Razer's Class Warfare

Mar 27, 2018

Razer: war won’t wait for our moralising fits over Stormy Daniels

It's time to face the fact: the obscenity of violence should overrule the Western "obscenity" of unruly women.

Helen Razer — Writer and broadcaster

Helen Razer

Writer and broadcaster

To satisfy a US moral standard, the image of a naked woman’s breast must first be doused in blood. The great stand-up Lenny Bruce said this (or something like it) so often, comedy nerds have been misquoting it for more than half a century. Bruce’s preoccupation with nude boobs notwithstanding, he made a good point at the time: America sees obscenity in intimacy, but not at all in war.  

This was true for Vietnam, the war that would inform Bruce, and was arguably true in 1998 when president Bill Clinton’s almost forgotten strikes in Baghdad coincided with the Monica Lewinsky “scandal”. Irish newspaper The Examiner ran with the headline “Lewinsky affair apparent in phallic missile deluge on Baghdad”. Sure, this is more florid and more Freudian than James Joyce on an especially emotional afternoon, but it doesn’t contradict more scholarly accounts of the Desert Fox raids, which came to be known as Monica’s War.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

64 comments

Leave a comment

64 thoughts on “Razer: war won’t wait for our moralising fits over Stormy Daniels

  1. Damien

    Whereas Razer sees obscenity in the West violently intervening in the affairs of other countries because it feels “threatened”, but no obscenity in Russia violently intervening in other countries because it feels “threatened”.

    Of course, no mention of those people publicly poisoned on the streets and still fighting for their lives…but to satisfy the Razer moral standard, the frothing mouth of a nerve-agent poisoned dissident must be doused in liberalism…

    1. Helen Razer

      Fun and fanciful conclusion. More Joyce?

    2. David Thompson

      Hyperbolic much?
      Shall we do a count of PROVEN Russian ‘interventions’, and compare that to proven Western interventions?
      But, all hilarity aside, methinks you are missing the point.
      This is the point, along H’s line, but on a whole other level – https://thesaker.is/what-happened-to-the-west-i-was-born-in/
      You do realise the Atomic Scientists have the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than it’s been since the early ’50’s, and that includes the Cuban Missile Crisis?
      ‘Scorecards’ are pretty pointless about now, dontcha think?

  2. zut alors

    From long distant Sunday school teachings I clearly recall a Commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ but nothing about ‘thou shalt not be immodest’. US godbotherers need a refresher course.

  3. Ruv Draba

    I think this article is a non-sequitur struggling to become a false dichotomy.

    The expulsion of Russian diplomats was led by the UK as a proportionate response to the use of an outlawed nerve agent in an attempted assassination. The measure was supported and echoed by most of the EU, and the US was a follower here and not a leader. If there’s a better response, what is it? But regardless, for a change Trump wasn’t at the centre of it, he was unlikely to make things any better, yet so far hasn’t seemed to have made them any worse. He’s a non-sequitur here.

    But meanwhile, I don’t see where moral outrage is warranted on Stormy Daniels either. A seasoned entertainer who exploits sex for money is exploiting a self-confessed predator who exploits power for sex while the media and lawyers exploit them both. They all know what they’re doing; it’s hard to fathom how the scandal will see Trump impeached, and I think the main US domestic political interest will be how many rusted on Trump-supporters it’ll dislodge before he runs for a second term. It’s worthy of some reporting, and Daniels’ strategy is built on exploiting media attention anyway so she’ll run it for as long as it’ll run.

    Finally, if there were fewer Stormy Daniels interviews, would we see more analysis of how diplomatic expulsions might hurt Russian trade or affect regional stability? I doubt it. So if war is the worry then I think Daniels is a false dichotomy.

    A better article would have practiced what it preached: ignored Daniels and Trump too, done the relevant research and talked about Russia’s emerging trade and political identity, and how recent events play against it.

    1. Rais

      The UK has chosen not to provide any proof that the nerve agent, if that’s what it was, came from Russia. It’s all unsupported allegation any these people have form when it comes to unsupported allegations. Remember Saddam’s WMDs? The laboratory that researched that family of chemicals was in Uzbekistan, not Russia, and was dismantled by the Americans, not the Russians. Russia was officially certified to have destroyed all its chemical weapons. (Of course they could have hidden some but that’s a “could have.”) Both the West and Russia have double standards about what’s Soviet and what’s Russian as we see in Russia’s “taking back” of Crimea which was transferred from Russian to Ukrainian administration when both were component states of the Soviet Union and in the extensive blaming of Russia in the West for anything that came out of the Soviet Union. Now, the leaders of the US, UK, France and Russia are all quite unpleasant people with their own agendas. Any one of these four could immediately destroy any one of the others in a nuclear exchange, as could also China at least and possibly Israël, India and Pakistan. A nuclear conflict between any two of these countries would cause widespread damage outside their borders while a nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia would destroy both in minutes and then produce a worldwide nuclear winter that would kill billions and end civilisation. Any responsible leader of any country that just might have the ear of any leader of these potential world destroyers should be talking to their allies, pleading that they move away from war, not to the brink as they are now.

      1. Rais

        “any these people” should read “and these people”

      2. Ruv Draba

        Rais argued:
        > The UK has chosen not to provide any proof that the nerve agent, if that’s what it was, came from Russia

        It’s has been stated by the UK government that the nerve agent used was of the Novichok series, which the USSR and Russia developed between 1971 and 1993 under the program codenamed FOLIANT, whose fourfold objectives were to be undetectable to standard NATO equipment of the day, defeat NATO chemical protective gear, be safer to handle than alternatives, and circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) first drafted in 1992, and outlawing the stockpiling of common chemical weapon precursors.

        Russia officially denies producing or researching Novichok agents, however Russian scientists who developed these agents claim they are the deadliest ever made: these are serious weapons, and their use at all sets a dangerous global precedent.

        If you wish to assert that a Novichok agent wasn’t used, then you need to offer a testable explanation for why the UK government lied in such a conspicuous way on a matter that’s relatively easy to independently verify. If you had such evidence you’d have offered it instead of rhetoric, so let’s discard that position.

        Alternatively, if you accept that a Novichok agent was used to try to kill a former Russian agent and his daughter then you either believe that:

        (i) It was used by Russian agents, e.g. for reprisal or expedience; or
        (ii) It was used by non-Russian actors for their own reprisal or expedience, *and* that Russia has also somehow lost control of a controlled and weaponised nerve agent — which places on you the burden of evidence as to who else would have done it, why *and* how they came by that particular method.

        While (i) is more plausible than (ii), I would agree that we can’t eliminate (ii) without further information, but these are the alternatives the UK government offered the Russian government as a ‘please explain’, prior to expelling Russian diplomats.

        Russia has not responded with a credible answer and maintains official denials that do not withstand public scrutiny. Russia also has form in assassinating former agents on foreign soil. Thus, the UK’s expulsion of Russian diplomats is a considered and proportionate response, and since the use of nerve agent sets a dangerous global precedent, it’s a proportionate response for other CWC signatories too. Please note that the only diplomats expelled were those suspected of working in Russian intelligence — i.e, those offering other services were not expelled.

        I don’t see your other points as relevant, Rais, but would return you to my earlier question: if you think the expulsion of Russian diplomats suspected of intelligence activities is not a proportionate response to a muscular government that has been deceitful for decades about its researches and in likelihood has set a dangerous chemical weapon precedent, what alternative response would you recommend?

        1. Rais

          No I didn’t assert that Novichok wasn’t used. I pointed out that the UK government had asserted that it was but chosen not to provide evidence. I pointed out that the UK (and US) have form asserting things without proof and gave an example of a case where they certainly knew that the assertion was false. I don’t know whether the current assertion is true or not and neither do you. What I do know is that “robust response” to a murder that may or may not have been committed by someone from Russia is taking us ever nearer to the tipping point where war may start. Personally I’d rather back down and be called a coward than “respond robustly” and be a radioactive cinder.

          1. Ruv Draba

            Rais wrote:
            > the UK government had asserted that it was but chosen not to provide evidence

            Due to the symptoms reported widely, there’s not much question that a nerve agent was used. You’re asking how we know which one?

            Some more background then: due to the specifics of their design, Novichok agents have been of international concern for years. Last year, spectrographic signatures of key Novichok agents were identified and added to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ Central Analytical Database (OCAD) [Ref: *Spectroscopy Now*, Jan 1 2017], and are now available internationally for detection and verification. If any of these agents were used, then independent verification would be straightforward: a copy of the spectrography would suffice.

            In principle I agree that for transparency and accuracy, such spectrography should be shared with an independent laboratory. I have not been able to confirm that this has occurred, but the speed of EU response suggests to me that either it already has, or that it will be expected to (and if it doesn’t happen, expect protests from the international laboratories collaborating on OCAD.) My point being: this would not be a good claim for Her Majesty’s Government to have lied about, and I believe they know it.

            But meanwhile, I don’t think you need criminal-level proof to act diplomatically. All you need is balance of probability on means and motive (they seem to have it), and a noncooperative foreign government telling lies (they have that too.) Nobody is being jailed, and no person is even being slandered: governments are just revoking privileges they have the right to revoke, and the Russian government is retaliating in kind. The nett cost is to certain on-the-ground intelligence operations (which I suspect will mainly affect trade though I’d love more detail about that.) However in principle, having multiple nations do it to Russia puts more cost and embarrassment on Russia than Russia can put on other nations. It’s a considered and proportionate response.

            Will it be effective? Only time will tell. If we see an epidemic of Novichok-agent assassinations around the world in coming years, then that’ll tell us it wasn’t. If there isn’t, then it probably was.

            > I’d rather back down and be called a coward than “respond robustly” and be a radioactive cinder.

            So your preferred alternative is ‘do nothing’. You seem then, to be arguing that politically, a nuclear power should be allowed to use subtle, insidious nerve agents whenever it wants in every jurisdiction it wants, provided that the individuals responsible are never directly identified.

            I strongly differ on that position. I think it’s to the credit of the UK, the EU, the US, Canada and Australia that they acted promptly, decisively and proportionately. (New Zealand has also expressed in-principle support, but seems to lack suspected Russian spies to expel.) My fear is that such action in itself may not be effective.

          2. Ruv Draba

            Posted not in response to our colleague Rais, but to close off an avenue of previous concern….
            Reported in the Guardian today, 31-Mar-18:

            The British government has passed samples on to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for testing.

          3. kyle Hargraves

            There is no opportunity to reply button to Ruv’s most recent post. I suppose that many will consider the initiative as “better late than never”. Of course, not all are going to accept the result – but such is life.

          4. Ruv Draba

            We don’t know when the samples were dispatched to the OPCW; only when that was reported. But even in the worst case, the times involved are quite brisk compared to the coordination that often occurs between governments and intergovernmental agencies (having worked with government agencies, inter-agencies and multilaterals for some 20 years.)

            As for evaluating the results, it’ll be interesting to see what additional insight the OPCW can offer.

            For further interest, New Scientist speculates that the samples may have been drawn from the victims’ cerebral spinal fluid. I note too a police report that the highest concentration of the agent was on the door of their home, and that the UK government is unsure how long the agent lasts before it breaks down, and therefore has applied a cordon and advised residents to shower and wash their clothes. (If nothing else, that’s more evidence that this is not a substance the UK government is familiar with.)

        1. Ruv Draba

          References are great, Mike. I’d suggest avoiding ‘expert’ blogs though, and trying for information compiled comprehensively, that gets scrutinised and tested. For example, two scientists who attest to first-hand experience of Novichok were whistleblower Vil Mirzayanov and Andrei Zheleznyakov (eventually killed by exposure to the nerve agent he said was a Novichok.)

          * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/22/andrei-zheleznyakov-soviet-scientist-poisoned-novichok
          * https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/16/russian-spy-poisoning-attack-novichok-chemist

          And a Reuters article reporting a secret trial associated with abuse/theft of nerve agents:
          * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-stockpiles/secret-trial-shows-risks-of-nerve-agent-theft-in-post-soviet-chaos-experts-idUSKCN1GQ2RH

          So there’s some corroborated testimony here, pretty comprehensively researched, independently reported and easy for competing media outlets to check.

          Moreover here’s some evidence that the OPCW has been applying suitable skepticism across the years, rather than simply starting at hares:

          * https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/SAB/en/sab-16-01_e_.pdf
          * https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/RC-3/en/rc3wp01_e_.pdf

          And finally, here’s the spectrographic paper that got into the OPCW OCAD database:
          * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rcm.7757

          It’s not conclusive, but in context I don’t think it needs to be. I think it’s fair to treat the UK government’s claim as credible on this occasion.

          1. David Thompson

            Vil Mirzayanov included a formula, or formulae, for Novichoks in this 2008 book – https://www.amazon.com/State-Secrets-Insiders-Chronicle-Chemical/dp/1432725661/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522197573&sr=1-1&keywords=vil+mirzayanov
            The OPCW didn’t even have it listed, because they had no proof it existed beyond rumours of being ‘deadly’.
            The Soviet Union farmed up much of their weapons developments to neighbouring states of the Union. A lot of the CW development went to Uzbekistan.
            After the Soviet Union collapsed, the US claimed oversight of the CW facilities in Uzbekistan, committing to wind down the program and destroy any stockpiles. They still haven’t fronted the OPCW to say they have done so.
            The OPCW partnered with Iran to see if Novichoks could be produced. While the OPCW thought that to be the 1st evidence of successful production, they still didn’t list Novichoks as military grade, deadly nerve agents.
            BTW, Craig Murray was the UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, from ’02 to ’04. Then, Blair got rid of him – Murray was a bit too principled for Blair.
            About 6 years ago, the Richard E. Lugar Centre for Public Health Research was opened in Georgia. Not Georgia US0fA, Tblissi, the capital of Georgia.
            Lugar was a US Senator.
            The Centre for Public Health Research houses the US Army Medical Research Directorate……in Tblisi, Georgia.
            I wonder where these samples were sent:
            “A day after Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised members of Russia’s human rights council by informing them that some shadowy entity – possibly with ties to the United States – had been collecting biological tissues from Russians from different ethnic groups, the group responsible for harvesting the tissue has revealed itself.
            While some initially discounted Putin’s remarks as another loony conspiracy theory, as it turns out, he was right: The group responsible for the tissue collection was none other than the US Air Force, proving that yet another conspiracy theory has become a conspiracy fact.
            A representative for the US Air Force Education and Training Command explained to Russia Today that the choice of the Russian population was not intentional, and is related to research the Air Force is conducting on the human musculoskeletal system.

            Eyebrows were first raised in July when the AETC issued a tender seeking to acquire samples of ribonucleic acid and synovial fluid from Russians, adding that all samples (12 RNA and 27 synovial fluid) “shall be collected from Russia and must be Caucasian.” The Air Force said it wouldn’t collect samples from Ukrainians, but didn’t specify why.”
            That information is very easy to find.
            Finally, are you aware of the history of Porton Down? I am, and that sustains a very healthy scepticism about anything that comes out of gobs like that of Boris Johnson.

          2. Ruv Draba

            David, thank you for your contributions, but I’m not sure what your contention is here. For example, are you contending that Novichoks are a fraud, that all weaponised Novichok agents are now in the sole possession of the US, or that they are now widely available to multiple state or non-state actors?

            In the flurry of points you’ve submitted I can’t discern a thesis, how you believe it has bearing on the relatively restrained decision to expel Russian intelligence diplomats, or how your contention could be disproven were it false.

            For myself, I agree that Iran has been testing Novichok agent spectroscopy (the paper I linked was written by Iranian researchers) and that non USSR/Russian powers will have had decades of interest in securing samples, methods and data about effects. I’ve also supplied papers showing the OPCW’s cautious interest in Novichok-agents, and its resistance — even to 2011 — to asserting their existence, so I’m not sure exactly what we’re disagreeing about. If anywhere, I think it must be somewhere in your conclusions, but I’m afraid I don’t know what they are.

        2. Rais

          For some reason there’s no “Reply” button on the Ruv’s reply as it appears on my screen so excuse me, Mike, for replying under your very enlightening link instead. Ruv, no, please don’t set up straw men you can knock down by saying, “So what you’re saying is…” then refuting something that hasn’t been said. For the last time, I repeat the undisputed fact that the UK government has not offered any proof of the origin of the agent used. I should add that in view of the allegedly very high toxicity of the agent allegedly used the welcome report that the victims are apparently still alive is surprising. “You seem then, to be arguing that politically, a nuclear power should be allowed to use subtle, insidious nerve agents whenever it wants…” Do I? I thought I said something about producing evidence, any evidence at all since up to now we only have assertions by a government with a known record of falsehood, as have most governments. Then I said something about the relative merits of being alive or dead. Interpret that as you will but don’t make things up so you can refute them. That’s all I have to say; I wish you, and all of us, peace.

          1. Ruv Draba

            Rais it’s not a straw man: I was just pointing out a logic hole you introduced but haven’t dealt with. I understand the attraction of procrastination, and respect that you don’t wish to argue further. For the interest of other readers then, here’s the problem I think the ‘procrastinate for more evidence’ position advanced by Rais hasn’t dealt with:

            On the one hand, more information is always desirable, but how will more evidence help when dealing with a malignant nuclear power that we know already interferes with foreign democracies, assassinates former agents in foreign jurisdictions, supports and whitewashes ethnic cleansing, and lies about its chemical weapon programs?

            Would more evidence:
            * attract much-needed international support? (No — we already got that rapidly and decisively for a change.)
            * moderate a potentially excessive response? (No — unlike the WMD fiasco in Iraq, the response to date has been reasonable and proportionate.)
            * provide even more deterrence? (No — further delay would simply present indecision and inefficacy to a country that already exhibits contempt for NATO-allied democracies anyway.)

            More evidence could provide us with more detailed information and improved investigations in future, but what immediate decisions require it, what is the risk of waiting for it, what is the likelihood of getting it, and what are the costs if we wait, but don’t get it?

            Without those answers, the principle of ‘procrastinate until certain’ is license for a sufficiently aggressive power to do what they want, where they want, when they want, as long as it can be done furtively. I can’t think of many things I respect Therese May for, but I think she, the EU, our government and even the lecherous orangutan across the Pacific (or at least his remaining advisors) are doing the best one can here. 🙂

  4. David Thompson

    Hyperbolic much?
    Shall we do a count of PROVEN Russian ‘interventions’, and compare that to proven Western interventions?
    But, all hilarity aside, methinks you are missing the point.
    This is the point, along H’s line, but on a whole other level – https://thesaker.is/what-happened-to-the-west-i-was-born-in/
    You do realise the Atomic Scientists have the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than it’s been since the early ’50’s, and that includes the Cuban Missile Crisis?
    ‘Scorecards’ are pretty pointless about now, dontcha think?

    1. David Thompson

      Somehow I managed to post that twice.

  5. Mike Smith

    Stormy said they had an affair, Trump says they didn’t: who are you going to believe, the fake blonde with big tits, or Stormy Daniels?

    1. Ruv Draba

      (Mike I just wanted to acknowledge this as my favourite comment to date. :D)

  6. Nudiefish

    I love this piece so much.

    History was never changed for the better by the quiet or the compliant.

  7. Stu Pidman

    American liberals have worked themselves into a lather because they smell the blood of Trump, even though it’s just a phantom smell.
    Anyone’s else’s real blood is irrelevant in the quest to topple Trump, such is their sense of entitlement. Trump is neither a black person like Obama, or a woman like Clinton, so they’re really pissed off right now, especially the inner large city folks.

  8. kyle Hargraves

    ok – from a different direction (and possibly perspective) to Ruv & Rais

    A survey of any coherent biography concerning Lenny Bruce makes it all to clear that Bruce as ahead of his time as a social commentator and “envelope-pusher – at least I think that is the given phrase. On the other hand his own behavour was, at the risk of moralising, anything but exemplary. Breaching a confidence or any other aspect of trust meant nothing to him.

    For a country that wears its “freedom” on its sleeve and, after India, is the most religious (church attendance/100,000) in the world its not inclined to welfare or providing any assistance to one’s neighbour. The word “communism” still scares children and adults alike.

    A stash of arms, a reckless Saturday night and, subsequently, observance on Sunday morning is deemed no less (or more) than consistent or normal. The forty five year old Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, still hangs by a thread. To be fair, plotting the data for “for” and “against” on the topic looks rather like two sine waves out of phase by (pi); i.e. one curve is the lateral inversion of the other – from 1970 until the present. Having made those points the management, as a whole is very good and the country (per capita if one pleases) can out-produce anyone.

    “The Post does not. This naked woman who refuses to wear the preferred language of #MeToo is a threat”

    Change the environment (e.g. Dutton) and the same stuff occurs on Crikey. Even this statement is going to be construed, by some, as an endorsement of the politics of Dutton.

    “Just how such condescending focus is made possible within the imagination of so many liberal writers is a mystery.”

    I’m not so sure. In fact, upon reflection, it is the norm. Consider Ingrid Betancourt who was kidnapped by the Farc in 2002 and released in mid 2008. As Le Monde put it, “belle, fragile” – and as an afterthought – “et forte en même temps” she refused to play the role of “little white girl rescued by good white men from big bad black men” and was subsequently dropped like a hot brick by the world press.

    There have been any number of people who have been interviewed by the ABC (to name one “feed”) and because the interview went in the “wrong” direction the interview did not go to air. Then the West, smugly, claims that “everyone else” is censored.

    “At what point US, Australian and all Coalition of the stupid journalists might cease cheering on the possibility of war”

    I’ll have to remove my sleeping mask; is such the case? Where is the evidence for such a claim? I must say that it missed me although matters could become “interesting” with North Korea. The 38th parallel is artificial and, technically, N.Kora and the USA remain at war.

    There could (I am by no means sure) be a justification to apply discourse analysis for the purpose of researching apparent symbiotic relationships between language, power and ideology (missed anything? – damn it : gender of course!) but the risk is to “read” into situations aspects that are just not there. The virtue of science, in the main, is that
    preconceptions are dispensed with in rather short order. Only what is germane (i.e. verifiable – at least in principle) remains.

    Lastly, Helen, are we actually having “moralising fits over Stormy Daniels” or is it just another dick-head story that the LCM can understand (having engaged in like manner)? I must get out more.

    1. Jim Egan

      Ruv & Kyle are making sensible & valid points.

      BTW, I Googled Stormy, like no doubt many straight and possibly gay males (Is she a gay icon yet?) have done, and guess what? You can see Stormy in a number of porn clips, sucking on a number of phalluses of various shapes and colours all much larger than average etc, etc.

      I must admit it is a bit hard to take seriously an ageing porn actor who can be viewed sucking dick by anyone on the planet.

      Trump has not had an ‘affair’ like say Eisenhower or FDR or loosely JFK or WJC ; he has been an unpaid actor in one of Stormy’s rehearsals.

      Who cares?

      1. Mr Smith

        RE: “I must admit it is a bit hard to take seriously an ageing porn actor who can be viewed sucking dick by anyone on the planet.”

        Congratulations Jim Egan for your research establishing the plausible hypothesis that female porn actresses are often called upon to perform fellatio on male performers in many featured clips. So, accepting that, does her willingness to suck dicks for money mean that her testimony is rendered invalid / untrustworthy / pointless?

        Sure, this scandal may well be a Stormy in a DD Cup (sorry) and less important than other matters of geopolitical / economic security, but surely she should be judged by her testimony, not her professional choices? Do you think it’s possible for a prostitute to be raped, or would you ignore any testimony from a sex worker because she accepts payment for putting phalluses of different sizes and colours into her mouth?
        Let’s remember that the President of the US, beloved by most conservative evangelicals in that country, has been accused many times of sexual assault, and even bragged about it when he thought no one was listening. All of these female accusers have been disparaged, demeaned and defamed by this man. I’m thrilled that a woman is taking on Trump at his own game, and appears to be winning. Long may his Orangeness squirm at having his dirty secrets held up for ridicule.

        1. Jim Egan

          Thrilled might be a bit strong Mr Smith, but Trump’s ‘dirty secrets’ aren’t really secret nor dirty. By your argument Stormy is just another ‘professional’ worker providing a service. She chose to provide that service for Trump, or was she testing him out for a role in one of her movies? Nothing dirty to see here folks.

        2. Mr Smith

          Not secret or dirty? What planet are you living on Jim Egan?
          Trump cheats on his trophy wife, repeatedly, while she’s pregnant, with porn stars and centrefolds. Then tries like all heck to make sure those women never get to tell their story, and lies repeatedly about having anything to do with them. It’s not as serious as financial fraud or accepting foreign assistance during an election campaign, but secret and dirty it sure is. Especially given the hypocrisy of the Christian Right in turning a blind eye to the qualities they’ve long argued are ruinous to family and nation. Please, go ahead and argue that the sky isn’t blue, Jim.

          1. kyle Hargraves

            Its not 100% clear, at least not to me, as to the intention of the comments. Are you endeavouring to critique the morality of Trump in particular or the recent (last 70 years) USA Presidents in general? Is it the propensity to discredit Daniels as WJC attempted to discredit Lewinsky that makes the matter “dirty” or “secret”? Adultery aside (which even in Oz is no longer a justification for divorce – all ‘no fault’ now) the engagements were consensual.

            The order of Commandments for Jewish, Catholics and Protestants are (the prohibitions against) killing, adultery and theft {interesting huh?} although the (actual) numbers change. How many of our politicians (or indeed the community) are guilty of bearing false witness, or converting a neighbours wife or property.

            What HAS changed is that this stuff is reported (in some detail) nowadays. Alistair Cooke made a comparison between the “times” of JFK (and pre JFK) and WJC; the then now.

            Looking at the matter from 180 degrees the American public did actually choose a business tycoon for the President who, as a hobby, makes -indeed twitters – locker-room remarks and has a history of [is the word] unacceptable behaviour in the presence of females.

            May I offer the conjecture that there may well be a good many males (black & white) who see something of an image of themselves in Trump and ditto for females in regard to fathers, uncles and brothers.

            What are we going to do? Enforce Parrish observance (qua the 18th century) which didn’t actually work. I doubt if reading Sartre, by comparison, will amount to a panacea either. Perhaps the fault resides with the country’s devotion to Ayn Rand.

        3. Stu Pidman

          Yes, her propensity for sucking dicks of many, many men, and other multiple repeated and pre meditated sexual acts with many people for money renders her testimony mostly invalid. This is because her testimony is in itself a profit seeking venture for her. If testimony is ‘for profit’ then it needs to be discounted appropriately.

      2. MAC TEZ

        What’s really hard to swallow are Trump’s relationships with two well known,long-term, hard-core Kochsuckers in Pence and Pompeo.
        The junk that comes out of the mouths of those two pricks is truly disgusting and their combined credibility is much less than any porn star.

        1. AR

          Spot on. The Alpha & Omega of the matter.

  9. Mr Smith

    I’ve given up on the Post for the moment, they seem to move in a very limited space. The NYT offered a more thoughtful profile of Ms. Clifford:
    Stormy Daniels, Porn Star Suing Trump, Is Known for Her Ambition: ‘She’s the Boss’ https://nyti.ms/2pBKwWA

  10. AR

    As Joe Beagant put it in Deerhunting with Jesus when discussing Oz & the US being peopled by the lowlifes out of olde Englande “we got the puritans, they got the crooks, lucky them”.

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...