Log in

No account? Create an account
Godless Savages [entries|friends|calendar]
Godless Savages

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Help Hurricane victims and get cool shit all from the comfert of your freakin home [03 Sep 2005|05:00pm]

Check out this online auction being held, great stuff if you love comics, they have all kinds of comics and origional art work, stuff that has been signed, all kinds of cool shit. Every dime you drop goes straight to helping the people who got hit by Hurricane Katrina. Check it out
post comment

[13 Feb 2004|10:37pm]


Click the above logo for an subversive comic I draw. It's pretty minimalist/postmodernist, and very sick and twisted. The humor is very subtle and dry, often working on multiple levels. There's currently 340 strips. Hope you enjoy!

post comment

[04 Oct 2003|04:08pm]

How public education cripples our kids, and why
By John Taylor Gatto - September 2003, Harpers Magazine

John Taylor Gatto is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of 'The Underground History of American Education'.

I taught for thirty years in some of the worst schools in Manhattan, and in some of the best, and during that time I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world, and if you asked the kids, as I often did, why they felt so bored, they always gave the same answers: They said the work was stupid, that it made no sense, that they already knew it. They said they wanted to be doing something real, not just sitting around. They said teachers didn't seem to know much about their subjects and clearly weren't interested in learning more. And the kids were right: their teachers were every bit as bored as they were.

Boredom is the common condition of schoolteachers, and anyone who has spent time in a teachers' lounge can vouch for the low energy, the whining, the dispirited attitudes, to be found there. When asked why they feel bored, the teachers tend to blame the kids, as you might expect. Who wouldn't get bored teaching students who are rude and interested only in grades? If even that. Of course, teachers are themselves products of the same twelve-year compulsory school programs that so thoroughly bore their students, and as school personnel they are trapped inside structures even more rigid than those imposed upon the children. Who, then, is to blame?

We all are. My grandfather taught me that. One afternoon when I was seven I complained to him of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else's. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn't know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainty not to be trusted. That episode cured me of boredom forever, and here and there over the years I was able to pass on the lesson to some remarkable student. For the most part, however, I found it futile to challenge the official notion that boredom and childishness were the natural state of affairs in the classroom. Often I had to defy custom, and even bend the law, to help kids break out of this trap.

The empire struck back, of course; childish adults regularly conflate opposition with disloyalty. I once returned from a medical leave to discover that all evidence of my having been granted the leave had been purposely destroyed, that my job had been terminated, and that I no longer possessed even a teaching license. After nine months of tormented effort I was able to retrieve the license when a school secretary testified to witnessing the plot unfold. In the meantime my family suffered more than I care to remember. By the time I finally retired in 1991, I had more than enough reason to think of our schools-with their long-term, cell-block-style, forced confinement of both students and teachers-as virtual factories of childishness. Yet I honestly could not see why they had to be that way. My own experience had revealed to me what many other teachers must learn along the way, too, yet keep to themselves for fear of reprisal: if we wanted to we could easily and inexpensively jettison the old, stupid structures and help kids take an education rather than merely receive a schooling. We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness-curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insightsimply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then.

But we don't do that. And the more I asked why not, and persisted in thinking about the "problem" of schooling as an engineer might, the more I missed the point: What if there is no "problem" with our schools? What if they are the way they are, so expensively flying in the face of common sense and long experience in how children learn things, not because they are doing something wrong but because they are doing something right? Is it possible that George W. Bush accidentally spoke the truth when he said we would "leave no child behind"? Could it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?

Do we really need school? I don't mean education, just forced schooling: six classes a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for twelve years. Is this deadly routine really necessary? And if so, for what? Don't hide behind reading, writing, and arithmetic as a rationale, because 2 million happy homeschoolers have surely put that banal justification to rest. Even if they hadn't, a considerable number of well-known Americans never went through the twelve-year wringer our kids currently go through, and they turned out all right. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln? Someone taught them, to be sure, but they were not products of a school system, and not one of them was ever "graduated" from a secondary school. Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn't go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry like Carnegie and Rockefeller; writers, like Melville and Twain and Conrad; and even scholars, like Margaret Mead. In fact, until pretty recently people who reached the age of thirteen weren't looked upon as children at all. Ariel Durant, who co-wrote an enormous, and very good, multivolume history of the world with her husband, Will, was happily married at fifteen, and who could reasonably claim that Ariel Durant was an uneducated person? Unschooled, perhaps, but not uneducated.

We have been taught (that is, schooled) in this country to think of "success" as synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, "schooling," but historically that isn't true in either an intellectual or a financial sense. And plenty of people throughout the world today find a way to educate themselves without resorting to a system of compulsory secondary schools that all too often resemble prisons. Why, then, do Americans confuse education with just such a system? What exactly is the purpose of our public schools?

Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:

1) To make good people. 2) To make good citizens. 3) To make each person his or her personal best. These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education's mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling's true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that

"the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. ... Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim ... is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States... and that is its aim everywhere else."

Because of Mencken's reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.

The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann's "Seventh Annual Report" to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington's aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German-speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens 11 in order to render the populace "manageable."

It was from James Bryant Conant-president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century-that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant's 1959 book-length essay, 'The Child the Parent and the State', and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modern schools we attend were the result of a "revolution" engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis's 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which "one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary."

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever re-integrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose - the actual purpose - of modern schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

There you have it. Now you know. We don't need Karl Marx's conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don't conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks." But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that "efficiency" is the paramount virtue, rather than love, lib, erty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn't actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn't have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era - marketing.

Now, you needn't have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book 'Public Education in the United States', Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley - who was dean of Stanford's School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant's friend and correspondent at Harvard - had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: "Our schools are ... factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned .... And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down."

It's perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the computer. We buy $150 sneakers whether we need them or not, and when they fall apart too soon we buy another pair. We drive SUVs and believe the lie that they constitute a kind of life insurance, even when we're upside-down in them. And, worst of all, we don't bat an eye when Ari Fleischer tells us to "be careful what you say," even if we remember having been told somewhere back in school that America is the land of the free. We simply buy that one too. Our schooling, as intended, has seen to it.

Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they'll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology - all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don't let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a pre-teen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there's no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I've concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven't yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.
3 comments|post comment

[02 Sep 2003|10:07pm]

Okay.. well... this community is very very fucking dead.

but i think i'm going to leave it up..

anybody can join as long as they don't mind being associated with me.
post comment

is it just me, or does this sound fabricated? [04 Jun 2003|12:04am]

hi, i'm new ... i found out about this community going through old vulgar posts, and when i read the description and what you do this article came to mind. way too human interest. waayyyyyyy too much.

i'm not sure whether to throw up or cry or go shortsheet beds at cub scout camps.


Cub Scout crawls from grave to grave, honoring the dead

Pivoting his body with his right arm and holding a neon-green ruler in his left hand, James Milam, 10, crawled from grave to grave at Nashville National Cemetery yesterday morning, carefully placing an American flag exactly one foot from each gravestone.

The energetic fourth-grader took the task seriously.

''I don't think that's straight at all,'' he said, holding the ruler to a flag and making a minor adjustment. ''There, that's better.''

With that pronouncement, James swung back into his wheelchair, rolled to the cemetery roadway and sped off to another section of gravestones. On the way, he talked about the new wheelchair he's getting next month.

''It has green lights on the front wheels, bigger wheels in the back and black spoke guards,'' he boasted. ''I'll really fly in that one.''

Born with sacral agenesis, a rare defect in which the spine does not fully develop, James has used a wheelchair since he was 2.

The Cub Scout is known for his fervid patriotism. This is the second Memorial Day weekend that James has joined hundreds of Scouts in placing flags on all of the 34,000 gravestones at the cemetery in Madison.

Tomorrow, he will join two U.S. Marines in the annual wreath-laying ceremony at the cemetery.

''I feel like they gave their life for our freedom so we should come out and honor them for that,'' he said of the veterans buried at the cemetery. ''I just want to honor the soldiers and our country.''

Recently placed in a gifted program at Robert F. Woodall Elementary School in White House, James is intensely interested in what's happening in the world, his parents said.

''He very much understands the war we've been in, and he's very patriotic,'' said his mother, Cindi Milam. ''He's just real concerned about it all.''

His favorite songs are those about the recent wars and terrorist attacks, such as Darryl Worley's Have You Forgotten and Alan Jackson's Where Were You.

James is also an avid fan of such all-American pastimes as NASCAR, baseball, four-wheeling and fishing.

''This child is not scared to do nothin','' declared Jan Harrison, assistant den leader for James' Cub Scout patrol, the Screaming Eagles, named for the 101st Airborne Division. ''I nicknamed him the Energizer Bunny because he just keeps going and going.''

Though he dreams of being a pilot, his parents said, he has settled on becoming an air traffic controller instead.

''He knew he couldn't fly a plane, but he said he can help it land,'' said his father, Jim Milam, whose father founded Milam's Optical Service. ''He has absolutely no self-pity. If he can't do something, he figures a way around it.''

The sociable youngster is popular among his classmates and fellow Scouts.

''The boys constantly fight over who's going to be with James,'' den leader Patti Neary said. ''He is all personality.''

After spending several hours placing dozens of flags at gravestones, James admits to being tired, especially his right arm, as his father pushes him back to the car in his wheelchair. Next on the agenda is a car wash to raise money for a youth summer camp sponsored by his church, Halltown General Baptist.

''I could disable him if I smothered him, but I want him to do everything he can do and be independent,'' Cindi Milam said. ''From the night he was born, I felt God had a higher calling for him. We're blessed to have such a happy child.''
post comment

[22 Apr 2003|05:05pm]

Lawyer says sex should be legal for 14-year-olds


The legal age for sex should be lowered from 16 to 14 because teenagers are now better informed, says an Auckland lawyer.

Colin Amery, who is representing a man charged after allegedly having under-age sex with a 14-year-old girl, made the call for change after it was revealed that a 21-year-old female swimming coach in Wellington could not be charged for having a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old boy.

The boy's mother is furious that the swim coach, who works for the Wellington City Council, cannot be prosecuted.

Mr Amery said a change in the legal age was needed because children were now able to make decisions earlier about when they had sex, and society's attitudes had relaxed since the laws were last changed in 1961.

He said the inequality in the law, which meant his client faced charges while the Wellington woman could not be prosecuted, needed to be eliminated. The real issue was whether 16 was an appropriate age for consent.

Children under 13 needed to be protected, said Mr Amery, but children older than that should be allowed to make their own decisions and were able to get information about sex from the media, especially television.

"The sexual climate of today is very different and children of 14 have a lot of sexual knowledge these days compared with 1961.

"At 14, young people have a degree of physical maturity but not necessarily emotional and psychological maturity, and the law has hopelessly failed to keep up with that."

Children's Commissioner Roger McClay said children, no matter what gender, needed to be protected from having sex too early and he welcomed moves from the Government to make sex between an adult woman and a boy illegal.

Mr McClay said it was ridiculous the woman could not be charged.

"If it was a male he would be in court and I would be calling him a paedophile. All children have the right to be protected - sometimes from themselves."

The boy was still a child in the eyes of the law even if he was physically mature, and children could be abused no matter what sex they were, he said.

"It's totally irresponsible and that person should hang her head in shame ... because she has taken advantage of him."

Justice Minister Phil Goff said he would introduce amendments to the Crimes Act to close the loophole that allows women having sex with boys to escape prosecution. The amendments were due to go to the Cabinet in the next two months.

Once they were approved, they would be sent for drafting, and he expected to introduce a bill by the end of the year.

Mr Goff said the anomaly was based on an outmoded assumption that women were incapable of committing sex offences.

National police spokesman Tony Ryall said Mr Goff first promised to close the loophole in January 2000, and the planned changes were formulated years ago.



good news for me.
3 comments|post comment

[20 Apr 2003|09:44pm]

Pet Cat Shoots Boy
Police Say Air Rifle Accident Wounds Teenager
Posted: 9:24 a.m. EDT April 19, 2003

CANTON, Ohio -- A pet cat jumped on an air rifle that then fired and wounded a teenage boy, the boy's mother said.
Reports filed by Stark County sheriff's deputies said the boy, Josiah V. Boughman, 15, was grazed on his right side just below his ribs with an air rifle's pellet.

The shooting occurred at about 11 p.m. Monday outside his home in nearby Tuscarawas County.

Sheriff's deputies met his mother, Mary A. Boughman, outside his hospital room. She told them her son had been at a barn about 50 yards from his family's house, shooting at rats.

Returning to the house, he put the air rifle on a picnic table, neglecting the weapon's safety, reports said.

The boy's mother told deputies a cat, which is one of the family's household pets, jumped on the table and touched the gun.

Staff at the hospital where the boy was treated told deputies boy's wound is not life threatening.

Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
post comment

A Life Lesson [20 Apr 2003|01:21am]

A Life Lesson
post comment

Propoganda [19 Apr 2003|07:22pm]

Taken From: http://entertainment.yahoo.com/entnews/wwn/20030410/104998680005.html

Saddam Starred in Gay Porn Films!
Thursday April 10, 2003

KUWAIT CITY -- Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been caught with his pants down -- literally. A shocking 1968 porn film has surfaced, in which the flamboyant strongman appears performing raunchy homosexual acts!

The image quality of the grainy 16mm film, uncovered by the Kuwaiti secret police, is poor -- but experts who've taken a close look at the hairy-chested actor are "100 percent certain" it is a younger, trimmer Saddam.

"There is no doubt in my mind that this is Saddam -- there's no mistaking those eyes and that distinctive nose," declares Hussein biographer Sadiq al-Sabah of Kuwait, who's seen the eye-popping footage first-hand.

"It may be hard to believe that a man who now leads one of the most powerful nations in the Middle East once acted in blue movies, but to anyone familiar with how reckless and sexually promiscuous Saddam was in his youth, this will come as no surprise. It's also a known fact that the young, desperate soldier did anything for money.

"Saddam appeared in as many as 85 of these films under a variety of stage names, most frequently Omar Studdif," reveals the researcher.

Still photographs from the sizzling XXX-rated film, La'iba al-Waladaani (The Two Boys Played), were leaked to a Kuwait news magazine after authorities found it amid a stash of illicit porn in the vault of a recently deceased sheik.

Release of the pictures has resulted in howls of protest from Baghdad.

"President Hussein is the manliest of men. He would never behave in such a repugnant manner," says an Iraqi spokesman. "This is CIA propaganda."

But rumors that Saddam appeared in gay porn films in his younger days have dogged him for decades and almost torpedoed his political career when he was a rising star in the ruling Baath Socialist party.

"He was able to squelch the rumors in the past, but now it looks like the Kuwaitis have found the smoking gun," says a State Department source.

Al-Sabah claims that Saddam, then a struggling law student, acted in porn to make ends meet -- and because he was addicted to gay sex.

In the newly uncovered 86-minute prison flick, Saddam, then just 34, plays a naive young peasant who is wrongly convicted and sent to jail. He is initiated into homosexuality by a series of older and more experienced cons.

"Saddam's acting in the picture is actually quite good," al-Sabah notes. "One scene, in which he buries his face in a pillow and cries, is so touching you almost can forget you're watching a low-budget sexploitation film." -- By MIKE FOSTER


Obvious Propaganda like this makes me wonder if some of the things I've heard about Hitler weren't completely true.

I always found it hard to believe a bisexual vegan with one testicle who enjoyed incest and urinating on his mistress managed to get anything accomplished at all.

it's not like he'd even have time.
2 comments|post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]