s fans in the mainstream media are not), then standing behind Pussy Riot only now, when it is obviously blameless and the government clearly guilty, is pure opportunism.

    This is why libertarianism has such difficulty gaining traction. People are too fucking stupid to realize that if you only champion freedom when it pertains to something you approve of, you don’t get freedom. Yes, I will stand behind the one chick’s decision to participate in an orgy while “heavily pregnant” (because, you know, thinly-pregnant orgies are cool) because IT’S HER FUCKING BODY, not because I agree with it. And yes, I will support the band advocating for all sorts of political positions I disagree with because they have the right to express themselves, even when I don’t agree with it. It seriously doesn’t seem that hard to understand, but apparently it is.

    1. Yes, I will stand behind the one chick’s decision to participate in an orgy while “heavily pregnant” (because, you know, thinly-pregnant orgies are cool)

      What the fuck kind of weekend did you have this weekend?

      1. Apparently one more fun than mine.

        1. I will say that when discussing the kinds of freedoms I would defend, that one did not immediately leap to mind.

          1. Oh look, and now I outed myself as having only skimmed the article.

            I haz a fail.

            1. Oh wait, you thought I just made that one up? Yeah, even by HR standards that would be a little out there without context.

              1. I really did. And you will now forever be linked to pregnant lady orgies.

                1. In case you need to know more about the orgies (and can read russian), here: http://plucer.livejournal.com/55710.html

                  NSFW

                  1. I can’t read Russian, but it looks like all couples. I mean, like a bunch of couples getting it on in one place. Is that an orgy? I don’t think that’s what I would have called an orgy.

                    To be fair, she’s definitely “heavily pregnant,” and looks great.

    2. Word.

    3. Principles are hard.

  16. “If crime fighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fires, what do freedom fighters fight?”
    – George Carlin

  17. naked and heavily pregnant, in a public orgy at a Moscow museum in 2008?

    rats. I was picturing this in my head,

    http://angryczeck.com/wp-conte…..e_1-11.jpg

    but I got this when I googled the orgy, just a bunch of rough looking weak chinned Russians,

    http://www.sfaqonline.com/wp-c…..essed2.jpg

    If you need a NSFW advisory here, you deserve to be fired.

    1. Ok sure, 4 people technically makes it an orgy but just barely. If you are trying to make a statement go big or go home. You need at least 20 people. 100 would be better.

  18. To fault western society for being obsessed with hot chicks is to completely miss the point that Pussy Riot exploited themselves, so to speak, to make their own point…

    Hot chicks sell cars, beer, crappy pop music, and anything else you want to mention. Whatever it is, put it next to a hot chick, and it looks a lot more interesting to a lot more people.

    I’ve read that female to male transsexuals are often blown away by their first experience with large doses of testosterone. Suddenly, they see women in a whole different way–mostly as body parts. If women notice what men are looking at, and men can’t help but pay attention to crazy hot chicks, then why the hell wouldn’t you use that…to sell cars or marginalize a dictator?

    Now you’ve got the dictator on the record putting crazy hot chicks in jail–for being crazy hot chicks? Is there anything they could have done that would have been worse for Putin than that?

    Segregation ended long before the government got around to doing something about it. Once white girls started shaking their tail-feathers to black music, the writing was already on the wall for segregation. So, don’t believe what they taught you in school about hwo the government changed things for the better. Get the math straight: Black Music + White Girls Shaking Their Tail-Feathers = End of Segregation

    Even Putin once understood this principle–the last time he ran for office:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk_VszbZa_s

    1. Ken that is the most half assed thing I have ever read on here. I am thinking the desegregation of the military, the rise of the black middle class, the rise of real black celebrities in sports and entertainment may have had a bit more to do with it than the Negro jazz musicians corrupting white women.

      Maybe you missed this, but women had been dancing to black music since the 1920s.

      1. That’s what Morton meant by salty dog. You bad, Jelly Roll.

      2. Yeah. If anything, I think it would be the other way around: white guys seeing black chicks “shake their tail feathers”.

        1. Point is it’s about the tail-feathers, right?

      3. Back in the ’20s, consumer crazy hot chicks were a new thing. They were called “flappers”, and their rise to prominence really got the whole thing rolling. That was the beginning of Pop Feminism.

        Back in the ’30s and ’40s, the jazz for mainstream audiences you’re talking about became what we call “big band” today. I don’t think Benny Goodman scared anybody.

        When rock roll came around in the ’50s, all bets were off. You may have missed this, John, but back in the ’50s, down in the South, it was illegal for white girls to dance in clubs that admitted black people. But once white chicks started dancing to rock and roll records (black music) it was just a matter of time before segregation disappeared.

        It wasn’t the government that initiated any change. The government is almost always the last one to the party. It may have taken a long time for segregation to break down, but once crazy hot chicks started dancing to black music, segregation’s days were numbered.

        1. Ken,

          Nat King Cole and Louis Armstrong are on the phone. They would like to speak to you about this whole, white girls never danced to black music thing. And I have George Gershwin on hold wanting to talk about how 20s jazz was just non threatening big band music.

          Ken you are telling a nice story. But it is not that simple. First, even after rock and roll, no self respecting southern white girl was going to dance with a black man. You have seen to many Hollywood movies. Sure, people listened to black music. White people had been listening to black music since the 1900s. But listening to the music didn’t mean they were any more enlightened.

          1. I didn’t say white girls didn’t dance to black music before the ’50s.

            I did say that once they started shaking their white tail-feathers to black music, segregation didn’t have a chance.

          2. First, even after rock and roll, no self respecting southern white girl was going to dance with a black man.

            Let’s cut to the video evidence–here’s Bo Diddley.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeZHB3ozglQ

            Look at the white girls in the audience. Look at ’em goin’ crazy for Bo Diddley!

            You think the ideas behind segregation had a chance in the face of average white girls screaming for Bo Diddley like that? With white girls screaming like that–there ain’t no mystery about why segregation didn’t have a chance.

            You think white girls needed the government to tell them it was okay to scream like a school girl for a black man? I think they just did it becasue they wanted to, and the politicians realized they better get out of the way or get run over.

            This is the environment that those government reforms took place in. Same thing happened with gay rights: first people start accepting gay people as people through popular culture–and then, later, the government starts to recognize their rights.

            David Bowie, Freddie Mercury, Rob Halford, and Boy George did more for gay rights than any politician ever could. If a politician changes a law like that somehow, it’s almost always becasue his constituents are already on board.

            It ain’t ’cause the politician is taking a chance and leading the way. Even someone like Obama–he didn’t change his tune on gay rights out of principle. It was just cold, hard number crunching and political calculations.

            1. Some white girls once attended a TV show that had Bo Didley. You have convinced me Ken. And that film is from 1965 (after the passage of the civil rights act) and was on an ABC show called “Shindig” which was filmed in California, which last I checked was nowhere near the South.

        2. Back in the ’20s, consumer crazy hot chicks were a new thing. They were called “flappers”, and their rise to prominence really got the whole thing rolling. That was the beginning of Pop Feminism.

          This was a direct result of Prohibition, and women being welcomed into speakeasies when before Prohibition they weren’t exactly welcome in saloons.

          It wasn’t the government that initiated any change.

          Actually…

          1. Um, I’m not sure I buy that argument exactly. A lot of it came from the ability of young women to be able to support themselves without getting married.

            Regardless, suggesting that the government used Prohibition to cleverly invent the flapper is ridiculous. If the flappers invented themselves, in part, as response to Prohibition, it was still the women who invented themselves–not the government.

            Flappers were a rejection of Victorian ideals in all sorts of ways. I suspect they’d have flaunted Victorian ideas about the proper place of women not being in a bar–even if alcohol hadn’t been illegal–just like they flaunted Victorian ideas about it not being alright for women to drive cars, smoke, or cut their hair short, too. …all of which were perfectly legal for women to do.

    2. They’re not THAT hot, Ken.

      1. The reason we pay attention to them and not some other dissident is because they’re young hot chicks…

        You may not think they’re starlet hot, but they’re hot enough for mainstream audiences to pay attention to.

        Why did Paris Hilton and her little friend get their own reality show? Would they have generated as much interest if they were a couple of fat guys?

        Why did anyone ever care about whatever Brittany Spears or any one of dozen imitators sings? It ain’t the quality of the music!

        You may not think Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears are especially hot, but their relative hotness is why they got your average consumer’s attention.

        Seriously, you gonna tell me you don’t pay more attention to crazy-ass hot chicks than other people? Fine, maybe that’s you. For the rest of us? There’s a reason why they use hot chicks in advertising, beer commercials, as cheerleaders, in music videos, etc. …instead of fat guys.

        Really.

  19. OT – KIM JONG UN FAMILY PHOTO: POOR TIMING OR PURE TERROR?

    http://cdn.breitbart.com/media…..=315w=420

    1. Lady in the front looks like she is about to run for it.

    2. Damn! All the women in that photo look somewhere between fearful and longing for the release that death will bring.

    3. So, are those all his wives?

  20. “And it ignores other dissidents in Russia who didn’t have their names printed on Madonna’s back.”

    So wait. Madonna has “Pussy Riot” tattooed on her back?! That is sooo cool.

    1. Why not just get “riot” tattooed on her taint and let the anatomy fill in the rest?

      1. The band members don’t have gray hair, though.

      2. Ten minutes and no one’s made an “Ass Riot” joke?

  21. Just to throw my 2 cents in (Inflation is afoot!) I can kind of understand the frustration with the fawning American media/Culture luminaries over the Pussy Riot cause.

    Not because I agree with the criticisms detailing their edgy (zany– pick your word) sexual thingies in public which offend the button-down types, but more that visceral, nervous tick I get the second someone who cuts a dashing or attractive figure gets lauded by the Western Media as heroes– especially when there are bunches of un-edgy, unattractive people making strong cases for the cause of freedom in Russia (or elsewhere) who you’ll never hear of.

    While I’m not trying to say I have a problem with Pussy Riot’s other ancillary beliefs (I know almost nothing about them), I am keenly aware of other dashing, attractive and fashionable people that the Western Media thinks is cool, and ignores their ancillary beliefs because, mean, look at her understated elegance!

    I think it’s always good to take a critical look at anyone who rockets into the media as a rubber-stamp hero, especially when they play a mean guitar and have stage presence.

  22. Stuck in that little glass cage, I hope none of them had gas. That’d really stink.

  23. Not Kinkade.

    Leroy Neiman.

  24. I also stand behind the church’s right to remove vexatious trespassers and seek a court order preventing them from returning.

    Criminal charges would only be appropriate for repeat offenders or those causing damages. (Though a reasonable punishment would be 40 hours of community service or something proportionate to any damages caused.)

  25. Free Wesley Snipes!

    He’s in jail for protesting the government, yet where was the outcry about him? (Other than a few articles here) I mean, sure, he didn’t pay his taxes originally, but he eventually ponyed up the money, which means he’s in jail simply for his act of protesting. His only real crime was not being an Obama cabinet member…

    1. I agree. The left seems be pretty sparse on sympathy for tax protesters, though. Especially the rich American kind.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.