|
|
|
She Can, He Doesn't Dare Sam Aurelius Milam III
Well, I suppose it isn't really such an outrageous statement. I suppose that it wouldn't particularly annoy me, except for one thing. If a man dared publicly utter such a general criticism of women, he'd be denounced as a sexist pig. The news agency that reported the statement would be inundated by feminist outrage. Women can, with impunity, denigrate men in public, in whatever way suits them. A man doesn't dare make the slightest criticism of women for fear of political crucifixion. Hypocrisy continues to be the foremost feminist accomplishment. Notice
— Editor
|
The War
on Muffshots
Sam Aurelius Milam III On November 10, Inside Edition ran a piece about women who're aghast upon learning that men will discreetly follow them on the street and secretly point hidden video cameras up their skirts. I don't know where those women have been, but men have been peeking up women's skirts and down women's blouses for as long as women have been wearing skirts and blouses. Most of us make the effort, although some of us are less discreet than others. I heard of a man who taped a $20 bill to the floor outside his office and watched for women to bend over to pick it up. Another man taped a mirror to the floor below his office partition adjacent to a female colleague's desk. Video cameras are a tactical variation but otherwise nothing new. Whether such peeking is good or bad is a matter of opinion, but it certainly shouldn't surprise anybody. Another point that should be raised is that these women are utterly unaware that they've been videotaped. I'm reminded of the Indians who believed that their souls were stolen if their pictures were taken. The objections raised by these women are similarly puzzling. That is, how can they say they're harmed if they're utterly unaware of it and totally unaffected by it? Nevertheless, they're outraged and demand an end to their "victimization". OK, if they want to protect themselves they can easily do it. All they need to do is wear pants, long dresses, or bathing suit bottoms under the short skirts. Will they bother to protect themselves? Of course not. They'd rather demand that government do it for them by passing repressive legislation intended to regulate the behavior of men. Such legislation is now being enacted. Two states have already outlawed such videotaping. As of this writing, California is in the process of becoming the third. We can be sure that other states will fall in line because any man who dares opposition will be demonized as a pervert. OK, maybe taking pictures up a woman's skirt is bad and maybe it isn't. We all have our opinions. However, just because something is bad doesn't necessarily mean that it should also be illegal. As long as it's possible for this particular group of "victims" to easily, effectively, and non-coercively protect themselves, then they don't need a police state to do it for them. Nevertheless, the War on Muffshots is under way. Soon, extra cops will be needed on the streets to conduct Muffshot surveillance of backpacks, brief cases, and baby strollers. We can have random Muffshot checks at work and our homes can be subject to Muffshot raids. Cops will be able to search motor vehicles, without a warrant, for Muffshot violations. We can have a Muffshot Czar. The Muffshot Enforcement Agency can train dogs to sniff for cassettes at airports and schools. Muffshot "busts" will be common. The courts can be crowded with plaintiffs claiming that their videotapes weren't shot from an illegal angle, but from a few degrees higher, while cops busily falsify the angle measurement data. The prisons can be filled with Muffshot violators serving three-cassette sentences. Vice squad women, sans panties, can conduct miniskirt stings, enticing men to videotaping they "probably would have done anyway" (the perverts!). We can have Muffshot turf wars and criminal gangs that sell Muffshot paraphernalia, including scratch 'n sniff screens, probably manufactured in somebody's bathtub. Legally registered video cameras will be required to have lens locks and be stored in child-proof cabinets, and anyone who wants to buy one will have to submit to a three day waiting period and a background check for a Muffshot history. Scratch 'n sniff televisions will be outlawed and TV screens will be routinely dusted for fingernail prints. Well, it might not get quite that silly, but even so the entire coercive so-called "common sense" methodology of the wars on drugs, cigarettes, fireworks, pornography, domestic violence, guns, smog, terrorism, drunk driving, male-only institutions, abortion, child abuse, dolphin abuse, and every other reformer's repressive agenda can now be applied to the Muffshot War, thanks to a bunch of women who refuse to act like adults and take the simple precautions by which they could protect themselves. In the end, they will have created thousands of times more victims, of far worse atrocities, than they would ever have numbered themselves, even by their most exaggerated claims. You know the most ironic and predictable part? When they're done, we'll still take a peek whenever and however we can. Nothing they do, however outrageous or irresponsible, is going to stop it.
|
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth Dear Buck What do you think about the recent spending bills? — Interested Voter
Dear Interested Voter I've heard of 'em. I guess they made 'em so them spendin' caps wouldn't look like beanies. Acknowledgments
— editor
Tech Support: "What is the prompt on the screen?" Induhvidual: "Enter Your Last Name." Tech Support: "Okay, so type in your last name." Induhvidual: "How do you spell that?" Frontiersman Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me. Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request. Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other publications. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material. Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise. Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and U.S. postage stamps. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea. — Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
— end of year 6 — |
|
|
|
I
received the following letter to the editor in response to the November
Frontiersman
and didn't have enough space in the December Frontiersman to print
it.
Dear Sam --
— Elliot; N. Merrick, New York
|
|
|