The Return of the Butterfly Stompers

Ain't this a great little "fuck you" from your duly appointed authorities, this April 15?

D.C. Monument Menaced by Libertarian Dancers! | The Media | Culture | The American Scene



More: Part 2, Part 3.

John Best's So-Craptic Dialogue

John Best conjures the shade of Phaedrus who promptly runs screaming from someone who makes Socrates seem tolerant and egalitarian.

Or in other words, he's commenting anonymously on his own blog. There can't be two people with the same writing style and the same exact fixations. Or at least, one sincerely hopes this to be the case - and if not, one hopes that they are of the same gender so that they cannot breed.

Foresam said...

Probe,
It's hard to believe that any sane person could consider Seidel a colleague. As I stated on Orac's blog, they might not fully understand Neuroinsanity.

I'll have more to say about this later.

Wed Apr 09, 09:12:00 AM EDT

Anonymous said...

what does "Nambla" stand for again?

"North American Man/Boy Love Association"?

As far as I am concerned what Seidel is associated with something every bit as nasty and loathsome.

They may or may not put their hands on people when they do what they do, but Neurodiversity with its autism 'lifestyle' obsessive fetishist behavior and goals at keeping autistics as severely disabled as is possible combined with their blatant unblinking victimization of persons disabled by autism is every bit disqusting and every bit as much a crime and a taking advantage of a group of people, whether they are sometimes children sometimes not, its their disability that makes them targets for this evil group and in every way what they do molests rapes and exploits persons with autism.

99% of them are twisted fetishists who indeed very much 'get off' on the idea of autism and I have long held a deep core gut feeling that they hungrily read every word ever written about autism, pass themselves off as 'autistic' as much as is possible and so help me they get online and 'admire' those with autism in images and videos in a very sick and sexual way.

Its why they have their little so called 'culture' of autism, not a bit unlike those who excuse and justify other sexual deviant behaviors, develop entire communities and roleplaying around their deviation that goes with it and justifies it to themselves.

Seriously.

Tell me that Baggs and Tisconcik don't share a mutual twisted 'love of autism' -- its why they and their minions scour the 'net all their waking hours and prattle on endlessly about it, they're getting off on it.

Seidel and her crew couldn't do any worse if they were associated with "Nambla"

Ultimately I don't see a difference between it and "neurodiversity" at all.

Wed Apr 09, 02:35:00 PM EDT

Anonymous said...

To the anon above, very well said and so true. Autism is nothing more than the latest fetish to many people, and those obsessed with it are the high functioning aspergers types (if they even have Asperger's at all) Instead of looking for ways to improve their behaviours they revel in them, copy each other and can't wait to tell everyone they meet that they are autistic. Go on Youtube and look at the idiots at Autcom bragging about being autistic. It makes me sick.

Wed Apr 09, 03:57:00 PM EDT

And people wonder why I'd rather deal with the rather less toxic nonsense of social conservatives, flat-earth creationists and the Church of Reganology. Once a year I must remind myself what sort of insanity I fled.

By the way, John; speaking of obsessive, perverse concentration upon the supposed sexual behaviors of others - does the term "projection" ring a bell? Hateful people tend to accuse others of precisely the things they most loathe in themselves.

I believe I speak for many so-called "aspie perverts" when I say "eww" with the direct implication that your self loathing is not at all misplaced. "Perversion" is a way of saying that a person has a sexuality that is "abnormal," and I think that almost any rational person would giggle at the thought of you being in any mental or moral position to pass judgment on normalcy.

Not when you suggest that to criticize someone's financial motives for pushing dangerous treatments is the same as associating their name with the National Man Boy Love Association.

For the sake of your argument, a comparison to Dr. Mengele would be far more apt. He actually did inject children he considered subhuman with toxic substances in a quest to cure them of their Semitic attributes.

But Kathleen has not suggested anything of the sort nor do I. We find the facts in evidence compelling enough. I merely point out that it would have been a better-constructed straw man.

I suppose I should thank John for being as being the unapologetic essentialist he is, expressing without apparent embarrassment that which is hidden behind the smiles and paternalistic facades of those better able to conceal the overflowing cesspits of their subconscious fears and imaginations.

John Best is the Mike Savage of the Autism community - and in his way, as good an example of what sort of person you have to be to hate like he does. It's such examples of "normalcy" that cause me to celebrate my distinct differences.

Sheriff Tim Swanson likes to make sure none of them pretty girls are suicidal.

Unlawful strip search part of “a pattern” in Stark County (h/t Bastard Logic)

There sure seem to be a lot of suicidal women being arrested by the Timster's Turgid Team. But were they suicidal before or after a deputy ripped their panties off to check for crack?

I had a private bet with myself about this. Whee, I win.

I wonder if Stark County is running a "greatest hits" underground video-clips site. Because the original video would be right at home in a certain "niche porn" area.

How much you want to bet that a lot of people that should NEVER have had copies of these various tapes did? Would you bet money they weren't the centerpiece of parties, maybe even with political figures in attendance? Or maybe it's just a private file-sharing network. Sure would be interesting, running mug shots against videoclips of that type found on the internet with some of those high powered tools Ashcroft bought to fight child porn.

I wonder what patterns one might find, correlating arrests, strip-searches and outcomes with the physical appearance of the detainees? Are smelly old drunks routinely subjected to "suicide prevention routines," or is it just women that the officer wants to see naked? Hm. They have female deputies too. So I wonder if any pretty boys get the same treatment? And of course, where do those videos end up?

WKYC reports that since the release of the now-notorious Hope Steffey ’strip search’ video, 4 more Stark County, Ohio women, including Valentina Dyshko of North Canton, have come forward alleging that they were forced to remove their clothing when detained at the Stark County Jail...

BL further reports in a subsequent article that the State Attorney General will be looking into the entire matter.

Larry Shields of the Salem News reports that Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson has officially requested that Ohio Attorney General Mark Dan “review all the circumstances surrounding the arrest and incarceration of Hope Steffey in October of 2006,” a vicious incident labelled “way out of line” by Cuyahoga county Sheriff Gerald McFaul (h/t ThePoliticalCat).

Additionally, Muriel Kane of The Raw Story reports that video footage taken prior to the now-infamous strip search tape may exist, noting that “jailhouse surveillance cameras show a deputy with a handheld camera filming Steffey being escorted to her cell.”

Kane also suggests that dashboard video of the arrest, originally believed to be non-existent because the arresting officer claimed the camera was off, may not have been disclosed to Steffey’s lawyers.

Seems like Tim Swanson, Stark County Sheriff strkshrf@raex.com may be trying to cover his ass with paper. Anyone know when or if he's up for re-election, and who might be running against him? Aside from Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS, of course.

Clearly there is a God in Heaven - Because the Athiests Won

You know, I cannot think of a clearer example of the deliberate "establishment of religion" than the clear and obvious attempt to make public compliance with and participation in a Christian prayer a pre-condition of participation in school, school activities, or indeed, within the social matrix of the town itself, a small pimple on the panhandle of Oklahoma.

The behavior you clearly see in the video is of course, unconstitutional, prima facia, and I delight that the matter was taken to court - and on even better grounds than this rather old video clearly shows.

The Smalkowski case attracted national attention after Nicole Smalkowski was kicked off of the girls' basketball team after refusing to stand in a circle with her teammates on the gymnasium floor of the Hardesty public High School and recite the "Lord's Prayer." After school officials learned that she and her family were Atheists, lies were created about her as grounds to take her off of the team.

When her father Chuck discovered conclusively that public school and law enforcement officials had lied to him about his 15 year old daughter, he and Nicole and her mother Nadia went to the home of principal Lloyd Buckley to attempt to discuss the matter with him. Outside of his front fence, the principal struck Chuck, who blocked the blow. Both men fell to the ground and Buckley sustained minor injuries, the provable origins of which were strikingly contrary to his under oath trial testimony. Buckley then took out misdemeanor criminal assault charges against Chuck. After Smalkowski rejected the offer to drop the charges if he and his Atheist family left the state, the charges were raised to a felony. Chuck called American Atheists for help.

Chuck won his day in court - despite the room being packed by people literally praying for his conviction. I presume this is one case where the answer is "What part of 'I am a God of Justice' escaped you all these years?"

The school district will lose and I say that with the unstated but sincere underline - "if there is a God in heaven."

There is a specific reason I say that. And it is a reason that is absolutely critical to persons of all faiths - but most especially to Christians, inasmuch as these points were raised, exemplified and made to be conditions of faith by the example and words of Jesus. In other words, if you think as a Christian paster that what you see here is an example of what "good Christian kids do" than you are are in contention with the words in red and unqualified to lead a Christian church of ANY denomination.

You see, Christians may well dispute the positive meaning or the exact expression of those words in a positive sense - but when one is cheer-leading exactly the sort of thing that sent Jesus himself off on a snorting tirade of righteous indignation - that would be outside the bounds of sectarian variation, or even schism.

Indeed, in Christian theological definition that goes back to the earliest days of the church, one teaching in direct disputation of the direct words of Christ would be...

Oh, I'm sure you know this one. It's on the lips of every odious little thumper out there.

Yep. That's it: "ANTIChrist."

Now I state this, with absolute confidence that I can support it biblically, in depth - but all I really need to do is to point you to a decent concordance and council you to study the concepts of hospitality and to read what Jesus had to say about practitioners of public piety, such as the Pharisees.

But having said that, I'm going to further state that there is a much greater point at issue having nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not whether honest observers should quotes around the word Christian when referring to you.

The point is this - if you have to establish your religion by force and maintain it by indoctrination and immersion, if it cannot sustain itself in the face of one little teen-aged atheist who respects both her moral position and your own enough to not commit an act of dishonest piety for your town's comfort - you don't have a faith. Or rather more to the point, you clearly have no faith in your faith.

So, that would be a Vente Grande of What's the Point with whipped nonsense and bullshit, wouldn't it?

And since it is all that, and you are indeed using force to sustain it against utter collapse in the name of preserving social order and of course the social rank of it's most visibly pious practitioners, it really wouldn't actually be wrong for another church to come to town with a dutiful and militant congregation and practice exactly as you preach?

Would it?

Be careful how you argue against that, for that's pretty much exactly what has happened in many churches, due to leadership from various "Christian" organizations - the takeover of entire parishes by outsiders; takeovers that amount to theft on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, an honest person and a good Christian wouldn't want to be seen arguing in favor of theft or covetous behavior. Those things are generally considered to be, what's the word again?

Oh, yes. Sins.

If practiced by the smugly unrepentant, it's rather conventional theology to assume that would be pretty much "go to hell, go directly to hell; do not pass through Purgatory."

But again, compelling as that argument is for both it's instructive and entertainment values, it does not stand particularly well in the public square. Especially when this is not a question of what Christian doctrine one may believe to be superior, or convenient or publicly acceptable, but a far more fundamental one; one critical, as I said, to all our freedoms; the right to hold opinions that many may disagree with.

Including the opinion that there is no god, and your religion is a crock.

I happen to agree with the young lady on the latter point, and tend to assume on the first that whatever God there may be (and I happen to believe there is Someone,) you wouldn't recognize Them if they set your personal bush burning - even though that would be entirely within the realm of the sense of humor associated with the Divine.

Look up "emroods."

But nonetheless, no matter how little regard I hold for the evident quality of your faith, o Citizens of Hardesty, you have the right to it. So long as and only to the extent that you do not use tactics like this to enforce and defend it.

Speaking purely for myself, though, and based on my understanding of ethics and of the Ten Commandments, if I were a Fundamentalist Christian, I would find the fact that Hardesty, Oklahoma has apparently not yet evaporated under a hail of fire and brimstone to be a challenge to my faith.

Fortunately, I am not, and I do not bother my God with such stray thoughts. Though, in all honesty - I must say that it would be far beyond my capacity for charity or tolerance to show much compassion at all should any disaster happen - and as I am an experienced believer in Karma, I 'spect it will. And as tempting as the idea of being able to own such a spread as the Smalkowski's did; I consider living downwind of that much bad juju to be unwise.

Ralph Hall, Revisited

Every once in a while I revisit older pieces to see what developments have presented themselves. I'm particularly fond of the soaring heights of rhetoric I reached in which I sarcastically implied that a vote for Ralph Hall was a vote for the return of slavery in Texas.

Well, it appears they went and re-elected the sonofabitch.

Graphictruth: Teen Sex Slave Called a Liar by Texas Congressman

So it seems quite possible that Hall is accurately and faithfully representing the people he is beholden to and it would be wrong and irresponsible of me to suggest otherwise. The Mariana affair was well publicized at the time, and he apparently was neither investigated for his role in it, nor politically embarrassed by it, so it's quite a reasonable assumption for me to make.

After all, I hold most insistently to my own principles, I’m not about to suggest that others abandon theirs in favor of mine, unless our principles come into direct and practical conflict.

Slavery has deep roots in the former Confederacy, and there have been long, scholarly and highly moral tomes written to explain it in Biblical terms. I shall not presume that such beliefs are held lightly or insincerely when I know for a fact that many believe passionately otherwise; that the darker races both need and deserve the guidance of the more highly evolved White race, as well as the elevation of their racial character via judicious injections of superior genetic materials. No, for many, these are not beliefs of mere convenience; they are deeply, primordially and utterly sincere racists. Are they not also Citizens? Do they not deserve one of their own representing them?

While I cannot state for sure that his constituents would agree with my conclusions, he is still the allegedly human creature representing Texas's Fourth District - and he's STILL the subhuman enabler of child-molestation that took 30 grand from Jack Abramoff to cover up the practice of human trafficking in the Marianas Islands.

Now, given the history and views of the reddish bits of the map regarding persons of brownish hue, I probably should not be all that surprised.

But the idea of being represented by someone so astonishingly, stupidly corrupt that they could be bought off to the extent of covering up really serious felonies for thirty grand and a lap dance should just too fucking embarrassing for words. I really thought Texans would expect more of themselves.

Everything in Texas is big. With the visible exception of the moral high ground in the Texas Tenth.

From the Department of I Told You So - Looking back on 9/11

I wrote this @ 2001-09-19 18:11:00 in a LiveJournal group. Every year or so, I go back and re-read it, at times wondering why I've ever bothered writing anything more, considering all I've achieved in writing them. But then someone has to write them. And I haven't had anything better to do.

This time around I realized that it was at least time to revisit, republish, correct a few omitted words, fix grammatical errors, put it into context - and spell check!

I am uncomfortable with the idea of my words having lasting meaning, and given the topic I was writing on, even more uncomfortable with the idea than I might otherwise be. But I'm starting to face the fact that if these particular words do or do not, some words saying something like them must be uttered for any of the crap we have all been through to make sense, and to honor those who didn't make it all the way through.

Still I cannot escape the idea that I was entirely too correct for my comfort, and all the more so by how uncommon that viewpoint was, outside of those opposed to all violence for any reason.

And yet, I go back to this piece, I see what was clear to me a mere eight days after 9/11 - and I wonder where all the professional, paid pundits, where all the trained journalists, where all those we trust to have better trained and more restrained reactions than the ordinary run of persons were.

I'm gratified that out of so many, I was one of the few to be this correct - until I stop to think about what I was correct about, and how little intelligence, moral courage and will on the part of so very many people at so very many different choke-points could have made me seem utterly hysterical in retrospect. It's not at all difficult to see how those who have a better opinion of their fellow man could have been led astray.

How much I wish I could look back on my work and see how utterly wrong I was, and how depressingly ironic it is that those who have been as wrong as I wish I had been - are better paid the more incorrect they have been.

But then, that seeming irony also explains a great deal. We all trust that those who have the smarts, the insight and the access to know better will actually pass on their insights, instead of saying the complete opposite in return for large packages of unmarked bills.

And, lest that be seen as slander, let me say that it's a far more charitable assumption than the presumption that people such as O'Reilly, Malkin, Coulter and Savage are speaking to us out of sincere conviction.

Since, well, when you make provably untrue statements or unprovable statements with the assertion they are factual, you are either lying, or deluded. Don't much matter which, really; though I happen to think that being a knowing, paid liar might just be a little easier to live with than having been a useful, sincerely deluded tool - all untraceable bearer bonds aside.

I'm not complaining. I could conceivably have chosen to roll that way, and it was damn clear at the time there was no profit at all to be had in being reasonable.

But, well, I'm me, and that's how I am. Every once in a while sheer perversity ends up putting you on the right side, in retrospect. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the result of being naturally perverse. It was, and is a tragedy that any sort of perversity could shake out this way at all - much less to this degree.

The Grand Old Flag and all that.
I'm having an aspy moment. In fact, I've been having an aspy moment ever since the rubble of the World Trade Center stopped tumbling.

I'm tying to figure out how posting flags on every available surface and hanging them from every crossbar, antenna and flagpole is supposed to achieve anything.

It sure appears that everyone is convinced it will, and anywhere will do. Around Reno, someone has figured out that you can print flags out with your computer, and someone slapped one on the apartment's dumpster.

I think that's in very surreal taste.

I'm completely baffled by the consensus that I should be emotionally devastated by the deaths of so many people and the blow to our national prestige.

Well I'm an aspy who's spent a lot of time out of the country. I'm not emotionally affected... and I assure you, rumors of our national prestige have been wildly exaggerated!

That shouldn't be a shocking revelation. If we were universally loved and respected, people wouldn't be diving airliners into our landmark architecture.

You don't see people dive-bombing Canada. Of all the aspects of American Culture that the Taliban and other funnymentalist Islamic splinters revile, Canada is every bit as gleefully guilty. Hell, it's not even illegal for women to go topless in public in Canada, in the aftermath of a Charter of Rights ruling. You can just see Ayatollah eyeballs bleeding at that concept. And in terms of enforcing social conformity and family values on the general population - well, Canada is utterly delinquent, much to the impotent frustration of the DEA.

Yep, the interdiction of that Demon Weed, Marijuana is not exactly a high priority of Canadian police agencies. And that sort of lax response to moral turpitude is something that convinces the self-righteous that God or Allah will rain retribution upon the offending culture.

But for the most part, they are indeed content to leave such things TO Allah.

On the other hand, Canada doesn't routinely fire cruise missiles at people in the fond belief that it's a solution to a complex foreign policy issue.

The peculiar American delusion that one can rain death from a great height and not gain enemies thereby is somewhat baffling to me; it seems an obvious violation of common sense, however justified such "big stick" actions are.

"Justifiable" does not mean that those ducking the shrapnel are going to be suddenly struck by the irrefutable reason of our diplomatic position. If they were, it wouldn't have been necessary to deliver a stiff diplomatic cruise missile.

But whatever I think of American foreign policy, it doesn't follow that diving airplanes into buildings is a reasonable, appropriate or defensible thing to do.

Anybody who thinks I'm attempting to justify such an act is utterly mistaken. I do, however, think it's wise to at least attempt to understand it; the motivations for it and the context it exists in, just for the sake of self-preservation.

But the national psyche seems to support any number of bizarre and inexplicable assumptions.

Today, a man said on national television that those who are not overwhelmed by grief at the untimely end of thousands of unrelated strangers is emotionally disturbed and should seek treatment. And one is tempted to nod until you realize that no one would suggest that the entire nation should be so paralyzed with grief at the passing of an equal number of Chinese in an earthquake. It would be tragic, it would noted, we'd contribute money and dry socks to the rescue efforts - and then we'd get on with our lives.

More directly and relevantly - where were the candlelight vigils for the civilian victims of the aerial assault on Baghdad? Whatever you thought of it, whether you felt it a justifiable and necessary act, no matter how unavoidable those civilian casualties were - still. Why were we not moved? How can we justify being horrified now, if we were not then?

The fact that the US military moved heaven and earth to avoid civilian casualties and managed to do so up to the limits imposed by physics, intelligence and human perversity is beside the point. If every corpse in the World Trade center is worth a bio on CNN, SO WERE THEY.

And while it was not precisely a terrorist act, certainly the idea that we were "sending a message" was an integral part of the exercise.

Personally, I was not moved at all. And after the sheer, overwhelming surprise wore off, I was not moved by this, even though a distant cousin I'd never met perished in one of the planes.

My response seems to be purely intellectual, and from an intellectual viewpoint, I can see the argument for launching cruise missiles at Baghdad - considering the Scuds raining on the whole region and the Iraqi attack on Kuwait.

The fact that our national motivations were not entirely idealistic doesn't bother me. Our government's JOB is to pursue our national advantage. That includes securing an oil supply. If that happens to mesh with our national ideals, O happy day! And it did, very much so, and that's aside from treaty obligations.

But still, I don't see why a dead US citizen should be regretted more emotionally than the deaths of strangers who have the misfortune of living in an a tyranny with opposing agendas. But it's apparently supposed to be, for "normal" people.

So in order to be "normal," I have to place myself in a disordered, irrational mental state that prohibits me from thinking clearly or doing anything useful about the situation.

Well, I'm not normal, and thank God. I'd think that at times like this, we could profit by having more like me manning vital functions while all the normal people make utter inconveniences of themselves.

I don't see how being paralyzed with grief, racked by irrational fear and plunged into depression is going to help anyone, any more than wearing a red, white and blue jockstrap is going to do one single thing to combat world terrorism.

I would like to see a lot less patriotic posturing and a lot more serious thought about what can be done to prevent such things from occurring while at the same time, how to do that without turning ourselves into a repressive police state.

That's real patriotism. It's an expensive habit, real patriotism. Ask any of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. At the end, those that weren't dead were mostly broke.

Real patriotism takes a deal more commitment than printing out a stack of flags, sticking them up randomly and sighing with contentedness at how much of a Real American you are.

It demands an unemotional determination to do what it takes, while maintaining our Republican principles. (Some would say Democratic principles. That's another cultural myth. This has never been a democracy. It's a republic. That's a significantly different thing.)

Irrational patriotic fervor will not help and will likely lead to yet an exponential increase in the number of our live enemies, instead of what we actually want - a smallish smoking hole filled with thoroughly dead ones, communicating the global impression that a policy of terror against us is not just a bad idea - it's an absolutely fatal bad idea.

I refer you to what happened to the terrorists that killed the Israeli Olympic team at the 72 Olympics. The Mossad tracked each of them down and killed every one of them with surgical precision. There have been terrorist acts against Israeli citizens since - but none like that.*

This can only be achieved by a very clear view of the ends and a diamond-hard determination that the means must be both measured, appropriate, and applied with total commitment.

It will take a great deal of time to do this. It's complicated, messy and it will be unavoidably bloody. The world at large is convinced that the United States is willing to do whatever it takes - so long as it doesn't take more than six months, result in any actual casualties, raise their taxes or affect their lifestyle in any way.

So far, I see no evidence this perception is inaccurate to any significant degree.

That is exactly why the terrorists think they can get away with this - they are convinced that the United States simply does not have the attention span to allow any other outcome.

We had best decide to disabuse them, or this will continue. And next time, it might be a building you are in, or even a city.

We also have to face something else - that this particular conflict arises out of an irreconcilable ideological difference. It's not something we can defuse with gifts, bribes, apologies or even the removal of key figures in the terrorist community.

Ultimately, there IS no rational solution to this situation because the fundamental world views of the opposing sites are utterly, starkly and completely incompatible; the two systems cannot co-exist. The means by which western culture will destroy the Islamic Fundamentalist Movement don't involve bombs and guns; they are nonetheless as destructive of that culture as a rain of atomic weapons on us would be.

More so.

And it's a good thing, too, because it's an evil culture that should be eradicated, root and branch.

Those who are aware of the world outside of the Lower 48 have been warning of the increasing threat of religious fundamentalism in general and Islamic fundamentalism in particular.

In ironic illustration of this, Jerry Falwell made a statement that any Ayatollah would agree with.

"RICHMOND, Va., Sept. 18 ? The Rev. Jerry Falwell has apologized for saying God had allowed terrorists to attack America because of the work of civil liberties groups, abortion rights supporters and feminists. Falwell said his comments were ill-timed, insensitive and divisive at a time of national mourning. President Bush had called the minister?s statement inappropriate."

You note that he didn't say he'd changed his mind, he just apologized for bad timing.

While the Ayatollahs and Mullahs may disagree with Jerry about certain abstract theological issues, boy, they sure do agree about the proper fate of faggots and loose women. They certainly agree that religion should have the right to enforce "proper" behavior, even on those who don't share the beliefs that would make sense of those behaviors.
If Jerry had his way - we'd be stoning "harlots" and "apostates" in the street too.

Think on that.

Think on the logical danger of permitting that degree of delusional self-righteousness to take on the form of a government. Realize what sort of threat that is to EVERY person of EVERY belief EVERYWHERE... and then realize what needs doing. It's not something we can afford to tolerate; not a movement that we can allow to spread.

The fundamentalism - stupid and irrational as it is - THAT we must tolerate. It's the idea that it may permissibly be enforced on those who do not share those beliefs is what must be eliminated from the world consciousness.

It's that paradigm that has prevented any widespread outrages against the large Islamic communities in the United States in particular and the West in general. Contrast that against your survival chances as an identifiable Westerner in the general vicinity of whatever happens next, folks.

Maybe you can't do anything personally about middle eastern terrorists - but you can speak against the sort of mindset that exists here that would do the same here and HAS done it, in Oklahoma City, Selma, Alabama and at abortion clinics across the nation. The idea that anyone has the right to enforce a moral standard or ideological belief through terror cannot be tolerated.

It's not an idea that can be combated selectively and conveniently; it's far too fundamental. It has come down to a choice. This is, if you like, Armageddon; The Place of Decision.

So decide.

So the next time you see hate speech, do something. The next time you hear someone advocating violence against others based on their beliefs, sexual orientation or gender, do something.

You think there's any fundamental difference between Operation Rescue, the KKK, Bader-Meinhoff, the Red Brigade or Islamic Jihad? They all believe passionately in their causes; they are all willing to die to further it. Now, that's reasonable. It's even laudable to be willing to die for a belief.

Being willing to kill innocent (or at least, uninvolved) persons in wholesale lots in order to terrify the surviving masses into compliance with an agenda - that's just plain evil.

It must not be allowed EVEN IF YOU AGREE with their goals. No matter HOW urgent, how imperative it is. If your cause is not such that passionate speech and personal example will not serve to sway the majority - it could just be that you are passionately and sincerely wrong.

That's what the marketplace of ideas is for, what freedom of speech and freedom of the press is intended to ensure; that ideas are fully tested before they are implemented as social policy.

We can see what happens in cultures where this doesn't happen. Not only are they generally tyrannies, they are dusty, repressive, broke and BORING tyrannies.

We must also embrace that ideal as a national policy. The US government has, from time to time, thought it appropriate to "support freedom" by supplying "freedom fighters" in their struggles against... well, usually something that will cost us money or prestige.

We have to stop doing that, if for no other reason than an easily-documented history of this short sighted policy biting us on the butt.

The Taliban is just the LATEST example of "heroic freedom fighters" who suddenly became terrorists when they decided we were legitimate targets. Understand that their motivations and means havn't changed in the slightest - just their point of aim.

The Viet Minh, The Chinese Red Army and the Cuban patriots of the Bay of Pigs have all managed to inconvenience us. And that's just from this century. It's taken the South over a century to live down Quantrell.

You would think someone in Langley, VA might have gotten a clue by now, but since that is apparently not the case, you might wish to write your Congresscritter about your concerns - and suggest that more attention to the long term effects of foreign policy is NOT incompatible with their responsibilities for packing the pork in barrels and shipping it home.

In light of the likely costs of "America's New War," I'd say that a little more attention would have been cheap at nearly any price.

But hell, I'm just an aspy. I obviously don't grasp the damage to the social fabric, or the visceral need to go and kill someone, anyone, whether or not they had anything to do with this. Forgive my impatient foot-tapping as you persist in flapping helplessly, achieving nothing at great length. But if I hear one more person say that this outpouring of patriotism has Strengthened Our Great Nation, I may just puke.

I'm not hanging any damn flag, going to any candlelight vigils or indulging in any other pointless exercises that are intended to promote the sort of emotional solidarity I'm mentally incapable of feeling.

But I do see the utility of meaningful gestures.

Click here and donate to the Red Cross.

In retrospect, I see only two failures of assumption - the idea that given the circumstances, evangelical funnymentalism would lose rather than gain support, and the slightly less embarrassing assumption that the Red Cross was a responsible and charitable organization.

I wish I'd had a few more inaccuracies - and that they were inaccuracies in favor of a more charitable view of human nature and the intelligence of the American People.

At this point in my life, I believe I have achieved a level of wizened cynicism that would have appalled PT Barnum, or even Boss Tweed. I apologize to all of you who relied in any way at my earlier, innocent and touching naiveté.

BDSM, Florida Style

It seems to me that the objection to BDSM among the Social Conservatives is not so much the idea of a happy spanking or two between consenting adults.

Nope. It's the idea that the one submitting has a "safeword" and the right to negotiate "hard limits."

clipped from www.thenation.com During a typical day each migrant picks, carries and unloads two tons of tomatoes." For that two tons the worker can expect about $50, and annual wages of $10,000-$14,000. Wages have been stagnant for more than two decades. "We must ensure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves," President Bush declared He then segued into a call to ban human cloning. he certainly didn't talk about dignity in Immokalee, Florida where – as Senator Bernie Sanders told me "the norm is a disaster, and the extreme is slavery." Here, then, is what Senator Sanders shared with me: "It was really stunning – the likes of which I have never seen in my life. I've long been interested in workers issues. But when we talk about the race to the bottom here in the United States I would say that Immokalee, Florida is the bottom. I think those are workers who are more ruthlessly exploited and treated with more contempt than any group of workers that I've ever seen and I suspect exist in the US.

Now, this doesn't seem like a good-faith negotiation to me, not in any sense of the word.

Whatever you may think of the practice of BDSM - and many to the left and right of me do think of it as a dubious practice a best and the rankest sort of perversion at the worst - one cannot seriously examine the subculture without realizing that it is founded on an ironclad ethos of mutual respect that is clearly not shared by the the Florida Tomato Grower's Exchange.

In fact, the ethos has been so well thought out, that many of us could legitimately be accused of overthinking the matter.

Yes, I did say "us." I'm an ethics blogger, and this is in part where my ethics come from. Thank you, STella, Steven S. Douglass, Jay Wiseman and so many others that I should be able to name off the top of my head. "Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense"

Any one of these folks, these fellow "perverts" and "perps" as the UK Spanner decision would name us, would be qualified to look at this situation and name it for what it is - a situation of manufactured consent, economic slavery engineered in part by compliant and conveniently enforced laws, a corruptible and compliant immigration enforcement authority and of course, the convenient fact that undocumented status means there is both practically and in large factually, no appeal to authority.

In Roman times, even the lowest slave had certain expectations - even those on vast "latifundia," or slave farms, where their numbers were only approximated. Among these expectations were food, shelter and the sort of rude medical care anyone else, short of the Purple, might have available.

In Florida - and no doubt, in Texas - agriculture depends on standards and practices that would embarrass a Roman - and possibly even an Old South plantation owner. And certainly they would embarrass and appall anyone in the BDSM "scene."

But then, we tend to value those who play with us, if only because of the simple ethos of "waste not, want not." But it is really far more than that; it is largely accurate to state that in the graceful dance of power, those of us who practice it mindfully respect one another, and see it as a means of allocating responsibility according to nature and inclination.

My ethics, coming from where they do, seem to be superior to those that come from the whited chapels of the Baptists who so dominate the culture of Florida and the rest of the agricultural South.

So speak not to me of "perversions," when you do not respect the observation from the Bible that "the worker is worthy of his hire." Do not moralize at me, or speak a shaming word about what you assume my beliefs and values must be if you grudge a penny a pound - and do not give charity and hospitality to "strangers within your land."

I know - better than most Baptists, it is sadly clear - what the standards of Jesus were, and the basis and origin of those standards.

And when such a Samaritan as I can be assured of that, it's a sad day indeed.

It was Jesus's point that "good Jews" should be BETTER than "the Samaritans", who were widely "known" to practice all sorts of heresy and "perversion."

Well, when people are in practice enslaved in this land of ours, and those profiting by it - and indeed, those holding the whips, keys and truncheons - are welcomed in church and invited to read the Lesson - I think the lesson ought to be obvious.

For a Christian, "what would Jesus Do" is a question that should always have an answer. The words in red are not difficult to understand, encompassing very simple ideas about how we should treat one another. So if you are a member of a church and you look around, and you see that it is not clear on the idea that fucking with other people's lives and livelihood for profit is a far more significant question than who they may choose to fuck, in what position, with or without procreative potential, you need to leave that church.

That, or accept the karma that accrues to you.

If your husband told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

Salto sobrius: Jim Benton on Fundies vs. Gay Marriage

A very interesting article on why gay marriage upsets the fundie applecart. Turns out said apple cart is hauling horseapples anyhow - the rationale for opposing gay marriage hinges on the despicable abomination of a man submitting to another man.

a heterosexual marriage that deviates from "God's plan" can be condemned as such, and there is always hope that through "good Christian example" teaching, preaching, and prayer, these "misguided sinners" can be shown the proper path. (And the true dominionists can hope they will have the power of the state at least to teach students properly, and even have laws that will correct the poor, deluded "equalitarians".)

But there is no way that a gay couple can choose to conform to these teachings. The roles, in the minds of the radical Christians are biologically and theologically based. The question of which gender should be submissive is not a matter of choice. It is rooted in the idea that "man was created first and woman sinned first" in Eden. Yes, a woman may (and should, according to voices like Stormy Omartian's) freely choose to submit to her husband and act according to God's plan. But that is because she is a woman. A man who should choose to submit to his wife, in the same way, would be an unnatural abomination.

And, obviously, same-sex marriages either do not have a woman to "willingly submit to whomever it is we need to be submitted to", or they lack a man to be submitted to. No amount of preaching can change this, no amount of Christian example will change this. Any gay marriage, by existing, challenges this idea of a proper, "traditional" marriage.

Well, you know MY methods, Watson. Not only should gay marriage of all sorts be recognized - to the extent that I admit that the state has any business recognizing any relationship at all - but more heterosexual couples should make a point of giving the horselaugh to this nonsense:

For a similar view let's look at the Southern Baptists. In an article on subjugation of women in that denomination, Dr. Bruce Prescott & Dr. Rick McClatchy (who have become "Mainstream Baptists", a group which split from the Southern Baptists as a protest against the emergence of extreme and rigid conservatism in the older group) write in Baptist Faith and Message, a Baptist "Confession of faith"):

"subjugation of women extended to the privacy of Baptist homes when a statement on the family was added to the BF&M. In line with the chain of command made explicit in the 1984 resolution, the 1998 family amendment advised wives that they must ‘graciously submit' to their husbands."

"The unconditional nature of the wife's subjugation became clear at the official press conference following the statement's adoption. Dorothy Patterson, wife of Paige Patterson and a member of the committee that drafted the family statement, said, ‘When it comes to submitting to my husband even when he is wrong, I just do it. He is accountable to God.'"

But these groups are relatively liberal. I could go on and on -- oh, you've noticed -- but I'll end this by requoting Tedd Tripp, from my article on baby beating.

"You must provide examples of submission for your children. Dads can do this through biblical authority over their wives, and Moms through biblical submission to their husbands." p. 142

"Don't waste time trying to sugarcoat submission to make it palatable. Obeying when you see the sense in it is not submission; it is agreement. Submission necessarily means doing what you do not wish to do. It is never easy or painless." p. 145

"Your children [and by implication, your wife] must understand that when you speak for the first time, you have spoken for the last time." p. 151

Yep. Funnymentalism; the last refuge of the bull asshole - and those to weak and stupid to lead a household without violence. But nonetheless, I support the right of those who wish such relationships and are above the age of consent to enter into them.

However, raising children to behave this way is, I think, child abuse. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think that the widespread abuse of children by people who loudly adhere to such beliefs is all the force this argument against it being either Christian OR American needs.

35-Year-Old Woman Tasered In Front Of Customers At Best Buy - News Story - WFTV Orlando

35-Year-Old Woman Tasered In Front Of Customers At Best Buy - News Story - WFTV Orlando: "'The woman is repeatedly told to cease and desist her conduct and activities. As the officer is trying to approach her, you can see her throw her hands up and her arms flailing. The taser is designed for incidents like that,' Chitwood said."


There are several videos that I could have embedded here; this one seems to be the best in terms of clearly showing the incident, as well as preserving a particularly astonishingly authoritarian statement by the Daytona Police Chief in defense of what is pretty clearly an indefensible use of force.



The next video includes direct and even-handed analysis by Cop Watch activist George Crossley.



After reviewing the cop-watch blog, I have come to believe that despite obvious "left of center" associations, they are scrupulously fair about this effort.

In other words, I don't think this is a source you should automatically discount, even if you reflexively disbelieve "liberal" sources.

Besides, a camera is not a "liberal" or "conservative" source. It's very clear in the video that the officer initiated and esculated a confrontation; while the suspect may well have been loud and profane, she never once touched or physically resisted the officer. While the Chief of police attributes the entire incident to "a lack of respect" on the part of the woman, it's pretty clear that no such respect for the civilian was on offer, so my response to both the officer and the chief is "sit on it and rotate."

Oh, and I do hope this one goes to a jury of your civilian peers.

Despite the charges laid against the "suspect," Elizabeth Beeland, it seems fairly clear to me that this is in fact a case of assault by an officer on a civilian. It's also quite clear from the video that the officer spent no time whatsoever attempting to assess or investigate the situation before - quite literally - throwing her weight around. See for yourself how very few seconds transpire between confrontation and tasering.

Her first response was to intimidate Beeland, it's pretty clear that the officer was uninterested in any response other than immediate submission to her authority.

In other words, the cop made the disastrously unwarranted assumption that Beeland was "a perp," even though Beeland had not behaved as a person fleeing arrest would have - continue to her car and flee. And needless to say, as it was her card, and she was distraught due to perfectly reasonable circumstances, it was entirely predictable that she would be both upset and confused.

Of course, one of the many hollow-sounding justifications for this incident is that Beeland was "disrupting business," and that may well be the real reason for this chain of events.

I have been unable to find any evidence of a statement on behalf of Best Buy regarding this incident, or what they might do to prevent such issues in the future, but customer relations do not seem to be a high priority with the firm., despite slickly produced protestations promises of Corporate Responsibility.

In the absence of any reassurance to concerned potential customers, I think it wise to assume that this is as much a product of store policy (though possibly that of a local or regional manager) as it is a matter of evident police over-reaction.

In particular, I would like to know exactly what the clerk said to the cop that may have predisposed her to such a precipitous and reckless use of force. In hopes of learning this and whatever else Best Buy might have to say about this incident, I've forwarded this story to NewsCenter@bestbuy.com, their public relations contact address.

tag: taser, best buy, Elizabeth Beeland, Daytona Beach, Florida, authority abuse, police abuse, taser abuse

Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians"

I'm devouring this book, and the footnotes are as tasty and entertaining (in a dark, horrifying, goddamit, I TOLD you so sort of way) as the text itself. While this is obviously mandatory socio-political ammunition for democrats and leftists, it's far, far more vital for Centrists, Independents, Libertarians and traditional Conservatives to read and understand.

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians Chapter 6 Authoritarianism and Politics chapter6.pdf

10 On September 20, 2006 an independent Congressional-watch organization called
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released its second annual “Most
Corrupt Members of Congress Report.” Three senators and seventeen members of the
House were named, most of them hold-overs from the first annual report (although the
news release noted with some glee that two of the previous winners were already on
their way to jail).

I found it instructive to look up the ratings these 20 lawmakers' voting records
received from the Family Research Council, the successor to the Christian Coalition
as the major lobbying organization for the Religious Right. The average was 80%.
Eight of the “most corrupt” had perfect 100% endorsements from the Family Research
Council. The lowest score was a 64% posted by the Democratic Representative Alan
Mollohan from West Virginia. (Seventeen of the twenty “most corrupt” were
Republicans.)

To be sure, many other lawmakers who got high scores from the Family
Research Council did not get named as most corrupt. But I think I read somewhere
that there’s this interesting connection between being a lying, dishonest, amoral
manipulator and becoming a leader of right-wing political/religious movements.
Back to Chapter

And then there's footnote seven, which I absolutely must highlight, with a link to John Dean's book, Conservatives without Conscience, which is referenced here.

7 If anyone ought to be interested in understanding authoritarianism, it’s the
mainstream conservatives who used to form and control the Republican Party. They
have seen their political party hijacked by the most radical element in their party, and
it’s anybody’s guess whether they can get it back. The takeover has been so complete
that many people have forgotten what “conservative” meant before it became
“authoritarian.” I don’t look forward to “conservative” becoming a dirty word the way
“liberal” did. Until we find someone who’s always right, democracy needs both
traditional and progressive voices to choose from. But the principled conservative
options have been badly tarred lately by authoritarianism.
I can’t imagine Senator Barry Goldwater agreeing with, “Our country
desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the
radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.”As John Dean points out,
Goldwater was quite apprehensive about what the “cultural conservatives” would do
to the Grand Old Party. “Mark my word,” the former senator said after the 1994 midterm
election, “if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure
trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten
me.” (Conservatives Without Conscience, p. xxxiv.)

I should also direct you to a particular post about the book - because of the hilariously ironic "criticism" of Dean's book by people who are clearly RWA's who MUST argue the premise - but cannot even seriously consider it deeply enough to argue, as it would require confronting their own demons. Almost literally.

Mr. Terence J. Nugent says:

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again. (Show all unhelpful posts)]

This book'spremise is the most absurd yet. He implies tha the Bush Administration fuels terror to preserve and expand quasi-dictatorial powers. In that case, it called an aisrike in on its own position on 9/11, as the White House was targeted. Perhaps Dean is on the jihadi payroll, as this is absurd as the anti-Zionist theory that the Isaelis did it.

As if this wasn't enought o prevent anyone of siound mind from spending their hard earned money on this abomination, the intellectual bankruptcy of his argument is absolutely appalling. It is axiomatic that left wing and right wing authoritarianisms are mirror images. Left and right traverse a circle that meets at dictatorship. Dean has evidently forgotten the communist authoritarian regimes of Joseph Stalin, Mau Tse Tung et. al. For a domestic example of quasi-liberal authoritarianism exhibit A is the Deomocratic dictatoship in the city of Chicago, and the County of Cook. Of course there is othing more authoitarian than jihadis, who we are trying to fight despite internal resistance from thelikes of Dean.

John Dean was driven mad by Watergate and has since become a pawn of the left, just as he was a pawn of the right during Watergate. He was then, and is now, a dangerously misguided man who would not recognize intellectual honesty if it became incarnate before his blinded eyes.

This is exactly the sort of response, of course, that Bob Altemeyer's research would suggest to be inevitable. And it's certainly exactly the sort of mindless personal attack I've come to expect from those who wish to disagree with an ethical critique, but cannot without defending the indefensible.

And of course, that means that you lose the debate - in rational circles.

The Authoritarians

Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians:

"OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It’s about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.

“Well,” you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.” Or maybe you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve believed this for years.” Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the “Introduction” link on this page?

Because if you do, you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities--one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research."

Bob Altemeyer has been good enough to share the fruits of his labor of years with everyone, for free. (If you don't like screen reading, though, he's got a bound version available for a rather modest $9.95 via Lulu.com.)

We shall probably always have individuals lurking among us who yearn to play
tyrant. Some of them will be dumber than two bags of broken hammers, and some will
be very bright. Many will start so far down in society that they have little chance of
amassing power; others will have easy access to money and influence all their lives.
On the national scene some will be frustrated by prosperity, internal tranquility, and
international peace--all of which significantly dim the prospects for a demagogue
-in-waiting. Others will benefit from historical crises that automatically drop increased
power into a leader’s lap. But ultimately, in a democracy, a wannabe tyrant is just a
comical figure on a soapbox unless a huge wave of supporters lifts him to high office.
That’s how Adolf Hitler destroyed the Wiemar Republic and became the Fuhrer. So
we need to understand the people out there doing the wave. Ultimately the problem
lay in the followers.

The sum of his book is that Authoritarian Personality Disorder is a greater threat to us than the Iraq War, terrorism, the lack of health care and a tanking economy, for all these things are in fact the result of mindlessly following those who lead cynically, mindlessly and abusively, while pandering to the worst of all common denominators.

Kerry Triangulates New Failure.

In a widely publicized incident, there was a confrontation between University of Florida campus police and one Andrew Meyer who may well have been intending to "provoke a scene."

Still, it's difficult to imagine that he anticipated the sheer, overwhelming and vicious nature of the assault upon his person - and his constitutional rights, which included being knelt on and tasered while handcuffed.

Video is all over the web and it is covered in many places with many different spins. But my story is not about the incident per-se, it's about the public reaction to the incident, a reaction distressingly evident in the discussion thread following the story itself.

Here's one such response:

As usual, we get a distorted synopsis from the distorted, liberal media.

This kid deserved what he got, and MORE!

There is a line between dissent and 'healthy discussion' as Kerry misspoke, and breaking the law. This kid, obviously a spoiled brat, learned a good lesson: Obey a lawful police order.

John Kerry also has a great deal to learn, because when a U.S. senator cannot distinguish between inciting a riot and a 'healthy discussion,' we're all in trouble.

Reminds me of the melee at Columbia University -- another bastion of liberal assininity.

Posted by: Ed | Sep 18, 2007 1:52:44 PM

Political Radar: Kerry Condemns Heckler Arrest

I felt obliged to add my own reaction, and then realized it was more of a post than a response, so I repeat it with some revisions and tweakings.

I come late to this story - but then, in my mind, the real story is the reaction to the story. I think the young man probably did try to "provoke an incident" in order to illustrate and provoke this very discussion.

And THIS is what it's about. Yes, the young man was provoking a response. But the specific response - that was under the control of "handlers" and the police themselves. And the response he provoked was ineffectual butt-coverage on Kerry's part and a violent police assault on the provocateur.

It does not matter that he was "disrespectful." There is no citizenship duty to respect ANYONE - unless that disrespect rises to actual violence.

And to me "resisting arrest" is not the same thing as refusing to quietly take your lumps. I saw resisting assault, and quite frankly, given the level of threat presented, I do not think the young man would have been unjustified in resorting to deadly force.

It would have been the wrong call, but police have been given passes for equivalent mistakes - that's why you can't find a black water-pistol in toy stores anymore.

Indeed, even the manner of the arrest itself - a "shock and awe" swarming of a supposed "perp" - is a tactic developed in prisons (to the best of my understanding) to safely restrain a very violent, hardened offender. It's also designed to strip the dignity from the target, to force submission and to extract a price in pain and humiliation - a lesson to inspire future compliance.

From the reactions here, the lesson has not been lost so much as taken for granted. And yet nobody on either side has asked what "rules" were in existence that would trump Andrew's constitutional right to free speech, and consultation with someone who wants to be his elected representative.

It was a not very metaphorical rape, a public punishment for a trivial "offense" of "disrespect for authority."

That itself should make you not just question, but to presume that such authority is unworthy of such respect - and more tellingly, knows what a hollow shell of pure bluster it is and how tenuous their grasp on society's willing compliance has become that their first response to a lack of immediate compliance is overwhelming force.

I find calls to treat anyone who does not immediately submit to any police command this way to be appalling. This was not so much an arrest as it was a summary judgment and execution of sentence.

It was a very effective demonstration of the respect ordinary citizens are given by the police in the United States.

I should add that, while this might well be the result of training and police doctrine, there are quite different training and doctrine sets that result in VERY respectable and appropriate security without unavoidably offending anyone's dignity, that in fact rely strongly on our social conditioning to avoid making a scene as a primary too