Since there isn’t quite a 100% overlap in the readership of this site and the readership of my own site (thank god), a few of you fruits might not be aware that I’m mentioned in this month’s issue of Playboy. I’ve been meaning to mention it for the past few weeks now, but these days I’m as busy as I am lazy.
It’s the December issue, and I copped mine a few weeks ago, so I’m not sure how long it’s gonna remain on newsstands – er, in a plastic bag behind the counter at 7/11 or whatever. So if you’re so interested, you might wanna hop on that sooner than later.
It’s the one with Kim Kardashian on the cover, so I imagine many of you might be interested in picking one up just to spend a little quality time with her photos. (Even though they’ve been circulating on the Internets for weeks now.) I was all amped to check them out myself, only to be underwhelmed when I finally did. Not unlike when I saw that pr0n she did with Ray J.
In other pictures I’ve seen of her, with her clothes on, her ass appeared to be ridonkulous, but here it isn’t all that impressive, either in terms of size or the overall shape of it. Her cans are nice and large, just the way I like them. But in the one or two shots where you can kinda see them (this was also an issue in her pr0n), they appear to be kinda chubby and misshapen.
So that was kind of a bust, no pun intended. The actual centerfold this month has maybe the most perfect body I’ve seen on a woman in a minute (though I’m sure many of you fruits would beg to differ), albeit obviously due in part to advances in modern medicine. But even she looks a little bit Russian in the face. I wouldn’t kick her out of my bed for crackers; I’m just saying.
I’ve yet to read most of the rest of it, and I probably never will, but it looks like there might be some interesting stuff in it. There’s an interview with Bill Richardson, the Mexican (-ish) guy who might still be running for president. And there’s an excerpt from the new book by Norman Mailer, who died around the same time as Kanye West’s mother, though not from complications due to plastic surgery.
Of course I had to read the part where I was actually mentioned. I’m quoted in a story called “The White to Bear Arms,” about how gun control legislation is mostly intended to disarm black people. The author is a guy named Joe Bageant, who recently wrote a book called Deer Hunting with Jesus.
The point he makes in the story is that gun control legislation was only introduced in the first place to restrict black people’s access to guns, and that it’s mostly only had the effect of helping build the NRA into the ridonkulous political force that it is today. Which I could pretty much agree with.
He goes on to suggest that black people might benefit from an increased rate of gun ownership, which I’m not as sure I agree with. I mean, I don’t doubt that a Sean Taylor or somebody would have benefited from having some heat on him when he really needed it. But giving us all more guns doesn’t really get at the root of the problem, now does it?
The story I’m quoted in is attached to another story, by a guy named Ishmael Reed, about the crime problem in Oakland, California. In particular, it touches on the incident a few months ago in which a prominent black journalist was gunned down in the street by some black Muslim thugs who were upset over a story he was writing about them, which I wrote about here at the time.
The Reed story, called “Assisted Homicide in Oakland,” doesn’t go so far as to advocate vigilantism per se, but it does describe a couple of incidents in which citizens went all Clint Eastwood on a mofo. And it suggests that politicians and the police could give a rat’s ass one way or the other, provided no one important gets killed.
What do you fruits think? Should more black folks pack heat? As I mentioned the other day, I don’t really sweat getting robbed or shot, but I wonder what I would do if I was unfortunate enough to live in one of these awful war zones of a ghetto.