Sundays With SZ: Sex and the Single Mole

Welcome to our weekly look back at some of the classic posts from the nine year history of World O' Crap.  Originally published October 16, 2003.

Undercover Conservative, Part 3:

Ann Coulter's Dating Club, William F. Buckley's Bedtime Stories, and Don't Let Doctors Turn YOU Into Hillary Clinton!

     It's time to finish up our report on the links and ads from some of our favorite conservative sites.  But first, an update on my attempt to join the Young America Foundation's 100 Club: Well, I got in!  I have an assigned secret identity ("Freedom") and a secret password (well, I can tell you that, but it's almost as inspired as my secret identity).  But sadly, the club isn't nearly as cool as I thought it would be.  First, since they're going to mail my welcome package to my address at Oral Roberts University, it doesn't look like I'll ever know the point values for the various conservative activities they're trying to encourage.  (But we can speculate.  For instance, I think that "Denouncing Coming Out Week" probably got Ben Shapiro 10 points, last week's "Outing GramGram as a Druggie to Deflect the Heat from Rush" got him 20 points, while Jonah Goldberg got 50 for being editor of National Review Online.)

However, I did learn from the site that I can get 30 points for attending The Western Leadership Conference!  And here are some of the reasons why I should attend:

• You'll get to meet and hear from some of the nation's leading conservatives.
• You can purchase popular conservative books at drastically reduced prices.
• You can your club members can learn the secrets of successful campus activism and how to draw the largest crowds on campus.
• It's a chance to leave your leftist campus and be around other conservatives for a weekend.

The speakers include Michael Reagan, Peter Robinson ("Author and speechwriter in the Reagan Administration"), some activist people I've never heard of, and, as a special treat, Lionel Chetwynd, "Award-winning screenwriter, director and producer," who will be also showing his exciting made-for cable movie, DC 9/11: Time of Presidential Super-Heroics.

So, if you know of any young conservatives who want to escape their leftist campuses for a weekend of indoctrination and boring TV, sign them up for this conference.  It's only $25 (which includes food, lodgings, and materials, which makes it quite a travel bargain) -- so, if you just want a cheap weekend near Santa Barbara, you might want to attend even if your campus isn't all that leftist.  

Plus, there will be a seminar on activism training, where you will learn, among other things, how to:

• Increase and maximize your funding from the university and private supporters; 
• Mount a successful campaign to counter leftist attacks on your speaker;

Because:

In order to challenge the Left on campus students must not only articulate the argument for free markets and individual liberty, but also organize successful events that promote conservative ideas to other students.

Maybe I'm behind the times, but shouldn't we just let the kids, both leftist and rightist, articulate their own arguments and organize their own events?  Because otherwise they're never going to learn, and once they're President, they'll still be relying on grownups to do these kinds of things for them.

But back to the 100 Club: their message board is a letdown too.  For while it has provocative-sounding folders, such as "Left-Wing Lunacy: Expose the intolerant, silly, and otherwise questionable actions on the campus Left," that one doesn't have any posts in it.  Apparently the left just isn't coming through with intolerant and silly actions on campus anymore.  I weep for our children. 

In a folder called "Dirty Trick Campaigns: Expose how liberal administrators and/or students have attempted to stop your event through bureaucratic maneuvers or intimidation," there have only been five posts in the past four months.  It seems that Gonzaga University officials objected to posters announcing a talk on "Why the Left Hates America" on the grounds that the Left doesn't actually HATE America --  but since they still let Daniel Flynn speak, it wasn't all that dirty of a trick, and didn't provoke much discussion.  In other news, a while back some "hippies" stood next to some girl who was protesting war-protesters.  Also, the same girl complained that the evil bureaucrats at her school are requiring freshman to live in the dorms ("So instead of competing in a free market with other housing establishments, they simply want to FORCE students to buy their unsatisfactory housing!!"), but nobody seemed all that outraged by her tale.  It's sad when this is the best oppression that a campus can muster.  I encourage all liberal students and administrators to intimidate some conservatives, so these kids have something to talk about.

And that's about it on the board, except for a couple of laments about Rush, a dated prediction that Arnold was going down in flames in CA, and a sprinkling of Reagan nostalgia along the lines of "I wish I was alive when Reagan was President, because he was was a REAL conservative, and was all evil and stuff."

So, Club 100: another secret plan funded by a crazy old billionaire designed to subvert our nation by brainwashing our youth.  But still, so very not cool.

Now, on to my second update: the ANN COULTER DATING CLUB!

Well, almost.  It seems that one of Ann's paid sponsors is an online dating service called Other Singles -- and if you sign up through Ann's site, you get to be part of the Ann Coulter.Org Singles subgroup at Other Singles, now 613 members strong.  If you too want to sign up, when you get to the "politics" section on the questionnaire, leave it set on "conservative" or "very conservative", and you qualify to meet your Ann Coulter mate!  It could be one of THESE mystery dates (note: the names and the punctuation were changed for privacy reasons) :

First, here's Im4-Guns, a 28-year-old male.  He's above average in looks, just like everybody else:

What are some of the qualities you look for in someone you are dating?:
Conservative, non-smoking patriot that loves the outdoors.  

What things turn you off about someone?:Liberals, narrow mindedness, laziness  

Tell others more about yourself:The people I respect are: Garner Ted Armstrong; Ronald Reagan; Rush; Mike Reagan; Sean Hannity; Ann Coulter; Micheal Savage; and many other conservative talk radio host.  

Now, let's hear from Teddy, a 42-year-old, separated male (also an above average-looking guy):

What are some of the qualities you look for in someone you are dating?:Attractive
Desire for sex

What things turn you off about someone?:
Smoking
Overweight
Other men's children
Problems
Gold Diggers

While Ann's group seems to be at least 80% male (ladies, take advantage of this great opportunity!), let's meet HottieChick, a 24-year-old slender, blonde, extremely attractive, extremely stylish, woman:

What are some of the qualities you look for in someone you are dating?:I'm looking for a Conservative guy that can treat me in the fashion to which I'm accustomed. I like older men, especially if they are well-situated, but I also like younger guys that can treat me like the exciting, attractive girl I am. I dress sexily to please my man and love talking about politics and God.  

What things turn you off about someone?:Don't write me if you are obviously unattractive. I can't stand liberal politics or America-haters. Also, don't write if you can't take me out to the high-class places I like to go. I am NOT a McDonald's type of girl, and offering to take me to the park will not fool me.  

Tell others more about yourself:I am a very sexy and intelligent person. I like to talk about politics with people that agree with me, and I like high class places. 

Personally, I think that Teddy and Hottie are a match made in AnnCoulter.org heaven, and I hope these two young people find each other soon.

Now, on to NRO and their wonderful treat for children: Moral Stories from National Review Books! And since these stories were all personally selected by William F. Buckley Jr, you know your kids will adore them! And they are all at least 100 years old, thus ensuring that your children aren't corrupted by the faintest hint of modernity.

The National Review Treasury of Classic Children’s Literature, (Original Volume)42 Wondrous Stories by Literary Giants, Personally Selected by William F. Buckley Jr.

This veritable celebration of tales finely told and lessons charmingly taught is a must - for your children or grandchildren, for that beloved niece, nephew, or godchild, for that nice neighborhood kid, or for the local school library.

Yes, it's not just a celebration, it's a VERITABLE celebration.  A celebration of lessons learned, morals imparted, and virtues conveyed.  Buy a copy for every kid you know, since they all need to be taught a thing or two.  Why not get one for that nice neighbor kid -- or even better, for that bratty kid who listens to the "rap" music and throws his ball in your yard.  That will fix HIS wagon.  And donate several of them to the local library, as a form of social policy.

 But wait--there's more!

NEW: The National Review Treasury of Classic Children’s Literature, Volume Two37 Wondrous Stories by Literary Giants, Personally Selected by William F. Buckley Jr.

Last year we published The National Review Treasury of Classic Children’s Literature — a big, lavishly illustrated book that featured dozens of delightful and wholesome children’s stories from some of America’s best writers from the late-19th/early-20th centuries.

Yup, that's our key selling point -- these stories are WHOLESOME. 

Like the first volume, “Treasury 2” contains dozens of stories from literary giants, many first published in St. Nicholas Magazine, the famous journal that established a Golden Age of children’s literature over a century ago. Here are some of the many authors and stories you will find:

* MARK TWAIN, the famed author of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, wrote the equally entertaining (but too-forgotten) sequel Tom Sawyer, Detective. This classic mini-novel — featuring Tom, Huck, and Jim up to their old, beloved antics — was first published in 1896 in Harper’s, and is republished here (along with all the original artwork!). You'll find it to be rollicking fun (and far superior to anything published today).

Because it's WHOLESOME!  They just don't publish anything wholesome these days, forcing kids to try to learn moral lessons from Penthouse or The National Review.

* JACK LONDON, the revered author of The Call of the Wild and so many more, appeared in our first collection. He returns in the sequel with the exciting sea tale, “The Cruise of the Dazzler.” It’s classic London, and one of five mini-novels — the others are Julia Truitt Bishop’s delightful Another Chance, Marion Ames Taggart’s The Wyndham Girls, and Adeline Knapp’s action-packed The Boy and the Baron — that will thoroughly entertain and enthrall boys and girls of all ages (while promoting those values and lessons that we share, and that are increasingly at a premium!).

Yeah, they'll be enthralled.  But more importantly, they'll be inculcated with those values and lessons which WE all share, but that which the reprobates and scoundrels who write modern children's books don't.  Because just like you just can't get good help these days unless you import it from Third World nations, you can't get properly didactic children's literature unless you dredge it up from the past.

They'll fill the special someone who reads them with that rare feeling that wonderful tales finely told impart.

Bill wrote this ad copy himself, didn't he?

FRANK BAUM entertained millions of children with his “Oz” books. He appeared in our first book, and has an encore here: His story, “Aunt ’Phroney’s Boy,” is typical of the tales in The National Review Treasury of Classic Children’s Literature, Volume Two. It’s an engaging story marked by unsurpassed prose and offering a clear lesson — precisely the kind of literature children deserve (need!) to be exposed to!

Because if they are exposed to that literature WITHOUT clear lessons, they'll waste their time ENJOYING their reading, and we can't have that.  Because if you leave it to the kids to pick their own books, they'll just read the Harry Potter books, become Satanists, and go to hell. 

Have you ever heard of Blanche Willis Howard, Elaine Goodale Eastman, or Winthrop Packard? We hadn’t, until we saw their stories — “Frieda’s Doves,” “Little Brother o’ Dreams,” and “The Wizard Shoemaker” — in St. Nicholas. It was like stumbling across priceless gemstones. And now they (and so many more like them!) are polished, gleaming, and yours to enjoy in the The National Review Treasury of Classic Children’s Literature, Volume Two.

Heck, don't bother buying the books for the kids--just make them read these ads!  They'll find them rollicking fun, and learn many important lessons as they visit a precious world of wonder and whimsy and horribly overwrought, old-fashioned prose.

Anyway, I was a pretty omnivorous reader when I was a kid, and probably would have enjoyed some of the stories in the old St. Nicholas magazines if I had found them in their original form, or in a book published in 1902 or so.  But even I, a polite, well-mannered young girl who had been gently reared on the values and lessons we all share, would have thrown this book at your head if you had given to me for Christmas, because I hated it when adults tried to dictate to me which valuable lessons I should be learning.  But hey, if YOU want to give it to a beloved niece or that nice neighborhood boy, be my guest.  But I have to warn you: this book is hefty, and will really hurt if the kid has a good arm.

And we conclude our tour of the colorful world of the paid ads at conservative sites with some gems from Newsmax, finely cut and polished to a veritable gleam, to give you that special feeling that only hucksterism well done can impart.  Plus, they offer clear lessons, and so are just the kind of thing you need to be exposed to.  Here's an especially rollicking one right from the Newsmax homepage:

Don't Let Your Doctor Turn You Into Hillary!The medical mainstream wants to turn every red-blooded man into a whining, wimpy, estrogen-filled Hillary. Don't let it happen to you!

Okay, I won't!  Let's click on the ad (Dr. Al Sears) and see how to avoid it:

MODERN MEDICINE WANTS TO TURN YOU INTO A WOMAN - AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IT! Discover the true facts of male aging, health and virility from America's only Alternative Medicine Specialist for Mature Men. 

It may sound a little strong to say it, but men are not only being "feminized," we're being subjected to a slow and potentially deadly "chemical castration."

No, it's not a conspiracy. It's ignorance. A combination of outdated conventional medical theory and modern health fads. And pollution.

And what makes it worse is that all the conventional thinking on male health is garbage. Junk medicine.

In a word, bull. And for the most part, the people who tell you this are fatter, have higher blood pressure, and die sooner.

So let other people follow the crowd and starve themselves eating bibs of lettuce, bland vegetables and tofu. Let them avoid meat, stop beer and wine and the occasional shot of excellent Scotch and a fine cigar, let them spend an hour a day on the treadmill, avoid sunshine and everything else that makes life fun and pleasurable... (continued)

Yes, only Newsmax breaks stories like this: the vast, medical conspiracy to turn men into Hillary Clinton!  While this might seem like the plot of B-horror movie starring Bela Lugosi, I'm sure Newsmax wouldn't have accepted Dr. Al's advertising if he wasn't legit.  I didn't read the rest of his really, really long ad and so don't know what his plan to reverse Hillaryism entails, but it doesn't appear to involve eating right, exercising, or avoiding booze and tobacco, so it probably has the AMA's endorsement.

Now, here's something we can all use.  A way to become a millionaire ... and never pay taxes.  How, you ask?  It's easy.  First, get a million dollars.  Then, when the IRS asks you why you never paid taxes: you say two simple words: "I forgot."

Well, actually what Liberty Resources advocates is: first get a bunch of credit cards and charge all the stuff you want.  Then, don't pay for it.  And when the bank asks you why you never paid your bills, you say: "Because YOU aren't legally allowed to loan me credit, and so I don't have to pay you back!  Plus, you owe me a bunch more money, for cheating me this way." 

But they explain it better than I can: First, here's what it says on the NewsMax ("America's Scam Source") Home Page:

ZERO Balance Your Credit Card Debt Legally Without Having to Make One More Payment! Work directly with Attorney. 

Sounds good, doesn't it.  So, let's click on their ad (Liberty Resources):

LibertyResources.com.  Freedom and empowerment through the truth.

So, what can you do if you are overburdened with credit card payments, and lines of credit?

The theory of debt reduction we employ is founded in law and has had excellent results at arbitration and within the courts. The end result is that we are able to eliminate almost any unsecured credit debt issued by national banks – including credit cards and lines of credit such as VISA, Master Card and American Express. After the process, in most of the cases that we have seen, not only is the debt eliminated, but you will end up with an arbitration award in the amount of the last balance. (In other words if you owed $5,000 dollars on a VISA card, after the process, not only will the debt be eliminated but the bank that issued the VISA will owe you $5,000!)

How is this possible - to eliminate credit card debt legally?  The simple answer is that national banks are not allowed by law to loan credit. They can only loan money. Further, banks are not allowed to become surety for another person. In other words they are not allowed to guarantee the payment of another person’s debt. Consequently, the credit loans you have entered into are voidable... at your choice.

[snip]

One of the largest mental hurdles each person must overcome internally is the moral issue that will be used against you relative to owing on the debt. Essentially it boils down to this, “You agreed to the terms of the credit card, you took advantage of the convenience of the credit card, if you do not pay you will have become unjustly enriched, and it is immoral to enter into an agreement, take advantage of it, and then argue against its enforcement.”

To these essentially sound and morality based arguments consider the following:
If a party breaches its authority, by entering into an agreement that it knows it is not allowed by law to execute, is it moral to allow that party to enforce the agreement?
Is it moral to force a person to pay on a credit card bill, when that person did not know that the bank did not have the legal authority to issue credit or to become surety? 

So, NOT paying your debts is the righteous thing to do -- because otherwise, you're just enabling the bank and encouraging them to continue fraudulently extending credit to people.  Default today: it's your duty as a morally upright conservative man or woman!  Thanks, Newsmax, for bringing this message to the Rightwing American patriots whom you serve!

Anyway, that concludes our little tour of the seamier side of the internet.  We hope you have found it both instructive and educational, and it imparted to you many clear lessons, and kept the medical establishment from turning you into Hillary Clinton.

Post-Friday Beast Blogging: The Lost Weekend Edition

RILEY: All right...just because there's a pile of rich ripe dirty laundry on the bed doesn't mean I have to lay on it...or rub it all over my face...or bury my nose in it and huff the stank...

RILEY:  I can easily share the bed with a bundle of used Beefy-Ts and boxer shorts reeking of pheromones and not succumb to my baser instincts.  I mean, come on, I'm not some animal, I can control myself...

RILEY:  ...first thing tomorrow.

MEANWHILE, on a recliner not far away...

Sasquatch Isreal! Jim Crow Is Not

Not quite sure how I got on this mailing list, but I've just received an urgent communique on behalf of Memphis talk radio host James Edwards and his new book...

Are you sick and tired of being called a racist for simply opposing Obama's policies?

Well you should be, because it completely ignores your achievements in other vital areas of racism, such as minority voter suppression and Jewish graveyard defacement.

Discover why every conservative in America must read the explosive book, Racism Schmacism: How Liberals Use the "R" Word to Push the Obama Agenda, by veteran talk radio host James Edwards.

You've heard of explosive diarrhea?  As powerful as that is, it's nowhere near as explosive as this book (although the pages may be used as makeshift toilet tissue once you've finished reading them.  Or before; the effect is pretty much the same).

May 2, 2013 (MMD Newswire) - - If you're like James Edwards

Then you have our condolences.

you've had it up to here watching the conservative movement spin its wheels, making lots of noise but never going anywhere. 

On the contrary, I'm barely halfway through my first bag of Orville Redenbacher's Gourmet Farmhouse Cheddar.

You're fed up with attending Tea Parties

To be honest, that happened about halfway through First Grade, when I finally got tired of sipping air out of Chrissie Cochran's pink plastic china set and started hanging out with Laurie Stewart, mostly because we both wore Toughskins and wanted to build a fort out of appliance boxes, an inflatable pool with a ripped bottom, and a half-finished dog house her dad stopped building after her cockapoo got hit by the ice cream truck and went to live on a farm.

...and other protest rallies, hoping to make a powerful statement about big government, only to spend most of your time listening to a bunch of wimps insisting they aren't racists.

Well, that's usually just the warm-up act ("I'm not a racist, but..." is the new "You might be a redneck if...").

You see, it's no accident--it's happening in city after city, all over America, for one simple reason--because liberals and race hustlers know that tossing out the "R word" is all they have to do to shut down conservative dissent. In fact, it's the whole point of all this "racism" business.To keep us so busy trying to prove we're not racists that we don't get a chance to make our point.

"Our point being that the Mud People are too damn touchy!"

It works every time because conservatives just don't get it. We haven't grasped what's really behind all these constant charges of racism that the media, liberals and race hustlers are constantly hurling at us.

Yes, that does sound exasperating.  On the other hand, if you're going to complain about being called a racist while using the expression "race hustlers" in two straight paragraphs, you ought not to be surprised that it doesn't take Alan Turing to decipher your code words.

 If we really "got it," we wouldn't spend another precious minute of our time worrying about being called "racists," let alone bothering to respond to it. We could get on with addressing the real issues that are vital to the future of our country. 

Miscegenation?

But not 1 in 100 conservatives have figured out what's going on.

Well, no one's ever accused them of being top-heavy with brains.

You see, James Edwards gets it.

They don't explain what "it" is, but I assume from the context it's syphilis.

 In his powerful book, he lays the truth right out there because he caught on a long time ago to the game the radical leftists are playing with the R word. Liberals know that the average, decent American believes the word "racist" means someone who hates people of another race, and wants to harm them.

When in reality, Webster's Dictionary defines it simply as "a NASCAR aficionado."

So, naturally, when the media and liberals call conservative activists "racists," they're horrified, and will do anything to try to prove they're not racists.

Like voting for Herman Caine in a straw poll.  Take that, Black Panthers!

Which is exactly why leftists toss the word around like confetti.They know it's a surefire way of stopping conservatives in their tracks.

It sure worked like a charm for Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman.

But here's a dirty little secret that James exposes in Racism, Schmacism. When liberals and race hustlers use the word "racist," it doesn't have the meaning it used to have--someone filled with hate and animosity for other races.

Now it means someone filled with a rich creamy nougat who just happens to firebomb Black churches.

 No, when the race hustlers and leftists use the word "racist," they simply mean "conservative white person." Period. Until you get this, you will never understand politics in modern day America.

Ah, that explains the "D" I got in Civics.  But in defense of my fellow race hustlers and leftists, I would point out that "racist" is just quicker and easier to say than "conservative white person."  Maybe we can abbreviate the latter term to make it punchier and more efficient, prune it down to its essential syllables.  How about "conwipes"?

In this brilliant (and often hilarious) new book, James Edwards proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that in today's politically correct climate..."racism" is simply anything a white person does that minorities and leftists don't approve of.

I'd like to make some snarky remark here, but have to confess that Mr. Edwards makes a valid point, since to me "racism" has always meant "televised golf" and Night Ranger's Man in Motion album.

Once you've finished it you'll never look at politics the same way again and you'll certainly never be a sucker for underhanded liberal smear tactics!

You'll be cured completely!  (Side effects may include dry mouth, night terrors, oily discharge, susceptibility to book blurbs, water retention, and loss of appetite, libido, sense of smell, and $12.37.)

James Edwards is available for interviews.

But don't pull any of that cute bait 'n' switch crap like when Playboy sent Alex Haley to interview George Lincoln Rockwell without first disclosing that the former was a ni--(CLANG!)

Post-Friday Beast Blogging: The "Cat Memes By The Old Masters" Editions

Réfléchi fille avec un cul de chat orange
c. 1657; Oil on canvas, 87.6 x 76.5 cm; Los Angeles County Museum of Cat Ass
(click to embiggen)

UPDATE:  Our friend KWillow, a lady of fine family, good breeding, and one to whom the Muses call, hath given Riley and Moondoggie the gift of a good and thorough Rembrandting:

Study in Orange and Purple
(click to embiggen, I beg you)

Flowers in the Attic, Bats in the Belfry

By Bill S.

Last week, in celebration of Mother's Day, I offered up my annual list of Bad Movie Moms. There are some movie depictions of bad motherhood that need more than just a paragraph or two, but require a column all to themselves. In compiling my list this year, I came across two such films, Flowers In the Attic (1987) and Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot! (1992). After careful consideration, I determined that if I were to sit through the latter a second time, I'd probably want to shoot myself (I might -- repeat, might -- consider it next year), so I opted for the former. I have to confess I hadn't watched it in over 20 years, but I recalled it featuring not one, but two awful moms, and that I gave it a one-star rating after viewing it. (I should explain: back in the '80's when our family had HBO, I used to watch as many movies as I could, then keep track of them in a notebook, assigning star ratings to them. I'm aware of how geeky that is, which is why I no longer do it.)

So I viewed it again, and it all came back to me, much like a bad lunch coming back up. This picture's not so much creepy as it is "cringy." It's based on a book, the first in a series following the same characters, by V.C. Andrews. I've never read it, or any of her work. Perhaps someone who has can tell me how best to rate the quality of her writing: A-Passable, B-Mediocre, C-Terrible or D-"Sweet Lordy Gordy, How Did the Editors Refrain From Gouging Out Their Eyes After the First Three Pages?" Ms. Andrews passed away before the movie was released into theaters, but was on the set during production, and even makes a cameo appearance as a servant washing an upstairs window. She was reportedly pleased with the script and the casting of Kristy Swanson* in the lead role, both of which makes me think whatever illness she succumbed to impaired her mental judgement.

This is the story of the Dollangangers, a family so blindingly blonde and Aryan they make the Von Trapps seem like Sly & the Family Stone. The mother, Corinne (Victoria Tenant), teens Cathy (Swanson), Christopher** (Jeb Stuart), and five-year-old twins Carrie and Cory, all lead a happy, idyllic life, while the dad, Christopher, Sr.(Marshall Colt) goes to work. Each time the father comes home, the kids greet him by hiding behind the couch, jumping up and yelling, "Surprise!"

Cathy is especially close to her father, who considers her his favorite, and, away from the other kids, gives her a Very Special Gift, a ceramic ballerina. We in the audience begin taking bets as to who's going to the smash the thing. Since we see Corinne peering in with envy, she's our first candidate.

On the dad's 36th birthday, the kids ready themselves, arguing about how many candles to put on the cake, when they hear a car outside and assume position behind the couch. But instead, two policemen greet Corinne, and inform her and the kids that the father's been killed in an auto accident. This really ruins the birthday party, and that's the least of their trouble, because they eventually begin running out of money and have to sell off their possessions, eventually losing their house. At no time does Corinne try to look for a job. Perhaps she's not qualified to do anything useful, which gives her a lot in common with the actress playing her.

The family packs up and hops on a bus. Corinne informs them they're going to her parents' home, a stately mansion known as Foxworth Hall. We learn that she comes from a wealthy family, but is estranged from her parents, because, she explains, many years ago, she did something that displeased her father, and was disinherited. But on the bright side, he's now so old and decrepit, he's likely to kick the bucket, and her plan is to win back his love and put her back in the will before he croaks. I can see no flaw in this plan. No, none at all.

Cathy is a bit more skeptical. She also feels her mother should have prepared the kids better for death. "She never allowed us to have a dog, or a kitten...if we had a pet and it died, we would have learned something about that." Yes, good parenting is giving your child a pet in the hopes it will die eventually. Hey, if she was really looking out for those kids, she'd have gotten them a cute, fluffy kitten, clubbed it over the head with a mallet in front of them, and explained, "Life is short. Get used to it." 

Finally, they all arrive at Foxworth Hall, a place so creepy and forboding, little Cory observes, "Witches in there, Mama. Witches and monsters." Maybe not, but the grounds do have a bunch of noisy hell hounds and a creepy butler named John. The children meet their grandmother, who's identified in the credits as "Grandmother", but I've learned is actually named Olivia, because V.C. Andrews ran out of "C" names, I guess. It may be said that Louise Fletcher***, who plays Olivia, displays the only thing approaching competence in this movie, though she's stuck playing a psycho biddy so cold and heartless she makes Nurse Ratched seem warm and cuddly. 

Olivia leads the children to an upstairs room, explaining that they're to stay there at all times. She also instructs them to never speak, or even whimper, without her permission, then exits, locking the children inside. There are bars on the windows. The next morning, she brings them breakfast, then asks if the children know why their mother left 17 years ago, and when they inform her they don't she explains: "Your mother's marriage was unholy! A sacrilege! An abomination in the eyes of the Lord! She did not fall from Grace. She leapt -- into the arms of a man whose veins pulsed with the same blood as hers! Not a stranger, but her own uncle! And you, the children, are the devil's spawn! Evil from the moment of conception!" I'm guessing at this moment, that "World's Best Grandma" mug they were planning on giving her, won't go over well. 

This shocking back story is a lot for the kids, and us, to absorb, and it's never addressed in any meaningful way in the movie. We can't imagine how or why it would happen, and the writers don't seem to give a shit about telling us anything. (I'm sure the book it's based on offers a perfectly ridiculous explanation.) Olivia concludes by telling them their grandfather must never know they exist.

Meanwhile, downstairs, Corinne takes her first step towards reconciliation with her father, a creepily ancient man (he looks like he could be her grandfather) with long fingernails, who lies in bed withering away, unable to rise. She stands before him and lowers her blouse. Her mother reaches for a whip. The camera, mercifully, cuts away to an exterior shot of the house and we hear the sound of a whip. 

(Did I happen to mention that this is movie got a PG-13 rating? I guess someone decided a depiction of incest and sadomasochism was perfectly acceptable fare for kids in middle school.)

The next day, Granny brings Mum up to see the kiddies, who greet her excitedly. Olivia admonishes them to stop screaming. Little Carrie marches up to her, looks up, and starts screaming (Yay!). Olivia picks the child up by her ears and starts shaking her (Boo!) Cory rushes over and bites Olivia's leg (Yay times double infinity!) Olivia kicks Cory across the room (Boo times triple infinity!) Then she instructs Corinne to remove her blouse, to show off her whip marks. "Seventeen lashes -- one for each year she lived in sin. So you understand me: I will give you food and shelter. But never kindness or love. For it is impossible to feel anything but disgust for what is unwholesome." Apparently, Olivia's definition of "wholesome" includes staging a mother-daughter S&M show for her husband's amusement. After she leaves, Christopher tends to Corinne's wounds, and she vows that the kids won't have to stay locked up for too much longer, and repeats her plan to win back her father's approval.

The next day, Olivia brings them breakfast, which this time includes a plate of suspiciously large sugar cookies. She also brings them a list of rules that must be really, really important, though not to the filmmakers, since we never find out exactly what those rules are. She also shows them a secret door leading to the attic, to give them more space and remind us what the title of this movie is. The kids grab some of the food (Cory takes all the cookies) and go upstairs to explore. They find a room strewn with thick layers of obviously fake cobwebs, and boxes of old clothes, books, and antique junk. It's a child's dream -- if they were trapped in a tiny room with absolutely nothing for a month. Christopher finds a dancer's barre for Cathy, and sets it up -- although it's not clear where she'd be able to get in any dance practice with all the crap cluttering up the place -- while Cory finds and domesticates a rat. But they soon make the attic a bit more homey, decorating it with paper flowers, because the title Rats in the Attic tested poorly with focus groups.

It takes a special kind of stage mother to see a casting notice in Variety that reads, "Wanted: 6-year old boy to wear Christopher Atkins wig and fondle rats" and immediately draw a big fat circle around it with her El Marko.

With Corinne's visits growing less and less frequent as the months go by, Christopher and Cathy assume the role of surrogate parents to the twins. Carrie misses being outside, where the grass is, and Cathy explains Dad took the grass up to Heaven (Huh?). Cory misses ice cream, and Christopher explains that the Bible says there's a time for everything, including a time for eating ice cream (Huh?) Later that evening, when the twins are sleeping, Christopher and Cathy express concern about where their mother might be -- what if she's been locked up, like they are? When they go back into the room, they find the twins sleeping in the same bed (earlier, Olivia instructed that the boys had to share one bed and the girls the other). Rather than wake Carrie, Cathy and Christopher sleep in the same bed. The next morning, Olivia enters, catching them, and smashes Cathy's ceramic ballerina. This, they decide, is the last straw, and Christopher and Cathy try to escape by sawing through a bar on one of the windows and climbing onto the roof. They attract the attention of the hell hounds, and nearly attract the attention of the groundskeeper, but manage to sneak back inside.

Corinne finally visits again, and scolds Cathy and Christopher for attempting to escape. She then gives them a choice: 'We can just pack up and leave, right now, or we can just wait, a little longer, until the will reading. That is, once your grandfather's dead." Cathy insists they forget about the money, but Christopher, stupidly, sides with Corinne, and pressures Cathy to agree.

Corinne continues to visit her creepy father, who seems to take a "special" interest in her (while Olivia looks on with envy). The movie stops short of showing exactly how much of her father's love Corinne is trying to win back, but I think the amount is, "Just enough to make the audience throw up."

Meanwhile, upstairs, the director takes advantage of the fact that he's got an 18-year-old playing a 14-year-old by lingering on Kristy Swanson's body while she takes a bubble bath.

Christopher walks in for one of their usual bathtub chats, and the two are interrupted by Olivia, who assumes more is going on than a PG-13 movie will show us. Christopher lays into her, telling her she's hoping to catch them doing something improper.  "Look at you in your black dress, your fancy jewels, your pinched face. We're not afraid of you! We laugh at you! Do you hear that? We laugh!"  (He might have added, "Be gone, before someone drops a house on you!")

There's a superfluous "false alarm" moment where Cory seems to have disappeared. Christopher, Cathy, and Carrie race through the attic, shouting "Cory" over and over (19 times. I counted.) Cory is just huddled in a corner of the attic, playing with his new pet rat, Fred.

Olivia returns, and strikes Cathy, crying, "You are a sinner!" She knocks Cathy to the ground, bolts the door to the room, leaving Christopher in the attic. As Christopher pounds on the door, Olivia reaches for a pair of scissors, approaching Cathy menacingly, and...cuts off her hair. The horror! Finally, she leaves and Christopher enters the room. He finds locks of hair strewn about the floor. Cathy is on the bed sobbing -- probably because for the rest of the movie, she'll have to wear the least convincing wig since Irene Dunn in the final 10 minutes of Cimarron. (No explanation is given for the absence of the twins during this entire episode. Maybe they were on the roof throwing cookies to the hell hounds.)

Olivia stops feeding the children for a couple weeks. They become pale and weak. Cory becomes sickly. Christopher cuts his arm to feed Cory his blood. I think at this point, I was tempted to take the DVD out and fling it across the room. 

 
Christopher removes the hinges from the door, and pushes it open, giving him and Cathy just enough room to squeeze out (Is this even possible? And how would they get back in?) They sneak downstairs and investigate the house like they're Mystery Incorporated (you'd think they'd look for food, but no), and discover their mother's room, which looks nauseatingly opulent. They then find their grandfather's room. They approach the bed, and lean in closer. The grandfather wakes, and grabs Cathy, saying "I always loved you the best, Corinne!" Needless to say, they're freaked out by this and race back upstairs, narrowly avoiding detection from the butler. They're also too freaked to to ponder the grandfather's words, which implied Corinne has siblings. (This is either a giant plot hole, or just crappy writing. Or both.)

The next morning, the breakfast tray is being prepared again, and before the plate of sugar cookies is added, we see someone sprinkling an extra ingredient on them. I bet that extra ingredient is Love. Corinne finally visits the kids again, bearing presents for each. She seems ecstatic, and cheerfully oblivious to how sickly they've become, praising Cathy's new haircut. She has great news -- her father loves her again and there's going to be a party re-introducing her to society.  (You'd think finding just the right card to announce the coming out of a 40-year old incestuous debutante would be tough, but Hallmark comes through for them.)

Sadly, Cathy insists on harshing her mother's buzz: "Look at us, Mother! Do we look like you with your rosy cheeks and bright eyes? Do you know or even care that grandmother stopped feeding us for a week?"

Corinne is outraged that Cathy would have the nerve to complain about being locked in a room for months and being starved. "You are heartless. When you're ready to treat me with love, I'll be back." Then she storms out.

Cathy and Christopher decide to sneak out to watch the party. They see their mother dancing in a strapless evening gown, which seems a bold fashion choice given all those -- wait, where did those whip marks go? They seem to have healed completely. 

The gentleman she's dancing with is the family lawyer, Bart Winslow, a name that seems to have come from a Soap Opera character generator. 

Cory falls deathly ill. Cathy demands her mother take him to a doctor. After much hesitation, and a slap fight between the two of them, Corinne finally summons the Butler to take him downstairs. She assures them he'll be back, and then the camera cuts to a shot in the woods to show the groundskeeper digging a grave. As Corinne delivers the sad news about Cory, we see that there are three other graves being dug. While this is a moment for our tears, we can take solace in knowing Cory's in a better place --namely, far away from the set of this movie.

A few days later, Carrie makes an unfortunate discovery about Cory's pet rat, Fred. "He won't wake up!" Christopher finds a cookie in Fred's cage, like the ones Cory was eating, and realizes he must have been poisoned. After researching one of the medical books that happened to be in the attic, he deduces it was arsenic. ****

They make plans to escape. 

Step 1 of their plan involves Cathy disguising herself as Daun, the Forgotten Cassidy Brother.

Christopher decides to sneak downstairs to find money, and overhears his mother and Bart discussing their wedding, which is to be held the next day. He returns upstairs. We see another tray of food being prepared, and this time the camera pulls back to reveal that the person sprinkling arsenic on the cookies is Corinne. But why are their four cookies? What a scatterbrain. We'll chalk that up to wedding day jitters.

Olivia goes upstairs to the children's room, which appears to be empty. They charge out of a closet and Christopher knocks her out with a chunk of the bed post (Yay times quadruple infinity!) They head downstairs to find their grandfather to tell him what's happened, on the assumption, I guess, that an elderly, horny, bedridden man with dementia will be able to help them. Instead, they find the room empty, and his bed dismantled. He's already dead, and they discover a copy of his will, dated two months ago. The will states that if Corinne had any children in her previous marriage, she'll be disinherited. After a year of being locked in an upstairs room wherein they were starved and poisoned, it finally dawns on them that their mother never intended for them to leave the room at all -- at least not upright. 

They decide to slip out of the house, steal one of the cars belonging to a wedding guest, drive to the police station and report the abuse and murder of the brother, handing in the evidence of the poisoned cookie. OH, WAIT, no, they don't do the most sensible thing possible. What I meant to say is, they decide to crash the wedding and make a scene. Corinne pretends she doesn't even recognize them, which leads to...the best part of this entire movie, and it's only 48 seconds long.

Aaaaaand with that, the kids just walk out of the house, arm in arm, to parts unknown, while the Grandmother watches them from an upstairs window. In a voiceover narration, Cathy reveals that she became a dancer, Christopher became a doctor, and Carrie grew up "but was never completely healthy", which is the strangest way to say "scarred for life" ever. She then adds, "I sometimes wonder if Grandmother is alive, still presiding over Foxworth Hall, waiting for my return." Um, why the hell would she be wondering about that? Wasn't there an entire roomful of people who witnessed a freak accident and a claim that a five year old boy was murdered? Did the director totally forget that? Actually, I'm not sure he was paying attention to anything, except Kristy Swanson's legs. (He certainly wasn't paying attention to her line readings).

There was to be a sequel to this -- Louise Fletcher and Kristy Swanson received copies of the script. According Swanson, it was a "sexfest" that even included Cathy and Christopher hooking up. I can't imagine why the studio passed on that.

*Kristy Swanson makes Kristen Stewart seem like Julie Christie. Yet somehow this mopey drip won a "Young Artist Award" for this role. If I'm not mistaken, that's the same accolade given to Kirk Cameron for Like Father, Like Son. She won in the category "Best Actress In a Horror or Mystery Motion Picture", and her competition included Jennifer Banks in Friday the 13th, Part VII, Paula Irvine for Phantasm II, Marie Leeds for Near Dark, Ebonie Smith for Lethal Weapon, Shawnee Smith (no relation to Ebonie) for The Blob and Brooke Theiss for Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master.

** Or, as Kristy pronounces it, "CHRIS-tuh-ffferr!"

***Still, I was hoping Olivia would be played by Inga Swenson, and that she'd greet her daughter by saying, "Corinne, Corinne, Corinne!" in a Swedish accent. Lord knows I was doing it every time I saw Corinne.

****Yes, Cory's death was caused by "a cookiefull of arsenic," and I tried, I really, really tried, to find a clever way to work in a reference to The Sweet Smell of Success. But I couldn't. I apologize for this failing.

--Bill S.

Sundays With S.Z. - Love, Conservative Style!

Originally published October 14, 2003 by s.z.

Undercover Conservative Pt 2: Dating With the Enemy

As I stated yesterday, in an effort to expand my horizons, I began clicking on the links on the Usual Suspects' sites. It has turned out to be enlightening, in a horrifying kind of way. Here's my report on dating-related advertising Links from RushLimbaugh.com, Lucianne.com, BillO'Reilly.com, and Townhall.

First, RushLimbaugh.com. Which, btw, now features this new inducement to join Rush's "24/7"club:

"Reach Out to Rush"
Send Rush Your Support!
E-mail Rush via the super-secret Rush 24/7 member e-mail...private e-mail

While I would be happy to reach out to Rush, I'm not paying to do it. And personally, I'm waiting until they add the super-secret decoder ring, so Rush can send me private messages during his program (D-R-I-N-K-M-O-R-E-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E), to the package before I join 24/7. But of course, all that is on hold for another 29 days, 10 hours (they have a clock counting down the time until Rush gets out of rehab, which I thought wasn't exactly the right message to be sending about rehab, or to be sending to the Rush addicts who are counting down the minutes).

Anyway, the link that appealed to me (but which doesn't seem to be there today) was for Elephant Dates. I guess the link was removed because the outfit isn't in business yet, but here's the message you get when you go to their site:

Elephant Dates™ will be a site for all Flag Waving Conservative Singles, looking for like minded conservative guys and gals to spend quality time with. Our hope is that conservative love and marriage will abound! 

Please tell us what conservative love qualities you are looking for in a man or woman to help us build our data base.

Hmm, what conservative love qualities am I looking for in a man? Well, I guess the traditional ones: selfishness, intolerance, hardheartedness, and the subsidization of big business.

But since they don't actually have any eligible conservatives on tap, there's little hope for conservative love and marriage abounding as yet. So, they just link back to Rush to give you hope that someday your lonely conservative nights won't be so empty. Specifically, they refer you to an archived account of how "Dee" called Rush's show and complained about how she couldn't meet any red-blooded conservative men, and so had to date "liberal lemons." She wanted to know where in the country she should move in order to meet conservative cauliflowers.

Rush told her:

Dee, despite the liberal lads you've been dating, there is hope out there. Many of the guys writing empathized with her feelings, seeing as they too, had issues with dating liberal ladies. We even had one guy tell her to come on down to Virginia where it's basically raining conservative men. Hallelujah Dee!  

Be careful you don't go out in THAT shower without an umbrella.

So, while Elephant Dates sounds great (what a nice story to tell your children: you met their mother at Elephant Dates!), I wanted a Conservative Dating service that was already in business.

Lucianne.com is pushing two dating services, Eharmony and Matchmaker.com -- I guess she figures her readers are SERIOUSLY in need of dating help. But neither of these businesses seem to cater exclusively to conservatives (although I did notice that Eharmony was also being pitched by Bill O'Reilly's site, and wondered if there was some hidden conservative bent to it -- and when I read that its founder has appeared on "Focus on the Family," I realized that there probably was.) Anyway, a quick look at Matchmaker.Com found just 3 men in my age range and geographic area: one heavily into "alternate sexuality," one who whose favorite movie is Demolition Man, and one who describes his intellect as "smart" and indicates under reading habits, "I might read a book while on an airplane." So, I passed on Matchmaker.com, despite the fact that two of these guys described themselves as staunch conservatives (yes, the smart one and the alternatively sexual one).

Eharmony's claim to fame is that you answer a zillion questions, and THEY find the perfect match for you. So, it's computer dating right out of the 1960s! It's expensive ($40 a month) and apparently doesn't find many perfect matches for most people, but they do promise to provide you with a free personality analysis if you fill out their questionnaire. I decided to try it, since I find my personality quite intriguing, and thought they might enjoy it too. But after about 10 screens of questions (with 20 or so questions per screen), we were only 20% done with the survey, and I was getting tired of their interrogation. So, when I got the question: "How often do you think they're all out to get you?", I quit. I was never going to find my conservative match this way!

So, I turned to Town Hall, and was delighted to see that they were recommending "Conservative Singles: A place for conservative singles to meet. Liberals need not apply where single conservatives go online: Conservative Matchmaker.com "

So, I had to go undercover again, in search of the story of what happens when single conservatives go online.

Their home page seems innocuous enough:

Welcome to Conservative Matchmaker Website! This site an exciting place for single members of the conservative line of thought! It is designed to be used by politically conservative singles wanting to be introduced to other politically conservative singles in their own city or even across the country!

So, they aren't a matchmaker so much as a traditional online dating service. Or so it would seem!
I clicked on the "Learn More" button:

Want some more information about us? This site is *only* for people of the Conservative mindset - from all over the United States of America! . . .We will have to ask for your patience with this site - we'll always have some growing pains - but we will work to keep these to a minimum. Please pray for us to perservere with this work!

Um, okay, I'll pray for you to perservere. Anyway, another click revealed they only have 147 active members, which kind of reduces the odds of finding true conservative love there, at least for now. But I was willing to do further exploration. But to get to the next step, seeing their questionnaire, you have to join up. So, I became Ayn Colter, a 40-something woman is search of true love with a manly man who would keep me barefoot and pregnant.

The first part of the questionnaire asks the basics, (age, location, what you're trying to hook up with), but after a couple of screens, we got to the heart of the program:

Where would you place your views? 

And while they say that "liberals need not apply," one of your choices from the pulldown menu is indeed "liberal." But maybe that choice is just there so will admit your socially unacceptable views, and so not be accepted. Or maybe you really can join, but nobody will date you. Or maybe, since they only have 147 members, they've relaxed their standards. Anyway, since "fascist" wasn't one of the choices, I picked "conservative" for Ayn.

On the next question, "Where within the spectrum of the previous choice would you place your views?" Once again my first choice ("lunatic fringe") wasn't listed, so I went with "far right."

Now on to "Party Affiliation." They had several to choose from, including many that I didn't know had parties, like Constitution, Reform, American Heritage, and Indifferent. (Now that I know it exists, I think I'll try running for President on the Indifferent Party ticket.)

I next was grilled on my political involvement, with the Matchmaker wanting to know:

How active are you in this party?
How active are you in furthering conservative causes?
How often do you vote?
Do you contribute financially to political causes?

I decided that Ayn is a member of the Republican Party (although her views are probably more aligned with the Rabid Party), and that she claims to be very active in it, and to further its causes. However, she rarely votes and never contributes financially to political causes. She's just that kind of girl.

And then Conservative Matchmaker asked for:

My Views on Abortion:
My Views on Capital Punishment:
My Views on Welfare:
My Views on Taxes:
My Views on Gun Control:

Ayn is against abortion, for Capital Punishment, and thinks we need less welfare, less taxes, and way less gun control. Any was then asked for her views on the current President. (Choices are limited to: He's horrible; He's okay; I like him; I love him! I assume that if you say he's just "okay," the Matchmaker washes her hands of you. If you merely "like" him, you get matched up with the guys whose favorite movie isTitanic. And if you think he's "horrible," you're reported to the Secret Service, and subsequently deported. Ayn 'loves!" him, of course.)

But does she listen to any of these talk shows?

Bill O'Reilly
Dr. James Dobson
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
G.Gordon Liddy
Laura Ingraham
Matt Drudge
Michael Savage
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity and a bunch more I've never heard of

I decided that she probably listens to Matt Drudge, and maybe Dr. Laura -- but that's it, since she's a busy gal and doesn't have time to sit in front of the radio all day. She has countries to invade and leaders to kill! The type of relationship she's interested in is long-term (she's already had more one-night stands than Casey Kamem's Countdown has had one-hit wonders). Her height is 5'8" and her weight is 90 pounds. She is blonde. Her view on kids is that every fertilized egg is a baby, and once said babies are born they should be seen by somebody else, and not heard.

The "My view on alcohol" question made me stop and think, since the only choices are:

I never drink
I drink a couple of times a year
I drink on special occasions
I drink alcohol with meals
I drink socially

Where is "I drink to stop the accusing voices of those I've wronged"? Or "I drink anti-socially"? But then I realized this is just asking for your VIEW on alcohol, and not your actual drinking practices, do I picked "I drink on special occasions." Nobody needs to know how many occasions end up being special in Ayn's life.

Then we covered views on smoking ("I view it as a nature's way of decimating foreign countries"); money handling ("I practice the patrician value of extreme cheapness myself, but think men should buy me expensive gifts if they expect any action"); How were you raised by your parents? ("Not very well, evidently"); and How will you raise your kids? ("In a well-run state institution')

I answered a question about makeup (which is there so guys can say they only like women who wear "natural" makeup, and so women can lie and say they don't wear any at all). I responded yes to a string of questions on Ayn's likes (I like movies! I like to read. I like to travel. I'm into making stuff (Crafts / Woodworking / false citations and the information in my book.) But when we got to "Are you ticklish?" I decided this was getting entirely too intrusive, even for a diva like Ayn, and quit.

Therefore, I'm sorry but I can't report on the profiles of the other members of Conservative Matchmaker.com. I will never know if I (or rather, Ayn) would have found true love there. I wasn't able to chat with the one active member of Conservative Matchmaker who was online. But I will, of course, continue to pray that they persevere.

And that's Love, Conservative Style!

Tomorrow I'll conclude my mission report with a recap of the National Review Online's plan for kids, and a look at the site with the best ads anywhere: Newsmax!

But for now, let me leave you with a couple of quotes from the Newsmax pundits.

First, here's Jim Quinn with Rush Limbaugh and the Grandmother Test

So, let me ask you a question: How do you think Rush's view of the importation, distribution and use of recreational drugs differs from the view held by your grandmother? You know, the one who broke her hip and got strung out on her pain meds. I'd dare say not very much. So, is your grandmother a hypocrite too? Well, is she?

And next, here's John LeBoutillier, recounting the inspirational message Rush Called to Higher Purpose (calm down, everyone--he's NOT DEAD):

Rush Limbaugh has been 'called' by God to serve a much higher purpose than educating the American public about the failures of Big Government Liberalism.  Now Rush's job will be to lead by example a new Campaign Against Prescription Drug Addiction. [snip] Instead of his listeners calling Rush each weekday, this time God has 'called' this radio genius to a higher cause. 

And while I am sincerely glad to hear that God has told Rush to shut up about Big Government Liberalism, and to instead lead by example a campaign against prescription drug addiction, I do have to say that "God called Rush to get addicted to pain killers" is a certainly a rationalization I never would have thought of.

And Jim, my grandmother is not a hypocrite. For even if she had gotten "strung-out on her pain meds" (which seems unlikely, since she didn't like taking drugs, even when dying of a painful infection), she was a very kind-hearted person who never said anything bad about anyone, and certainly never presumed to judge them. I hope this restores your faith in grandmothers.

Star Chamberpot

via

via