My book report is on P. J. O'Rourke's book, Parliament of Whores.  It is
a really neat book.  I liked it a whole lot because the stuff that he
had to say was real interesting and it sounded real cool, kind of like
James Dean, but wearing a suit or something.  
	The absolute best thing about_Parliament of Whores_is the title,
because it has the word "whore" in it.  When I grow up, I want to write
a book with the word "whore" it the title.  What is even better
about_Parliament of Whores_is I get to write the word "whore" throughout
my whole book report and nobody can get angry and I can't get in
trouble. _Parliament of Whores_also has a picture of P. J. O'Rourke on
the cover, and he looks cool, like the kind of guy who would write a
book with a name with "Whore" in it like Parliament of Whores.  P. J.
O'Rourke used to be in Washington D.C. but now he is married to a
Democrat.  He is also a really good writer because he mentions stuff
that real people can understand; like "OUR GOVERNMENT: WHAT THE FUCK DO
THEY DO ALL DAY, AND WHY DOES IT COST SO GODDAMNED MUCH MONEY?"(Page xiv
in O'Rourke's_Parliament of Whores_)  This is real good writing because
people can understand it and it is why I licked the book. [sic] he uses
all kinds references that make stuff easy to understand.
		Like he says:

The First Amendment forbids any law "abridging the freedom
of speech." It doesn't say, "except for commercials on
children's television" or "unless somebody says 'cunt' in a
rap song or 'chick on a college campus."(Page 11 in
O'Rourke's _Parliament of Whores_)

	And he also talks about how he used to look through the arm-holes
of girls shirts to see their bras.  This guys is really cool.  The book
is mostly about saying lots of government stuff that I didn't
understand, which is okay because it isn't important I think, and then
ending a big thing of government words with a word like "cunt" at the
end, which makes me laugh so hard, I feel like I'm going to hurt my self
or mess my pants. _Parliament of Whores_ was really a lot of fun because
it has stuff like I just said about and it also has stuff in it like
"you'll be farting through silk" ( Page 5 in O'Rourke's _Parliament of
Whores_)  
	But, to truly appreciate the impact and tonal variety of the book,
_Parliament of Whores_, You have to examine and look at and read through
the stuff of other people who said stuff about it.  It is especially
important to make really sure that the people whose stuff you quote from
are more famous than you.  This insures that the stuff they say is
important because the more famous people are the more important is the
stuff they say.  So this means I am going to quote a lot of people to
show how much I know about_Parliament of Whores_through the eyes of past
generations, and stuff.  Plato was a big fan of O'Rourke's works, but
his favorite book of his by far was _Parliament of Whores_, this is easy
to see because he says:

My greatest influences were Socrates and P. J. O'Rourke and
I used lots of ideas from_Parliament of Whores_in this book
but none of it is plagiarized, so get off my back you ugly,
barefoot old loon.( Page 2 in Plato's _Republic_)

	and in The Symposium he states:  "But above all loves is the love
I have for P. J. O'Rourke... and Milk Duds."(Page 7 in Plato's _The
Symposium_)  Plato's respect for the views put forth in_Parliament of
Whores_went on to influence later thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, St.
Augustine, Hegel, Foucault, and Bob Dylan.(Paraphrased from page vi in
_The Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll_)  
	Although it is not widely known, the largest contributing source
to the differences between Kantian and Hegelian philosophies is
O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores.  The center of the book, from a German
Idealist perspective is the line: "...Ņaiming our ICBMs at Sally Jessy
Raphael, for example..." (Page 60 in O'Rourke's_Parliament of Whores_) 
According to a Kantian interpretation of this, the "aiming of our ICBMs
at Sally" is a Categorical Imperative, that it is a priori knowledge
provable beyond induction, and that O'Rourke, being a thing in himself, 
was a conservative schmuck.  Hegelian philosophy sees O'Rourke's
statement as "... a festering pile of bug-festooned dogshit..."(Page 4
in Hegel's _Phenomenology of Spirit_)  Heidegger condemned O'Rourke's
entire opus as being 

...entirely too penetrable, frequently using words under
four letters and using almost no obscure, abstruse or
unnecessarily long words...(Page 2 of Heidegger's _Being and
Time_)

with

...prose so simple that the layman can understand it, and no
educated man would have to re-read any of it to extract any
obfuscated meanings.(IBID)

	It wasn't until the advent of the twentieth century, with
intellectuals that could analyze and deconstruct the absolute shit out
of anything from Borge's Labyrinths to a Snicker's wrapper, that the
true depths of O'Rourke's_Parliament of Whores_were truly explored. 
Foucault's Madness and Civilization was printed in the exact same
typeface as_Parliament of Whores_and was 299 pages versus the 233 pages
of Parliament of Whores.  The difference between these two numbers gives
us the age that Foucault was when he celebrated his 66th birthday.  In
light of these revelations, it is hard not to see that Foucault's true
meaning when he says:  "...what will be the great line of cleavage in
the Western experience of madness."(Page 13 in Foucault's _Madness and
Civilization_) is that he hopes, no prays, that the current year's
fashions will sport a much lower neckline (of course implying a turgidly
high hemline) and if they don't, he will go mad.
	Of course it goes without saying that, as analysis has claimed to
prove, during and since Foucault, that as he wrote this it was not the
author speaking in those pages, but the time and civilization he was
living in speaking through him, just as Elvis speaks through Madam Zoie. 
In accordance, Derrida's apt deconstruction of the book shows the praxis
of O'Rourke's whiskey drinking ancestors to be demonstrated in a neo-
monolithic, contra-modern dialectic juxtaposing the two major forces
exerting their strain upon him.  Those two forces being the Left and
Right breast of the Jungian collective subconscious that is both the
signifier and the signified of the book's overall intent.