"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
…but only for Harvey‘s “Carnival of the Pajamas.”
But since I don’t ever wear pajamas, here’s a recent photo. I move so quickly and so often (sometimes it’s a matter of life and death, you know) that it was difficult for the photographer who caught me in a candid pose to get a clear pic. That’s life… 
Work it out.
OK, this is one of those offline conversations that I’ve decided to bring online, in some form. A not-so-petty gripe about the illiterati in the Mass Media Podpeoples’ Army who “inform” much of popular culture. I just re-read that, and I misspoke. It’s not so much that there seem to be illiterati in the MMPA as that the MMPA seems to be composed primarily of illiterati and their near cousins, the sub-literate.
Here’s one (of many) small, but typical example. You recall the kerfuffle some short while ago about Dick Cheney’s plain-spoken confrontation with Patrick Lehey on the Senate floor. A google search reveals that references recorded online among the MMPA label Cheney’s use of a word as “profanity” (often coupled with “cursing”) nearly three times more than as “vulgarity”. Common persons are easily misled by such sub-literate use of words.
Shame on the MMPA!
The word (and phrase) Cheney used were plainly not “profane”. In no way was Cheney’s comment blasphemous or disrespectful toward God or any religious symbol or person, unless MMP were to consider Lehey’s person to be holy, an object worthy of worship and religious devotion.
(Well, since they are the MMPA and Lehey is a [spit!] damned* loony left liberal moonbat politician, perhaps he is an object of their religious devotion. More on that later… )
No, the (rather small) minority who referred to Cheney’s comment as vulgar were more accurate. Sure, one of the words—the operative word that gave offense to some—could even in some usages be considered obscene. In the construction and context in which Cheney used it, it was hardly intended titilate, nor did it do so, therefore, of course, we can say it was not an obscenity, but clearly a vulgarity. (Of course, since it may have given a sexual thrill to some of the MMPA, because of their perverse nature, some post-relativistic deconstructionist idiot academician might be able to assert obscenity, but as everyone knows, they are all too idiotic to even consider.)
Still, most of the MMP seem unable to make distinctions between profanity, obscenity and vulgarity, though to anyone who stops for even a moment to think (assuming it is within their abilities to do so) can plainly see there are clear demarcations between these three classes of speech often considered impolite and even offensive. Profanity, defaming or disrespectful speech concerning that which is holy, is—or ought to be, IMO—always offensive. And in many cases, I can agree that both obscenity and vulgarity can indeed be impolite and offensive—even most, if not all, cases of obscenity. But when plain, even vulgar, speech is appropriate—as in Dick Cheney’s comment to the offensive, rude, disingenuous and altogether disgusting Lehey—then decent people will not be offended.
Lehey, of course, ought to have been offended. That was the (righteous) intent of Dick Cheney’s comment. And so ought it ever be that creeps like Lehey be offended, always and in all things, by ordinary people speaking plainly.
The MMPA, of course, can’t even classify vulgarity as such. To them, plain speech indicating offense with their object of worship—whichever LLM politician or cause or other LLM idiot that might be—is profanity, a verbal attack on something they consider holy.
Or else it is just that they are too stupid to be able to differentiate between the vulgar and the profane. (The obscene they hold a patent to, of course.)
*Note: my construction “damned loony left liberal moonbat politician” was not a profanity. I believe that an examination of Lehey’s positions, actions and words support a theological assessment that he very likely has damned himself. That being the case, I assert that, although my assessment is merely the expression of an opinion and decidedly not a condemnatory judgement (such judgement Lehey will face when he finally does face his Maker), my use of “damned” in that case shows a respect for the Subject who is worthy of true veneration. That is the antithesis of profanity.
Nor is my construction vulgar: it is my considered theological opinion, and the word “damned” is an accurate word to use in such a context.
Obscenity? If anyone is titilated by the thought of Lehey’s damnation, then any such person(s) is/are sick and perverted indeed, and it is their perversion, not my use of words that is obscene.
I’m tired.
(But I am NOT wearing a black negligee… )
Work it out.
If it’s too obscure, try google.
…snark, that is. This, of course. “The Zen of Autumn: Seven haiku Poems Based on the Season’s Top Hollywood Movies.”
An example:
Alexander Oliver Stone’s saga of the young warrior king, with Colin Farrell.