Sunday, December 12, 2010

Censuring Online Comstockery

It’s time Americans denounce the content policies of social networks, forums and other online companies who censor user content, often deleting user’s entire accounts and their past history, with little or no warning.

As online behemoths ubiquitously weave themselves ever more into all the ways we communicate —
even partnering user’s access with other sites—  will we, or even our government under existing laws, have the ability to oppose corporate online policing, most specifically for that most nuanced and largely constitutionally unprotected category of speech—that of our sex?

This question is posed on a sexual free speech anniversary of sorts. The term “comstockery” first appeared in a NY Times editorial 115 years ago today on 12/12/1895 .  It plead the case for giving financial donations to help free an imprisoned bookshop owner arrested under the Comstock censorship Act, his family left without means to support themselves, unable to pay his fine. Archival evidence has yet to confirm that the term was actually coined by the New York Times editorial staff. ( The playwright George Bernard Shaw’s quote, “Comstockery is the world’s standing joke at the expense of the United States,” in his 1905 response to a New York Times reporter, is more famously associated with the word .) But it does appear that the editorial was the first time the word reached a wide print audience.

William L. Clements Library, University Michigan
Presumably the coining of “comstockery” employed an intonation of “mockery” of the law, perhaps with secondary metaphor of the Puritan’s pillory “stocks,” since those convicted under Comstock were imprisoned and publicly humiliated. Named after the impassioned New York do-gooder Anthony Comstock, who single handedly, albeit with blessings of New York’s J.P. Morgan and Samuel Colgate, inspired Congress to pass his law with little less than a day’s debate, the Comstock Act of 1873 effectively became the granddaddy of American censorship laws. It spawned a menagerie of Little Comstock Acts throughout the states in the late 19th century, setting precedence for birthing current censorship laws and supreme court decisions to our present day.

In our own blasé, R-rated “sex sells” culture, most all of us— many not so happily— assume that the sexual revolution had been won in the 60s . Sexual politics of important lifestyle concerns--gay rights, abortion, discrimination and sex education, rage on. But we’ve won the right to titillate; so long as private business allows.

The Gilded Age’s turn- of- the- century brand of censorship was largely governmentally directed. Our own federal laws (portions of Comstock are still on the books) and state censorship still restrict our sexual expressions in everything from sex toys to attempts to levy taxes on mainstream book sellers for books that might have sexual content.

But the greater threat is that of business policies that shape our public discourse, in large part censoring adults under the auspices of child protection.

Sexual accountability and responsibility do depend upon balancing freedoms with protections.

Appropriate-age education of children is indeed a huge societal concern.

But the issue of censoring adults lies between the intercourse of individual and business constitutional rights of speech (including rights to restrict) within the Supreme Court’s compromise decision of empowering local “community standards,” while leaving undefined what constitutes an online “public square.”

That’s because the dirty little paradox is that American’s sexual speech is not explicitly protected under the First Amendment, and therefore has no one superseding law to protect it. What is obscene or just offensive, what has cultural value or is purely prurient? A sample ride between Supreme Court Justice’s statements about private and public sexual expression shows the dilemma.

Stewart— “I know it when I see it;”
Frankfurter— (the Government may not) "reduce the adult population . . . to . . . only what is fit for children.”
Stevens— “…the level of discourse reaching a mailbox simply cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox."
Kennedy— “…emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.”
Scalia’s dissent to Kennedy’s majority opinion— “It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.”
Ironically, it might be the legal victories of porn, that also helped access but hurt the greater freedoms of sexual education and the arts. Compelled by its commercial thrust to adopt a euphemistically designated “adult” label, the term became code not just for porn but for all sexual content, with the connotation that “adult,” and therefore its audience, were synonymously an indulgence in accessible yet “naughty” taboo.

Online companies censor for business convenience, not moral conviction.

The industry standardized TOS defaults lump the prohibition of sexual content (adult, obscene, offensive, nudity, porn) in the same breath as hate language. Haphazard policies like Yahoo Groups allow the word “sexuality” for group names, but prevent a group to be created if it uses the unadulterated word “sex.” The majority of e-commerce and hosting companies restrict sexual content and commerce. And online social networks and forums often delete a person’s profile, if just one offended person clicks a link to the site’s TOS employee.

Notably, it just took one person, Anthony Comstock to effect an entire country’s restrictions on arts, literature and family planning.  

The Biblical Greek gnosis and Hebrew yada ( as in Elaine’s “yada-yada” Seinfeld skit) describe a general “knowledge from experience,” and in particular “sexual knowing.” Sex creates us; we are born ready-made with our sexual gender. Strip away all your earthly possessions, be in the midst of poverty or war, you still have your sex. “Family Values” “Sex Positive” and “Adult,” have all been hijacked by groups who advocate their sexual partisanship. Not one of us should disallow the ongoing sharing of sexual knowledge, most especially our much hailed democratic new media.

If social networks are concerned with protecting children, they are technically capable of creating alternatives to censorship. Opt-in family versions of their sites would allow G-Rated only content without infringing on the rest of us.                                                                          
Filter options like Google’s Safe Search already provide parents, and any adult who prefers not to view certain content, user choice. Blogger, prompts blog creators with the choice to define their site for those over 18 years old, though it’s somewhat controversial since it limits search optimization,

The wisdom of crowds, as an off branch of community standards, do have some merit. Instituting broad panels of diversely educated adults to reflect the Internet’s reach would be a more responsible alternative to lone corporate censoring.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court should address whether mammoth online corporations constitute public squares.

And most importantly, Congress needs to include sexual speech under First Amendment protections. Sexual speech that is primarily hate, abusive or spam should be addressed under those broader categories.

IT IS TIME that America's democracy sexually matures; whose citizens understand the significance that our sexual knowledge is diverse, bound to our humanity and inclusive of the very definition of democracy itself.

Or as G.B. Shaw ended his 1905 letter, “ I do not say that my books and plays cannot do harm to weak or dishonest people. They can, and probably do. But if the American character cannot stand that fire
 even at the earliest age at which it is readable or intelligible, there is no future for America.”

Friday, October 08, 2010

The dangerous child play of Facebook

For a long year now, I've wanted to post again to this blog. Yet, my lack of infrastructures--- the continual shift and unknowing of not having my own home for over 5 years, the viral attacks on three of my websites in the summer of '09 ( making them unusable in early '10 and still not repaired), a long-time house cleaning client I've needed to sue for both monies owed me and her sudden reckless attack on my ethics and character, and all the many other day to day family and work and health and money interruptions that each and every one of us faces in different degrees, that unsettle our ways--- have left me exhausted and often too hopeless and unconfident to bother to write, no matter the importance of the cause.

So, here, something as trivial as Facebook has me writing in the wee early hours of the morning. I posted this image from our book III (THREE): The Fantasy and Experience of Threesome Sex a few days ago to my Crystal Haidl Facebook profile, with a statement that this was one of the few images from our book that showed neither breast, nor derriere, nor private parts.

A book that had to be printed outside of the US because small US print shops told me they were afraid of their other clients, or their employees, being upset with the content.  A book that was censored by PayPal (reinstated after 4 years and a few hour long phone calls with their attorneys.) A book that had endured a 4 year battle with one of our own photographers, who lied to me, even in writing, but was able to navigate the legal system, forcing me into a settlement , or else, to endure the costs and time of an ongoing court battle.

[Note-- the image here is from one of our other wonderful photographers, who allowed us use rights to promote the book.  ] And this image is in the book that the Library of Congress accepted in its General Collections, just weeks before the annual American Library's Association's national Banned Books Week. Go check it out next time you're in DC.

Over the past few days,  about a half-dozen FB friends posted their approval of the above image on my wall.  No one was crude; a couple of  variations of "Wow"'  and one very foretelling comment referenced Bill Clinton's famous definition of "is,is" for what is sex and what is not.

Then, at 3:27 AM yesterday morning FB sent an email to me entitled "Facebook Warning. " Turns out, when I logged into my profile around 8 AM that what Facbook calls a Warning seems to be Facebook-speak for "Your account is disabled."

The email stated that I uploaded a photo that violates their terms of service, and this photo has been removed.  Facebook FAQ also states on their site that they can not give any identifying information about the image that was removed due to "security" issues. Was there a possible smart bomb code embedded in our photo? Oh, my!

FB goes on to say that "These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children who use the site."
SO, I ask you, let's assume there's a 98% chance that the photo above is the REMOVED image.  No other images, except for a RIP to my old truck and few of a garden were posted recently.(ahha, birds and bees do it with the garden, and all that sexual pollination... I know, I know. You should see the squirrels and their nuts and hear the sea gulls, too! )
But really, take another look at this picture    --->  

Pretend you are 6 years old. What would you, an innocent child imagine?
A white woman with long hair and a black man with a tattoo are hugging, and they aren't wearing any clothes. Oh, and a tall white man is busy taking a shower in the background, and he doesn't see them. So, a child might ask, why are they hugging in the bathroom? Why is the man holding the lady's leg up? Is she hurt? Is he helping her to use the potty? Is he crying on her shoulder?

Sex would not be the question.

Isn't it only a person who already understands the range of physical intimacies that humans have with each other who would be able to see the suggestion of the image? There is no anatomical body part that alludes to something forbidden. There is no facial expression showing orgiastic delight. The bodies are not in throws of passionate tension. Their pelvises are not in a bump and grind. They are relaxed. They are beginning an embrace, even slightly clumsily one could say; he is helping her and she is leaning on his suport.

My FB images protections had been set so that only friends and their friends could view them. And FB's rules disallow any child under the age of 13 to have a FB account. A 13 year old, hopefully knows about the basics of sexuality. Yes, he or she would know that the image was evoking a sensual moment. They'd  certainly be curious. And maybe bored.

If a youth truly wants to see sex this image is a poor choice. A click of the remote, a glimpse at the supermarket check out, or perusing a plethora of other online options would show them the get-down- and dirty in seconds. If Facebook was truly concerned about kids, it would create a Facebook Youth opt-in, a site for kids and their families with features specific for those families that want g-rated content.

It is the media and the religious charlatans, and our focused obsessions with titillation and the commericalization of sex, rather than seeing the beauty of its complexities, of its sensualities, which makes this type of image subject to Facebook's terms of removal. (Like hate and violence, that the word sex is often grouped with, sexuality and its perceptions are considered social network aka societal contraband.)

How potent your sex is!

Meanwhile, as Facebook shouts "Warning " when they really mean "Disabled," which is the more abusive to you?  A multi-billion dollar company that fails to be be clear with its words, that refuses to allow time-dated information or vague description of the image, so that the person can possibly defend what they posted,  or is it the offense of an image that shows the side views of two people, without clothes, in embrace?

Personally, I'd rather the children and young teens that I know, and my future grand children and extended relatives, live in a world where they know adults protect them with sexual guidance and an ethics of honesty, over corporate-faux moralistic protectionism that in reality continues the charade of society hiding truths.

What about you?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

SexDayUSA Poster (Comstockery!)

This poster is one small step for sex; America's Sexuality Day aims to be one huge step for human-kind.

As always, you website developers out there are needed!

Off to The National Association of Broadcaster's @NABradioshow to spread some sexual free speech around the Philly convention airwaves.

The NAB is co-sponsoring National Freedom of Speech Week , October 19-25 and Banned Books' Week starts September 26- October 3.

Let Freedom Ring.

Friday, June 19, 2009

"Misguided." My First Hate Commentator and Why I'm Responding

(C) Kurt Dietrich

Q: Wanna know what lights my fire? (that is my urge to write?)

A: Misguided.

It's a week shy of two years since my last post. I've been close to writing on the blog more than a few times during this year. The ember that prompted me today? -- a moderation alert in my in-box for an anonymous comment about the June '07 "Viagra and Oysters" post. Better comment two years after a post than "forever hold your piece?"

"Misguided." That one word is the unsigned comment's last sentence. I'm taking poetic liberty to interpret that as the intended identifier, a symbolically reflective moniker for the commenter.

At the most, it's my way of "back at you" for forgetting to write his or her name.

Why would I be so judgemental? More importantly, why should you care?

While Misguided's comment is not spam-based, her/his intent was not to address the post's content, either. No mention of the Viagra, the oysters, or the somewhat related sausage or pizza pie (Am I getting you hungry?) Instead the opinion expressed had everything to do with arrogance and ignorance -- a survey of biased half-truths about my personal online presence, veiled as self-congratulatory moral discourse, from a person whose language use seems to have had the benefit of education, yet visibly displays a lack of wisdom and outreach.

[Misguided's comment and my response are below.]

So what? Sticks-and-stones, a few barbs--just get over it?

Admittedly, I was excited to aim a few blows at this unknown person's shoddy line of thinking. The first official comment so blatantly against me. I've finally made it.. somewhere.

But there is a larger picture-- in the aggregate do comments like this ferment a culture of narcissim and hate? What if the person is someone of influence who is able to shape perceptions among many? What if the comment was not aimed at me, as it decidedly was, but instead intent on someone or something of major political importance? What if Misguided really thinks their logical process is flawless? Happens everyday, right?

Should it?

Is silence golden (turn the other cheek) or is the silence in not correcting false statements actually dangerous to societal knowledge? Should we as a society demand civic rules of debate when we opine for, or against, something? Should we completely disregard the small gems of truth when someone with the title, Supreme Leader, decrees after days of mob demonstration, that politicians should not have name-called each other during the debate? What if the name calling is true? Or when it's not, and when it's in the US, as it frequently happens. To the victors, the spoils?

Here's the Missguided's exchange below. Think Misguided will reply to my reply?

Tweet me @crystalhaidl @SexDayUSA or comment below.

Misguided's Comment:

What a wonderful thing you are doing for the standing
of women in society. Promoting further objectification and degradation of women under the guise of sexual liberation. And doing an interview in Hustler magazine is CERTAINLY not antithetical to your cause. pleeeaazse. Clearly you have
inhaled too many fumes from the toliet cleaners you use. Misguided.
Friday, June 19, 2009 2:46:00 AM

My Response:

Dear Anonymous aka Misguided,

First let me thank you for your opening compliment. In a gesture of appreciation, here is my Ms. America speech-- "I only hope that the attempts for all my projects-- along with the works of millions of others-- do benefit open discourse and understanding for women and men, and children, and not just for American democracy, but for a greater acceptance of the uniqueness and beauty within individuals across the world."

This is my Groucho version- "Of course, I openly advocate not just for standing, as you mentioned, but for sitting, sleeping, pretty much any flexible position a person chooses for themselves, as well. (So long as it doesn't impede another individual's space at that moment.)"

Now, that the gratitudes are proclaimed, let's roll up our sleeves, and get to work. Misplaced, you seem to have a grasp of language-- Yes, those big words -- "objectification", "degradation" and"antithetical" give you away-- so, I feel rather comfortable chastizing you a tad. (First suggestion: you might want to brush up on punctuation skills. Shouldn't we all? Using a period for incomplete sentences not only goes against all that diagramming your fourth grade teacher had you exercise, but makes it appear that you yourself think that your thoughts are complete, when they are in fact, merely clauses. You do realize your thoughts are incomplete?)

Transparency and Accountability-- it goes both ways. If this were a newspaper you'd have to at least state "-Concerned Citizen, from xyz, state." (Sidebar-- I once noticed a gentleman I was doing some PR for at a conference was in a state of xyz. He thanked me for saving him from embarrassment during the event. He didn't hire us again. Moral of the story: state your real state, there are 50 to choose from. ) Perhaps, you're happy that print is going the way of the dodo bird. However, even extinct practices have merit, and stating your identity is well, only fair and so mature, especially when you decide to throw insults. If you were applauding me, for instance, I'd want to know who you were, too. Maybe send you flowers or more likely one of those lame Facebook apps. Ohh, are you a FB friend? Sorry, but I might want to de-friend you.

But wait, could that be it ....? Awwwww, are you ashamed of your identity, Misguided, or of your misguided past? Twelve-step program? There's an even easier solution . I'll hold your hand - it's called being open to researching facts, double checking, even triple checking your sources, too. The benefit is that it's civilly responsible,too.

For example--your odd pairing of Hustler and Housecleaning-- you seem to have been doing some selective googling about me under the letter "H". Might I suggest, you should have researched all the way to "Z"? Did you find anything good under "A"? Oh, please do let me know, if you did. All kidding aside, the world is so full of prejudiced half-slander. What goes for world issues, should also go for comments that target an individual. Agreed? You don't want to be responsible for perpetuating lies, that you yourself thought were true, but you didn't actually bother to go the next step? What would the good lord say when you got to the pearly gates?

So, here are some facts for your soul-search--

Hustler-- It was an article that I was paid $700 for, not an interview, as you suggest. For a really fun and educational interview that you might want to pick up a February '04 copy of Penthouse Forum.

Hustler censored/rewrote my work to meet their orientation. Here's a link to one post which addresses this issue. I begrudgingly agreed on the complete rewrite on behalf of marketing my book-- and the 30 some people I owed money to and were dependent upon sales; we sold one copy. Credibility? Hundreds of noted journalists have written for the magazine. I disagree with much of its content, as I do Playboy. But then are the tawdry celeb magazines displayed in our faces at the grocery lines, any more beneficial to societal values? Even so if Hustler would agree to non-censorship of my writing, I'd do it again, maybe even pose nude-- on my terms. Got that Hustler? How about marking my AARP status eligibility in '10?

Housecleaning and Toilets-- I use Comet brand primarily; Mixed properly with water, it would be quite unusual to accidentally inhale--and I don't snort, in case you're wanting that on the record. Funny that you specifically mention "toilet" -- one of the topics I want to explore on Huffington is about people not being aware of the literal waste they leave around the ring (hint: it's not just the men.) It's a wonderful allegory for the crap we all leave behind without thought.

Some Potty FAQ: Did you know there is a World Toilet Day, educating especially the Third World regarding the importance of hygiene and the need for accessible, functional toilets? You can attend the conference in Singapore, December 2, 2009. BTW, when's the last time you scrubbed a toilet?

Gandhi famously said his toilet was his "temple" and he suggested that everyone-- no matter caste or acheive-ment-- should clean their own.


And finally, regarding your incomplete sentence alleging that I "objectify" and"degrade" women under the "guise of sexual liberation"-- uhh, not sure what your educational/ religious/political beliefs stem from, but substantiate the how, where, when, and what. It's OK if you don't like any of my views, but from what factual premise are you coming from?

Honestly, me thinks, dear Misguided that you've been throwing a pile of feces in public space. Have you, by chance been breathing in too many of your own and/or other's pottys' fumes? Evidence? It's obviously coming out of your mouth. For that, Listerine, might camouflage, but the true cure, the ethically accountable one is your digestion---intake less of that nutriciously deficient pulp fiction you've been eating; ensure you consume wholesome fiber.

And clean your own toilet, at least weekly; more when there's back-splash.

Saturday, June 30, 2007

On the Verge

nakedsexpolitics (NSP)
will be evolving in a few weeks to include more reader participation--a daily gauge of YOUR sex life-- guest columnists, podcast (dare I fantasize) and better links and categorization of posts-- so you can find the political/ family/highly sexual/outright silly. If you'd like to be a guest columnist, please email or comment below about how your particular political/ sexual "posturing" will add zesty provocation.

>> image, -c 2006; halves of me
"steering" and "anchored on" the symbolic "verge",
standing on a Philly roof top, plane passing by left hip >>
--------------- ------------------ - -------------------
Wordplay is almost as exciting as sexual play-- combining the two together can be quite smoldering. So, when the word "verge" seemed to mantra my shadow here in LA, I was tickled to discover--in all the right intellectual and sensory places--that defined "verge" with a few personally serendipitous paradoxes--- the penis, the tenant's staff of feudality, possessing leadership, and the threshold/limits/ radius/slant/merging of possibilities. origin,Latin, old french- rod,ring,strip

cocky satisfaction for the reborn virgin head

1) Virge----- a wand; abbreviation for virgin ['s archaic
spelling, though the "virgin" usage is my loose interpretation]
2) Verge -- Earliest attested sense in Eng. is now-obsolete meaning "male
member, penis" (c.1400); male organ of copulation in certain invertebrates

I haven't had real sex for over 8 months, becoming officially as shy about indulging as I am hungry. Will I be hurt/not respected with the next encounter? Will he be any good? Will our styles match? An available sex life is not a thing to waste.

Over the past few weeks I've expectedly encountered my ex-live in-boyfriend at a conference, bumped coyly into a still gorgeous, yet tired-looking, decade-ago one-night-stand at a mutual friend's party, miraculously avoided even the sight of my ex-husband, twice, during his family's events. I've kissed and embraced seven male friends newly acquainted (one in Philly) and shared various degrees of intimate touch with 2 caring, long-known gentlemanly pals. I've talked with a man from my past by phone-- who for unknown reasons seems always so disinterested (even when he originally appeared to be attracted to me), and I've confronted, by voice message, another deep-down good guy, who recklessly told me it was "unbecoming" of my personality to not want to bed with him. (he kind of, sorta, apologized in his reply vm)

Monogamous, as I've always yearned, nonetheless, each new nuance adds to my complicated lexicon of the primal male essence. The penis, revered and often a protective camouflage to its owner's heart, is omnipresent, whether assertive or quieted for me. Incredible, as it is bewildering, is this many destinationed voyage into man, that I don't remember ever seeking.

On the verge of -- when the head of the cock almost touches the inner lips, the long/short seconds of anticipated tightening,opening, pulsing, absorbing into the simultaneous, separately experienced merge of the familiar/unknown two.

steering the scepter of almosts
3)Verge- the bishop's staff; a scepter of authority; a stick held in the
hand of a person swearing fealty to a feudal lord on being admitted
as a tenant; the spindle of a balance wheel in a clock; the grassy
border along a road; the shaft of a column
4) Verge- edge,rim or margin; limited room or scope; to slope or tend
toward; to come close to or be in transition to some state, quality, etc.
--on the (con)verge(ance) of:

  • integration--success/blending of UnconventionalWorks-- political- American Dinner, community- DayOne365, socio-erotic- Three (III)
  • persuasion-- getting renewed radio coverage; landing interactivity; launching resolutions; making and forgiving amends; wrapping men around my finger (nah.. that last one's not in me)
  • stability - homelessness vs renters rights advocacy vs finding a rental
  • courage to write professionally vs paid work as a domestic floor scrubbing goddess
  • feeling sensual and feminine vs downtrodden
  • my leadership, and also of giving fealty, only as deserved
  • intimacy-- friendship and family to love--bike rides to "being there" to sex
  • perseverance and patience and support
  • womanhood--finally, empowerment while maintaining the openness of the girl within
  • re-cyclo-evolutionary, what was, is, to be .. or else is something, somewhere, anyway

Woman On the Verge of Getting It On (and enjoying taking it off...when she so chooses)

Friday, June 01, 2007

Full Moon Oyster Viagra

Oysters weren’t the original pick for tonight’s tie-in to yesterday’s double blue-moon ’07 post. (Did you catch the smiley faced buns?) Sure, there’s a preponderance of Full Moon Oyster restaurants and there’s the unknown reason why Blue Öyster Cult (Moon Crazy), was umlauted and named “after a poetry collection about aliens who secretly guide Earth's history,” but what’s making the news today are oysters infused with Viagra.

A misguided bunch of Australian oyster farmer have been doing their capitalist best by patenting their Viagra infused oyster tanks. A marketing exec partnered the idea with them after he sprinkled crushed Viagra on his oyster dinner for a double stiffy delight (we can only assume). The oysters don’t need it—their “soft”-bodies can get it on quite naturally, in hermaphroditic sperm and egg spray fests, thank you—but George May and team are fondling themselves over the profitably uplifting double-entendre it could be for consumers to get their “spoon full of oyster to help the medicine go down”... and up. The Australian NSW food authority said license would not be given to sell the oysters in Australia. But the farmers feel it would have a huge (unregulated) Asian market. Patented under the name ViagraOysters, Pfizer is planning to sue for a name change.

On the other side of aphrodisiacs in the news today, 25% of Italians surveyed would choose a zesty salami and a hearty cheese to get their sex juices flowing.
One favorite is Nduja, a fiery ( though none too pretty, pictured at right )
salami from Calabria, that especially is known to increase blood flow.
The article doesn’t state how or when the salami is best pleasured…

As for the man on the moon's influence on Italian cheese, like the
song goes--
when the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that’s amore

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Blue Moon Commitment

It's the last day in May, with an hour to go EDT, and it dawned on me that not a single post was made the entire month--- that after last May's unbroken NSP monthly record of seven entries, amazingly with 2 sets of back-to-back days ( including scintilating topics of genuflection and ecologically masturbating trees, no less).

Since tonight's full moon is the second of the month for the Western hemisphere and the first full moon of two in June for The Eastern hemisphere, I'm making a once-in a-blue-moon commitment to

post 2 days in a row , tonight and tomorrow, between moon months.
That gives you 2 days to commit to something "luna", too --no matter which hemisphere(s) you glow, shine,
walk and beam. Til tomorrow (enjoy the cheese).