Pot. Kettle. Rove.

I've always felt that if you need a solid viewpoint on a position that requires professional insight, you should go to a professional. Well, when speaking of positions found in the Kama Sutra there is no finer pro than Susie Bright, and she of course has a very professional analysis of the Spitzer Scandal.

Pride Goeth Before Client #9

Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, who became famous prosecuting Wall Street crooks, has been caught on a federal wiretap, making arrangements with a high-priced prostitute.

The pro, named Kristen, called her booker after her session with Eliot to confirm that all had gone well. She said she didn't find Spitzer "difficult,"€ as some of the other girls had complained.

The booker replied to her that "Client 9," as Eliot was called, was known to ask the women "€œto do things that, like, you might not think were safe."

Aside from the kinky slap to his Mr. Clean reputation, Spitzer is also facing legal jeopardy, since, among other things, the feds are hitting him with the Mann Act, a 1910 prostitution law designed to crack down on interstate "white slavery."

And as they say on Fark: "Hilarity Ensues." First Suzie has a few rings on the gong, and then her readers chime in. I won't spoil it- it's best enjoyed in it's compellingly NSFW context.

Oh, maybe just ONE more little nibble:

If we could give a truth serum to all the parties involved—€” or wiretap their personal diaries— here's what we might listen in on:

The $4,300 an Hour Prostitute:

Well, first of all, I got less than half of that, and my manicurist charges almost as much.

The Wife:

There's not a political wife alive who's been schtupped by her own husband in years. If you want a career as a high profile spouse, you can kiss your sex life goodbye.

The John/Governor:

Those sons of bitches. I know who did this, and I'll destroy them if it's the last thing I do.

The Escort Service Booker:

There's a couple dozen high end joints like us operating at any time to service the Pol crowd, and we just can't charge enough. Once they start ratting out each other, they'll mess us over so bad there'll be forty people filing bankruptcy as a result of their bullshit.

Did I mention that I like Susie Bright a lot?

She's had a lot to say about previous scandals of this sort, all of it compelling, insightful and wickedly pointed. But as amusing it is to see an arrant hypocrite hoist upon his own crusader's petard, it's really "Dog bites Man."

But, thanks to Susie, I was directed to this article on BoingBoing:

"I'm the proud owner of Karl Rove’s father’s solid gold cock ring."

You know, that might well be the most compelling headline of the decade.

Shannon Larratt, founder of the body modification online publication BMEzine, pointed us a few days ago to a first-person essay that a person named Yard[D]og was writing, regarding the adoptive father of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove (shown in the image at left). Yard[D]og claims to have been a close personal friend of the now-deceased elder Rove.

I've also had occasion to exchange emails with Shannon over the years, and there's nothing in my interactions that would cause me to either doubt his word or think that this might be concocted. [BK]

And now I wondered if that son ever cried for the man who raised him and watched him grow up? I’d be curious as to how Karl Rove would ever explain his pierced, gay father? He never told the people in Louis’ phone book that he had died, nor invited them to a service if there was one. No one even knows where he is buried.

As for me? Well, I am the proud owner of Karl Rove’s father’s pure, solid gold cock ring! I’ve put it away with a few memories and pictures of his father. And in my garden grows a nasty, prickly little cactus from Louie’s backyard ... alive and well.

- - - - - - - -

Link to full text. NSFW advisory: Contains links to photographs of pierced genitals said to those of Karl Rove's father, with a "modesty mosaic" imposed over the thumbnail images at that main link.

Well, now; that explains a lot, don't it? Oh, and Karl was raised in Sparks, Nev, just for that local interest angle.

I've always thought that Karl was a little bit "queer" myself. Not in the way his dad was, but in the sense of being ooozingly, off-puttingly not quite right. In the old sense, before the word came to be a synonym for homosexuality, one connotation was the sort of person that caused you to wipe your hand on your pants-leg after shaking their hand.

And oddly enough, Karl is the exact sort that would like you to confuse those terms, with the sort of pasty phiz you see in sex-offender registries.

So, with that unpleasant but entirely too plausible association in mind, let us now observe that Glenn Greenwald is wondering aloud if this might be the result of a politically motivated "sting" by the Department of Justice.

Is it really the case that any elected official who ever breaks the law should be righteously condemned by all decent people and then forced from office -- without regard to how serious the offense is or whether there are even any victims? If so, I don't think there are going to be very many elected officials left.

I believe that's one of them Rhetorical Questions.

I'm minded how easy it was for Larry Flindt to scare up awkward details on people howling for Clinton's head during the Lewinski matter. The odds are very good that if there is any political figure of any party that you would like to pressure or put out to pasture, that you will be able to find dirt enough to do it. The only requirement, of course, is that you somehow believe that "sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander."

Glenn points to a damn fine Harper's take on this and in a later update heaves a nod toward firedoglake.

UPDATE II: Harper's Scott Horton, one of the country's foremost experts on the Bush DOJ's overtly political prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, compiles numerous additional questions regarding this quite unusual, massive federal law enforcement effort directed at a small prostitution ring that just so happens to have had Democratic New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer as a client (leading, in turn, to the disclosure of all sorts of salacious details in the "Client-9" paragraphs of the Complaint having no bearing whatsoever on the actual criminal issues).

It will be difficult for the questions Horton raises to attract much attention given all of the fun, titillating details concerning Spitzer's sexual activities which are already preoccupying so many, to say nothing of the invigorating charge that comes from being part of an upstanding mob so righteously condemning the private lives of others. But the issues Horton raises are of far greater significance than how Eliot Spitzer and other consenting adults chose to spend their time with one another.

UPDATE III: Jane Hamsher is asking similar and additional questions about this very odd prosecution.

That, of course, would be the sort of operation we have come to describe in the Blogosphere as being "Rovian."

In light of all of this, I think it's pretty obvious exactly what precise national security imperative drives the White House toward insisting on the need to be able to listen to our phone-calls or mine your data without so much as a warrant or a by-your-leave.

Their idea of "national security" is a permanent Republican majority, if not in name, than in effect. Odd, is it not, how so many Democrats failed so frequently to frustrate such obvious abuses of power by George Bush and his cronies?

This may well be intended as an object lesson as to what happens to people who poke their noses into Republican business.

But I wonder what a decent investigative reporter could dig up on major Republican figures - given a few grand for expenses?

Illustration: Could I be your Yoko Ono, Number Nine? T-Shirt by webcarve Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

Siegelman and Scrushy - Tip of the Iceburg?

Alternet: Going to Jail for Being a Democrat: How Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman Got Roved
By Paul Craig Roberts, CounterPunch.

The frame-up of Siegelman and businessman Richard Scrushy is so crystal clear and blatant that 52 former state attorney generals from across America, both Republicans and Democrats, have urged the US Congress to investigate the Bush administration's use of the US Department of Justice to rid themselves of a Democratic governor who "they could not beat fair and square," according to Grant Woods, former Republican Attorney General of Arizona and co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee. Woods says that he has never seen a case with so "many red flags pointing to injustice."

The abuse of American justice by the Bush administration in order to ruin Siegelman is so crystal clear that even the corporate media organization CBS allowed "60 Minutes" to broadcast on February 24, 2008, a damning indictment of the railroading of Siegelman. Extremely coincidental "technical difficulties" caused WHNT, the CBS station covering the populous northern third of Alabama, to go black during the broadcast. The station initially offered a lame excuse of network difficulties that CBS in New York denied. The Republican-owned print media in Alabama seemed to have the inside track on every aspect of the prosecution's case against Siegelman. You just have to look at their editorials and articles following the 60 Minutes broadcast to get a taste of what counts for "objective journalism" in their mind.

The story itself bears so much similarity to so many other stories that it seems almost routine. It took a few of the comments to make me realize that suddenly "Dog bites Man" is genuine news.

The news is that "plausible deniablity" is off the table. We now know that when "Dog bites Man," it's almost always the same goddamn dog - just as we always suspected.

The Internet, the web and other emerging peer-to-peer connections are a staggering intelligence advantage to ordinary people, and a freakin' nightmare to those who would prefer to keep citizens "Mushroomed;" eg, "Kept in the dark and fed bullshit."

The Internet, the web, and now the various social media of "web 2.0" are a freaking godsend for people like me who justify their existence by making connections between apparently unrelated things. While the implications of it trouble civil libertarians when they contemplate how potentially troublesome data mining linkages could be, it's a fact that this particular phenomenon is at least as dangerous to those who would abuse their authority than to those they might find "dirt" on to abuse.

This case is fascinating evidence of that phenomenon. Not only do we have evidence of abuse, but clear and damning evidence pointing to a systematic cover-up.

It wasn't all that long ago that the assassinations of Robert and Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King and probably others were undertaken without any blow-back to those who set it up, or conclusive evidence pointing to who was responsible.

Back in the day, it only took a few judicious threats here and there, and the ominous, but truthful observation; "Who ya gonna tell?"

The answer today is "the whole goddamn world, and whatcha gonna do about it?" There are people alive today -Sibel Edmonds leaps to mind - who probably would have perished suddenly and quietly fifteen or twenty years ago.

The problem for those who start thinking in that way is this: There is no way to shut up a whistle-blower these days without significant and persuasive notice being taken. And if the implications of data-mining for connections between ordinary individuals may be troubling to ordinary individuals - imagine what the very idea does to the sphincters of people with connections to Karl Rove.

You see, this is one of those ideas that could have gotten me put in a quiet padded room somewhere very private, back in the day, just for pointing it out. But I hardly need to point it out, it's obvious, it's inevitable and it's already happening. The internet is a powerful and absolutely magnificent tool for individuals who need to evaluate the reliability of various information sources.

In "free and open societies" such as our own, a newspaper can be scrupulous about their journalistic standards and still be corrupt as all hell. There are probably three or four stories a year that are of critical importance - and if a paper sits on those stories, it's even better than publishing lies.

Well, that reality actually ended in the mid-eighties, when the Internet became a flood of information, and a way to reality-check information cheaply and reliably. What was first the tool of the hardwired geek intelligencia is now available to anyone with the cash to pick up a second-hand computer. If you are the slightest bit interested in data security, it's pretty darned easy to hide your tracks.

What this new reality amounts to is a means by which the average person can have access to the sort of information that William Casey would have sacrificed his left nut and his first-born to get his hands on - if he could have kept it to himself.

Indeed, that was J. Edgar Hoover's secret to power - files that contained dirt on everyone of significance in positions of power both public and private. Well, of course Rove has taken that tactic to heart - but the fact that he has done it is so clearly obvious to people in a position to "connect the dots" that it significantly erodes the effect.

For instance, ten years ago, even five years ago, Nancy Pelosi may well have gotten away with saying "impeachment is off the table." Anyone who disagreed and could object meaningfully would have no ability to do much of anything about it.

But by now there is some point to saying aloud that "taking impeachment off the table" made no goddamn sense politically or strategically when it's in the absolute best interest of honest Democrats to remove corrupt Republicans from power before they can fix the next election.

It makes sense to say that some combination of stupidity, incompetence and blackmail must account for the difference between implied promises in 2006 and delivered results in time for 2009 have significant and troubling implications.

The web hasn't eliminated smoke-filled back rooms where deals are made between politicians and "the people that matter." What it has done is put a live webcam in there, so we can see that the people in those smoke-filled rooms aren't any smarter, better informed or more high-minded than your average gas-station attendant or insurance agent.

We always had the right and the responsibility to oversee them. Now we have the practical capacity to do so; yes, that is bi-partisan urine trickling down their legs.

Oh - and by the by, what's true here in the US is true everywhere there is a robust Internet. So, pretty much, that means everywhere. The implications for the Taliban, for Norway, for China and Russia are all the same - there's no way of keeping "internal matters" internal, there's no way of ensuring that they don't end up on the front pages of their own media and blogs and there's no way of erasing every single trace of corrupt dealings.

Come to think of it, consider the implications of the internet in an honor society like Pakistan, where it becomes impossible to hide the private dealings of "men of the world."

It's a good way to get a private enterprise rocket grenade enema.

Nor is there any effective way of restricting access to that information without killing off their own economy. Now, some regimes don't give much of a crap about that - but that doesn't mean they can absolutely ensure that their citizenry will obey, when disobedience is so very profitable in so very many ways.

And it's also true of the United Nations, and stuffy old NGO's like the Red Cross. If it hadn't been for the web, I doubt they would have gotten so righteously hammered as they did in Canada, where the government took away their control over the blood supply after it turned out that they had willfully neglected to screen blood plasma for HIV - because it would have been "too expensive." That piece of data became widely known - along with another damning number - their overhead ate up 80 cents of every dollar donated. As I recall, - though it's only a vague recollections - it was a combination of hemophilia advocates who had been tracking this that brought it to national attention, but they did it by way of the internet, skipping the historical process of having to find someone to call who could do something and might be persuaded to do so.

Essentially, what has occurred is this: the web advantages people who deal honestly and who either have no skeletons in their closets, or who use them as festive decor while chuckling gleefully. It has made it clear that those who have invested a lot in appearing to have nothing to hide are less worrisome and more likely to screw you over than those who, say, like dressing up in rubber and don't much care about what "decent people" might think.

The average person is now capable of getting enough information to compete intellectually abd even strategically with "the people who matter," because we also have the ability to collaborate to mutual advantage at minimal cost.

Conservatives decry Wikipedia, for instance, because it's not "definitive," that it is "unreliable," and it's possible to insert innacurate information.

All of this is true - but what they don't comprehend is that the distinction between Wikipedia and, say, The World Book is that you can tell who's fingerprints are on which bit of information.

It's true that you can insert inaccuracies - but the act of doing so is information in it's own right; more compelling than the misinformation. Further, the process by which Wikipedia is self-policed tends to give extra validity to articles that have become stable and uncontested.

Compare that to the editorial policy of The Brittanica or Groliers.

Oh, wait. You can't.

So how do we know they have equal or higher standards, as is alleged by conservative sources?

They say so. Very authoritatively. And to the extent that you would have been able to check, that would be true, back in the day. The problem is, that makes you tend to rely on the accuracy of things you cannot check. And that is where the money is.

Go ahead, look up Armenian Genocide in three or four different encyclopedias.

Now go to Wikipedia. I don't actually know what it says - but I know that it will come from more perspectives than the "authoritative" sources, and the comments section will be more fun than "All My Children" and "Project Runway" put together.

History and culture is no longer defined by the victors, or by those who believe they are the "winners" in our society. Everybody gets their fifteen seconds - and it's archived by keyword on You-Tube forever.

Is there any point to another election?

I read the blogs, of course. I'm not going to cite anyone, because that would tend to assign blessing or blame where none is due. I will only say that this rant has been provoked by my dear blogfriend and contrary inspiration, Echidne. I will not reveal what particular post, because that would suggest that her pebble implies approval with the direction of this avalanche, and I see no good reason to assume that.

But I will state that Echidne seems to be one of the few, left or right, that seems to give a crap about the fate of those on "the other side," a virtue that I am finding it difficult to claim, even as the "right " shoots at me as if I were wearing a Leftists' red cap.

Well, it IS called a Liberty Cap.

Still, even from the more aloof and not entirely unbalanced perspective I generally try to maintain, it's almost impossible to notice the radical hatred on the "right" and the nearly delusional wishful thinking on the "left." To the extent there IS anything on the "left" of course. From MY perspective, Hillary Clinton is a moderate Republican, and the fact that she's an Ovarian American is one of the few things in her favor.

Liberals love to think she's as liberal as they are, feminists would like to think that her gyno-Americanism would override her wardrobe of scarlet ambition - but I tend to think that of all the candidates, it's probably John Edwards who wears the skirt in the family.

And I'm not saying that as an insult. There is a yin and a yang, and from my perspective, Hillary's yang hangs to her knees, and anyone who's yang is shorter, or who's yin is wider is probably more welcome in polite company.

But "Polite Comany" and "world leader" don't usually go hand in hand, so don't think I'm saying this as a put down. I respect Hill enourmously. I'm just not sure she deserves (in either the usual or the ironic sense) to be President.

A big, long, knobby Yang ain't a bad thing for a US President - unless you are betting on her to act according to your particular preconceptions of gender-based solidarity. And I personally think it would be better in some larger and less immediate sense if she were assured enough in her own gender to not try to counter-program her own femininity.

On the other hand, I bet you would get your ears most righteously pinned back should you even imply she "owes the movement" anything much more than a polite nod and a handshake. Hell, I'd probably do it on her behalf.

But still and all, there is a mess that needs cleaning up, and women are mentally better at sorting messes into useful piles. That's a vast generalization of course, but ask any woman and she'll tell you. Hell, just observe the distintions between men and women in the wild - and then try to act on the assumption that these distintcions are mere social artifiacts.

No, wait. I've got a better example. TRY do things the opposite gender is famous for doing effortlessly in the same way they do it. You may be able to get the job done just as well - but you won't be able to do it just as well if you try to do it the same way. There are some things no amount of enlightenment and social awareness can transcend. And that is why I'm concerned, not about what game she plays, or to what end, so much, but if she is allowing herself a home-gender advantage, when the world situation is positively screaming for it.

I AM impressed by how she handled Bill's messes without undermining the good Bill is capable of, OR doing anything to enable him in his folly beyond that expected of a proper partner and spouse. That speaks to me of a sharp focus on the relative importance of various things. But I am as yet unconvinced.

I should also mention that of the very great female leaders in history, all of them seemed to come to power at times of great social change, where the masculine approach of sudden violent action would be about as smart as lighting a match in a powder shack.

For that very reason alone, I am predisposed to a woman president. Not because they are "just as good" as any male; but because women and men are non-interchangeable. We have different inherent advantages and deficits, and those of us who unabashedly exploit the former while ruthlessly compensating for the latter are worthy of anyone's vote. And I do think B and H do compensate well for each other's lacks. Politically. I'm just not sure if they see a larger advantage than their own careers.

So if she is elected, I do hope she can rise to the example of Elizabeth the First and transcend the example of Cleopatra. But, well-endowed as she is, I'm not sure it's Motherwit she's endowed with. Still, Bill does have some of that.

Personally I think power is what makes HER nipples hard and I think that's how she should be judged - how well she will use the very thing she wants in the worst way** and how much we should charge her for the pleasure.

As opposed to, well, the other way around, how much we will be charged for the pleasure of her leadership.

This, by the way, is an arrogance and folly that seems endemic of all the "first tier" candidates and the pundits that shill for them; that we should somehow take pride in our support of one or another, rather than the fact that they should be personally thanking each and every one of us willing to part with five minutes or a spare dollar to help them along the way.

I'm Not Leftist at all (I keep protesting) but in some respects, Hillary is still to the right of me. Not because she wants to be, I think, but because she and her husband have made political expediency into an art form. In other words, she's just as Liberal as any Canadian Liberal. She says what she has to to get elected, then she will do what she needs to do to stay in power.

But what I do know is that she shares something in common with all of those on the other side of the asile - the idea that there ought to be people in charge, that without the Rule of Authority, Chaos Will Ensue, and that she is qualified to rule.

The last point is for all of us to determine, but I observe that the first two assumptions are fallacious - but very convenient to those born with access to power and the ambition to secure more of it.

If this were Canada, with Canada's particular ways of applying pressure to the powerful, I'd vote for Miz Clinton in a heartbeat, believing as I do of her as I do, because in Canada, there is the understanding that you elect a politician that would like to be honest* - and then help them keep their promises. She's every bit the man - and woman - that Jean Chretien ever was. And she probably has a better command of both French and English.

Honestly, I don't much care for her personally - but the history of US politics shows that likable people are either too squeamish for the job - Jimmy Carter - or are simply panderers to those they want to be liked by, like Regan and Bush. I'd rather have a president I was personally disappointed by, but respected for their sheer brilliance. Nixon and Bill Clinton come to mind for very different reasons.

I don't need a leader, personally - but this country and the great bulk of the population does, so it's a critical issue, that quality of "leadership."

Both panderers and idealists are lousy leaders. I will state up front that Hillary is obviously neither; but she IS is a third thing - the sign of a leader that many will follow to hell, and that might well lead us there just to prove she's got the power to do so.

Furthermore, my gut says that Hillary won't do the right thing if it gets in the way of the politically expedient thing, which means no radical departure from the last fifty years of stupid. I say that even as I remind myself that "politics is the art of the possible." I believe that Hillary is enamored of power itself, and will do whatever it takes to keep it.

Again, if this were Canada.. but it is not, and those that most need a good leader and a champion, those who most deserve a light on a narrow path toward a brighter future are, I think, likely to be disappointed.

I simply cannot forget, nor easily forgive the fact that both Bill and Hillary were quite upbeat about "welfare reform" here in the US - possibly the single most mean-spirited piece of social legislation short of the Enclosure Acts that brought many of our forebears to North America. At the very best, they held their noses as it passed, and took some credit for it to gain points with the wealthy and powerful.

For myself, I have a more workaday perspective on such folks.

"The Gangs of New York" documents what they found, coming here in search of a better life. The full scope of the tragedy is encompassed in the observation that they actually DID find a better life, one well worth engaging in gang warfare to defend - even as Boss Tweed, who reminds me rather a lot of both of a slightly imprudent Bill Clinton and a somewhat better and more intelligent George Bush callously remarked that "you can always hire half of the poor to kill the other half."

Think on that, as the repugnant wing of the Republican party tries to squeeze more out of the poor to enrich (and please) the sort of rich person that thinks their wealth is degraded somehow by the lack of sufficient abject, humiliating, exploitable poverty.

I don't call myself a Progressive - but both Shit and Progress Happens. I happen to believe that the essential difference between shit and progress is pretty much where it gets dumped, and to who's advantage.

My belief in progress begins and ends at the sincere belief that no person and no institution that wishes to survive should try and stand in it's way. Both social conservatives and so-called progressives tend to do this. One wishes to stop it, the other to "guide it." I think the first to be suicidally futile, the other hilariously futile, with the preditive and practical value of a Hal Linsay novel.

Yeah, I know, he doesn't think they are fiction. And he shares that touching conceit with those who Envision A Better Future For Humanity - a future most often envisioned without any broad or significant human contact.

I prefer to watch the splendor of the great leaderless parade from a safe vantage, knowing that altering the path of progress is like playing traffic cop in a cattle stampede.

My obvious cynicism is not because I do not care about individuals. I care about little else; I see both church and state as barely tolerable institutions that exist only for the aid and comfort they give to individuals, and only to the degree they serve individuals humbly and impartially. I see these institutions as being powerful only to the extent that people see no choice in giving power to them. I, personally, see that donation of power as a great mistake, even though I admit that pretending otherwise would have shown me greater personal profit.

My goodness, even in the last decade, had it been within me to hold my nose and speak as Coulter or Limbaugh have - and honestly, I could do better, were I unburdened by conscience or the perception of the individual consequences of people taking me seriously - I could have become rather well-off. Certainly well-off enough to relocate to a country where the poor are agreeably and institutionally oppressed for the benefit of the sort of people I would have become and likely to stay that way long enough to die smugly of old age.

But I do not see it as "better" that one be a hammer than a nail. Given that dichotomy, I prefer to be the light fixture in the workshop. This light shows me clearly that those who think only in terms of hammers and nails are utterly screwed.

I do not champion any particular ideology. I've tried out various ideologies, and all of them, to one degree or another, tend to justify the need to break eggs in order to make a omelets for whatever group or segment of the population they most value.

I value the individual - but not as an expendable resource. That is why I'm a Libertarian. I'm an individualist first, last and always, and it's as good a label as any for those who need labels, though I could be just as accurately called a disciple of the Eight Immortals.

At base, I do think that every individual is connected with every other, and that John Donne was correct in saying "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

I just don't happen to think that being connected to all gives me the right to pro-actively act in "their own interest," when really it's my comfort and security that I seek to defend.

Consider the ever-so-pious liberal attempts to ban smoking.

At the root of it, it's disrespectful of the needs and desires of individuals, which are considered far less important than the mild preferences of any group of like-bleating sheep. Side-stream smoke, at least when banished to separate rooms or outdoors is far less of a threat than, say, automotive exaust.

But that sort of Liberal is very dependant upon their Limosines - where they will likely light up in private, even as their conservative counterparts indulge themselves in the joys of non reciprocal oral sex.

With Illegal immagrant male minors of African descent.

Yes, I do prefer the hypocrisies of liberals, being a white citizen of legal age. But they are hypocracies, nonetheless, and I DO smoke.

Moreover, I enjoy it.

Anyhoo; I harbor no illusions that all individuals are equal, much less equivalent, much less interchangeable. Indeed, it's the very most dear topic of the bloggers who's critical insight I value most - that women and minorities are considered as groups, with group characteristics that devalue and degrade any particular individual. I find their arguments to the contrary both effective and persuasive, for their arguments match my experience.

I have known many individuals, of all genders and races, and I've never met one person who fit any particular stereotype unless that was their individual goal in life.

Pretty much, the only people I know who celebrate and revere stereotypes as their personal ideals are drag queens, Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians and Anne Coulter who somehow manages to maintain an improbably high heel in both camps.

Though I don't doubt her XX credentials (or even consider claiming the right to demand a blood test) , she portrays femininity more than just being female, somewhat in the way a successful trannie does, which probably explains the wide perception that she is one.

Personally, I much prefer Ru Paul, who is twice the woman Anne is, and a far more credible actor. Genuine Drag Queens and Kings are a lot more fun to be around, which is really how you tell the difference. They know they are sacred clowns. Ann just thinks she is sacred and justified - which makes her a self-nominated sacred cow, all ready to be tipped.

Even Ru Paul know there is a time to be in drag, and a time to NOT be in drag, and that each has different standards of virtue and fabulousness. The comparable Christianists seem to believe they can't properly revere their stereotypes without forcing everyone else to dress and speak just as they do.

Now imagine how truly Unspectacular it would be, how very UN-festive it would seem, if Mardi Gras was compelled by law, 24/7, 365, and if "certain people" were compelled by law to be mostly naked save for feathers and beads. Yeah, I'm talking about you and your pale, flabby, wrinkly self. It takes a lot of work to be fablulous, and frankly, I have better things to do, and I imagine you think you do too.

As well we might, given a social matrix that allows us to clothe our shortcomings. :P But if it were compulsary (eithier legally or just in a practical sense, as it was in ancient Greece, )

It would be as small-minded, as proscribed and as essentially dull and vapid as any Christianist social matrix. Take "Antigone."

Please.

Of course, we would all get used to it - much like we have gotten used to excusing other intuitively stupid things, like supply-side economics, or the inherent benevolence of human nature, and we would excuse it with shared fairy tales as to how awful things would be if we did not choose to sacrifice some of our freedom to stave off the evil day.

Thus is it now, and so it was in the days of Sophocles and FDR. Different fables, pretty much the same rectal burning the fables are supposed to distract us from. Could be worse, they say; it could be SQUARE, like the OTHER people want to use on you.

And so each individual is imposed upon by the groups purporting to represent their interests; whether it's Hoffa or Bush, and as one mexican peasant put it, after being "liberated" once again, this time by General Pershing; "What does it matter? You ALL steal my chickens."

And in "stealing those chickens" from the Masses, in order to Properly Feed the Great Struggle , my feminist and "racially aware" compadres tend to miss an essential point - in exactly the same way that Dominionists, Patriarchs and white racists do.

There is a great amount of value in individual variation; culture and genetics count for some large part in this; far more than either racists or their ideological foes would care to admit.

I oppose oppression based on any perception that any particular distinction is sufficient to indicate social or biological superiority or inferiority. Certainly there ARE individuals that are, I'm afraid, somewhat overall less capable in general than others. I'm one of those; though I do choose to believe that my greater needs for support are matched by my unusual, if narrow ranges of skill. What I am good at, I'm VERY good at, and there are enough that value what I can do that I've never had to be seriously concerned about what I cannot. And yet, I cannot honestly pretend that the greatest of my advantages are the result of practice. I was born with them - and some of what are my greatest advantages kinda suck for me in a slightly different light.

Due to having my nose rubbed in the matter, I have an intimate appreciation of the variation and value of humanity. I've come to hold nothing but amused disdain for those who think that any particular description of how people should be is preferable to the simple idea that, so long as you mind your own business to the extent you can, and to the extent that you cannot, honestly render value for value, you and yours will be safe and warm in the sort of community that best suits them.

What more does anyone really need?

This vision is inclusive of those who are excellent at making money. Most people are not, it's a rare and valuable skill - for after all, the very activity of gaining great wealth increases general prosperity. Or at least it does when those skilled in making wealth remember that they would not have been able to apply those skills without help, encouragement and the investment of both cash and sweat.

They should know, understand and appreciate that their talent is rare and very much appreciated by those who do not share it - even as they appreciate, use and celebrate abilities that would never truly flower without their support and patronage.

It takes a largish village to raise a child, in part because there is no guarantee that any particular set of parents has all the insight and experience that any particular child will need to be their best - nor is there any way to predict what it will be ahead of time.

That is why I absolutely reject ANY faith or culture as inherently inhuman, obviously unethical, deeply un Christian and inarguably stupid that excludes any choice or life-path that is not directly and provably harmful to others - and I specifically spurn those who base the sum of their faith not on what they are and what they do, but on who they are not, and what they do NOT do.

Note that I abstain from calling social champions of exclusionary faith - such as Huckabee, Bin Ladin, Pat Robertson or Orthodox Druidry by the name they would arrogate to themselves, or referring to their refuges from reality as Churches, Temples, Ashrams or Faith Groups.

Conformity is not faith, and a conformity so insecure that it cannot exist without forcing public obedience to overt exhibitions of that that faith on everyone else is utterly, totally fucking worthless. It has not even the significance of a drag review. It hasn't the social importance of a Folsom Day Parade. It doesn't have the spiritual significance enjoyed by Our Ladies of Perpetual Indulgance. All these things, after all, challenge conventional assuptions and therefore promote the testing and examination of valid spiritual and social truths.

Christianist fetishism celebrates the ideal of eliminating fun for themselves and everyone they can intimidate, in order to eliminate anything that might test their shallow, bitter and pointless faith in their own moral superiority.

Any faith that regularly encourages it 's members to cause (or at least excuse) harm to others, even family members, in the here in now, in the name of "saving their souls" shows an arrogance and indifference toward the very words of Christ that disqualifies them from ANY valid observation of the Numinous.

Unfuck them, say I; they might not appreciate it; but far more significantly, they certainly don't deserve it, much less the right to any genetic payoff.

Perhaps I can sum this up in one or two more graphs and keep it all within the bounds of reason. I have come to think that it may not be reasonable to expect that the vast problems of this great, inept and debtor nation may even be addressed by a federal election. It may be time to admit that we are not one great culture, but at LEAST two, with incompatible ideas as to what "great" means. I am starting to believe that we should each of us declare for the outcome we prefer - or abandon the right to a preference.

There seems to be a huge discordance between the coasts and the interior states, the cities and the countryside; the sophisticates and the viciously ignorant Siberian peasantry who indulge in religiosity as a hangover cure for their own workaday brutality.

Yes, clearly I have my own value judgments going on here. I will unabashedly admit that I'd rather trip over any number of "commies", "niggers," "faggots" "feminazis" and "preverts" on the way to a well-stocked library. None of them ever beat the crap out of me for reading books for fun. Hell, many of them handed me books to read and lived lives worth remembering.

I'm predisposed to forgive many putative faults in those who hand me mental chocolate!

I will delightedly admit that I would rather put up with all of the downsides of a civilized, coastal culture than the inbred, small minded, dead-end reflexes of a long-gone inland agrarian culture that I doubt was worth the powder to blow it to hell at the hight of the family farm.

Certainly I know of few social stories that elevate the life on a farm over the opportunity to successfully escape it.

Now, I don't mind if you find my choices repugnant nor will I even say that I honestly reject all that is middle America. Frankly, given the Internet, it SHOULD be possible to have and value both, if Middle America would allow it.

However, I know that it will not, and that many Middle Americans would love to see me dangling from a lamp-post, along with all the others they call "Liberals".

I cannot help but take that personally. So, forgive me, or not, but if it comes down to a choice between me and mine living, and all the people who would like to see me and mine dangling from lamp-posts dead, I know what I will choose. I know who uses "diversity" and "tolerance" as bad words - and how little I need their continued existence as a cultural, religious or selection of like-minded individuals.

Tolerance has limits even among the tolerant. Tolerating those who would kill you or worse because you are forgiving, tolerant and therefore "weak" is suicidally foolish.

Increasingly, I see the difficulty of governing a nation divided so, on the cusp of ignorance and enlightenment, between those who hope and strive for a better future for themselves and others, and those who fear any change that might possibly affect what little they are and what small prizes they have gained at the expense of "lusers" they despise.

I know which side of the balance I am on - for being who and what I am, I have little choice in the matter. I've not been able to "go along to get along" any time in my memory, so I must go with all the other liberals, faggots, artists, dykes, feminists, intellectuals, geniuses and mentally handicapped that do not fit the mold of "good Midwestern stock."

And frankly, after seeing what has come of following your fears and prejudices these last years, the blowback of your bleating conformity and unreasoning panic; the spiritual rewards of your sacrifice of anyone but your own - well, I have to say that if napalm and cluster bombs MUST be pissed upon someone from a great height, why NOT you? How have you in any way earned a justifiable moral exception to the violence you have empowered and affirmed?

You certainly have earned it as much as any Iraqi, and FAR more than the average Iranian - even as your churches and dear leaders cheer the idea of paving Iran in green glass.

Oddly, you seem confused that those who live downwind might object to such an obvious national security imperative. (That would be sarcasm.)

You demanded it be done to others - and their children. You would wish it done to even more. Have we not all heard calls for bombing the Madrases? Madrases are indeed evil places - but they are evil places filled with children who are slaves to that evil. You would rather kill them than save them, for the outcome of one is cheap and sure, while the outcome of the other requires effort, heart, and not a little heartbreak - and you don't even consider your own noncompliant offspring worth a moment's sorrow.

Of these children - those of others and those you choose to reject - you either said, or silently assented with the idea that "nits breed lice."

Indeed they do.

One sort of bloodsucking oppressive patriarchal religious dictatorship is pretty much the same as any other, and "nits" raised in either result in lice distinguishable only by other lice.
Speaking for humanity in general, I think we would all love to see a war of extermination between the crab lice and the head lice ... if only, of course, it were not our human heads and pubes as a battlefield.

But having that wistful vision, it's difficult to pass the products in the supermarket aisle designed to remove lice from one's follicles without wondering what tempting products are available to our long-suffering planet.

So, you in the Midwest have a choice. You can either do as generations of your smarter and less compliant offspring have done; allow the scales to fall from your eyes, regard the consequences of your social and religious indoctrination and move to a civilized state, or you can face the just wrath of the world, perhaps including those civilized states.

Should you MANAGE to cheat your way to another electoral victory, do NOT expect those of us who share more worldly values with most of the world to spend many drops of blood or any large number of tears for the fate of you and yours.

I know that if I see black helicopters flying cover for white tanks heading east on I-80, I will wave that UN flag like a madman. I will of course take sensible precautions as well; hiding a few things in undisclosed locations - but a rational paranoia does not preclude a certain schadenfreud at the rewards of irrational and vicious paranoid revenge fantasies acted out upon innocents thought to be safely powerless.

Fuck you all to death, with the sharp and unwelcome objects you made for profit and intended to inflict upon others, you and the religious leaders who told you Haliburton and Exxon belonged in your Ethical Fund.

May you rot in the various hells you would wish upon others, after no more painful and humiliating a death than the god you worship would consider the due of sinners such as yourselves working for the OTHER god you worship even more faithfully.
---
*An honest politician is one who stays bought.

**Better than many, not as well as some, at least as well as any serious competitor.

The Point to the Second Amendment.

It was the Founder's view that all governments - from the lowest, to the highest, should live in fear of the Citizen's displeasure, rather than the other way around. And to this end, they placed into the Constitution a Bill of Rights which granted no rights, but rather recognized several specific, inalienable rights and prohibiting several common restrictions upon them.

But the right to say "no" to a beneficent and helpful government who only wants "what's best" for it's people has never been popular with those in the business of governing, and far less so with those persons who think that having wealth enough to compromise the principles of individuals engaged in the excercise of government implies a legitimate interest in and ownership of that which does not belong to them.

Indeed, if there is a single issue of bipartisan agreement in Washington, Kennebunkport and The Hamptons, it's that ordinary Citizens should be allowed little or no meaningful say in their destinies beyond whatever cosmetic formalities are absolutely required to permit the current pretense of democracy to continue.

Here Come the Thought Police - CommonDreams.org: "

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates “thought police,” it defines “homegrown terrorism” as “planned” or “threatened” use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of “political or social objectives.” That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.

Any social or economic reform is fair game. Have a march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform - amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v. Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of force to intimidate the people, courts or government.

The bill defines “violent radicalization” as promoting an “extremist belief system.” But American governments, state and national, have a long history of interpreting radical “belief systems” as inevitably leading to violence to facilitate change.

Examples of the resulting crackdowns on such protests include the conviction and execution of anarchists tied to Chicago’s 1886 Haymarket Riot. Hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee for several decades during the Cold War and the solo hearings by a member of that committee’s Senate counterpart, Joseph McCarthy, demonstrate the dangers inherent in Ms. Harman’s legislation.

It was for just such purposes that the Second Amendment was written; to establish, the right of both singular and collective self defense against all those who would otherwise trample our liberties, steal our children and molest our cattle.

The idea was to create a government that governed by consent, not by force.

The Constitution does not "grant" the right to bear arms or any other right, rather, it recognizes rights that exist whether authorities like it or not and restricts the extent to which Government can request a delegation of those rights in return for better results than individuals could manage for themselves.

For instance, the right to self-defense is inherently limited by our need to sleep and the lack of eyes in the back of our heads. We do not give away our rights in this regard by chartering specialized militias - (police, fire, highly-trained and well-equipped rescue and emergency crews, armed forces, border patrols, etc;) - we are collectively empowering specialist militias who can give the problem their full attention and respond better and more effectively than any individual could, even if they could afford the equipment and the time. But we are delegating, not abandoning our responsibility in this regard. According to the philosophers who influenced the Founders, such as Locke, it was not really possible to abandon responsibility.

These are "inalienable rights," that is to say, rights that cannot actually be bought, sold, bartered or removed by fiat, for so long as someone can say "I would rather die than put up with this," there is always an absolute limit to power.

Allow me to point to a painfully current example. I'm quite sure it's illegal in Iraq to bear arms against the Iraqi Army and our own troops. And yet, clearly, many do. We respond with deadly force, reasonably enough under the circumstances, on the individual if not the strategic level.

So long as they are willing to bear that weight of fire, they have an inherent right to act as they will - not because they are correct in doing so, or have a moral high ground of any sort, but because "stop, don't do that" does not work unless people commonly consent to obey the law and act as civilized human beings. The right and obligation to create law and order is upon those who most desire to shape it's form and define it's nature, it's benefits must be persuasive to those it would govern, or they will not be governed by it.

Consider, if you will, the traditions and history of the Scottish Highlanders. It may be summed up as "Oh, yeah? You and what fucking army, English?"

The Iraqis have an inalienable right to defend their ideals, ideas, neighborhood and social ambitions with force, just as many of our intemperate and untamed ancestors did, people whom, truth be told, Afghan terrorists might well refer to as "savages." Did you know it was Scots immigrants who taught Indians to take scalps?

The Iraqis also have an inalienable right to be wrong about the legitimacy of their cause and the the means they choose to contest the issue. It is a most basic human right to spend our lives as we see fit, no matter what others may say about it or how arguably foolish our choices are. If you think my choices foolish, share your thoughts with me and convince me that viable alternates exist. Otherwise, your choice in regards to me is to either bugger off or brace for impact.

It's amazing to me that there many people who would never assert a "right" to back a rat into a corner and emerge unscathed who do presume they can and should expect a different outcome when treating human beings in the same way. That's appallingly stupid on an individual level; it's inexcusable on the part of an organization theoretically composed of the best and the brightest.

Our only legitimate response to those willing to resist our collective will expressed by force of arms is to either persuade them they are incorrect in the necessity to resort to force and providing a decent alternate to dying for their cause - or do them the courtesy of honoring their dedication with sustained and accurate fire in accordance with our own beliefs and principles. But when we go to this extent, we have the moral and ethical obligation to those we ask to fight on our behalf to be unassailable correct. Feral humans are ever so much more dangerous than rats. Even Rats Of Unusual Size.

If the ethics of this matter are unpersuasive to you who remain enamored of realpolitik , if you look at history and the accounts of wars, the degree to which fire is directed in accordance with beliefs and ideals has a great deal to do with how sustained and accurate it is.

When government forgets or ignores the fact that it's powers exist only to the extent they are delegated limited in exercise by the consent of the governed, resistance with the possibility of outright warfare becomes inevitable to the extent that government is able to put arrogance into practice.

That same equation tends to degrade the ability of the government to convince people to spend their lives on it's behalf.

In our Constitution, the inherent right to resist abusive rule is not just recognized as a fact, but sanctified by forbidding the government from even trying to remove the tools of armed resistance or by forbidding the formation of practiced militias to insist on the point in a collective and effective way. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to bear arms are all guaranteed, and with those guarantees come the obvious inability to forbid discussions of the necessity of forming resistance movements.

Indeed, the only legitimate response (and come to that, one of the few practical responses) is to govern in such a way that the issue does not come up, or if it does, show up at the conclave, apologize humbly and promise faithfully to try and do better.

The presumed end was that a government kept in check in such a way will not presume too much upon the liberties of the people, and limit it's ambitions to the things supported by broad consensus, not merely the loudest, the closest and the wealthiest.

But our self-appointed lords and masters have long forgotten this ideal - if it was ever generally honored. Nonetheless, it is a fact; a reality, a truth. I don't need permission or a licensed gun dealer to prepare myself against the use of force against me.

Simply by being prepared to say "no" and by believing that there is no right of government to initiate force against me or anyone else, I'm armed. It's not about the tools - it's a matter of will, and of "won't."

My weapon of choice is the pen, not the sword. But the government cannot outlaw physics, chemistry or kinesthetics, much less practically restrict the freedom of assembly. Careful and determined persons can become dangerously proficient opponents once there is general contempt for the law and it's agents. Indeed, most resistance forces rather welcome attempts to interfere with their efforts. It tends to underline the necessity of the enterprise.

If the law is, in general, respected only when agents of the law are present in force, there is no law, and, honestly, no moral obligation to respect it.

I personally prefer to exert the First Amendment. I'm still of the opinion that is the best use of my abilities, and I still hold out some hope that the great bulk of our government may be redeemed. But if I do want to become armed, and am willing to break the law, well - there's really nothing but sheer dumb luck on the part of the Government to prevent me from doing so.

In point of fact, even in households where there currently are no weapons, the probability is very high that there are components to make weapons or devices effective enough to make at least one military grade weapon available. I mention this as a fact I hope responsible authorities are aware of, not as an encouragement or expression of intent.

That's not just butt coverage. I am still holding onto hope enough that I have not taken any steps beyond that required to prepare for any natural disaster or disturbance.

My intent is to die of old age in my sleep, many years from now with the reputation of having been an inaccurate and unduly pessimistic prophet, largely unrecognized by history, if at all.

But I fear greatly that I may well be forced to make some unpleasant choices, for if certain pissants get their way, I will be forced to operate within the tradition of the Samzidat. But it will be a Samzidat empowered by robust encryption and modern telecommunications, not old mimeograph machines hidden in attics, and it will be even more unstoppable and impenetrable by virtue of being illegal.

It would seem that Rep. Harman sees me and other Internet truth tellers as being a significant threat, one she's so worried will confuse constituents with facts that she's willing to traduce the Constitution to eliminate it. This is assuming she could, which she cannot. For myself, I can only say that any government official that sees me and other bloggers as "threats" is probably correct - so long as they are speaking of their own personal job security. If she's speaking of eminent dangers to The Republic, she need only seek out a mirror.

She can inconvenience truth telling and other forms of resistance to overweening authority - but history shows that no matter how high the stakes are raised in terms of personal risk, someone will step up to take that risk. Rep. Harman is on the wrong side of history as well as on the wrong side of her oath of office.

This and a long line of other such bills indicate to me that it is indeed the responsibility of all Citizens to consider how best to say "no" to such delusions and disturbances as may from time to time be issued from Washington, and consider how to enforce a "no" in a way that doesn't give them an excuse to have a tantrum at your expense.

I personally do not think that the personal handgun - the common symbol for the Second Amendment - is a particularly good tool for the job. I encourage free and frequent speech (regardless of whether it's considered to be "legal" speech by those who have lost any right to an opinion on Constitutional liberties), eloquent mockery and above all, a general and visible contempt and unwillingness to be intimidated by the sorts of pinheads who find Bushco's arguments persuasive. Force is an option only when force is initiated - and there is no other choice.

And remember - no one has the right to initiate force against you. Not even the police. They DO have the right to arrest you with probable cause, detain you long enough to establish whether or not circumstance warrant arrest, and they have the right to use force when and if you use force to resist or attempt to impede them. Making them carry you is not force.

But the most probable agents of authority will not be "official." they will be thugs who are either paid to use force against you - such as Blackwater mercenaries - or eager volunteers; brownshirt wannabees.

Argue as they will, rant as they wish; the moment they draw back a fist to strike you, you may act upon them in accordance to your own views of appropriate force. Or rather, there is no law that can possibly prevent you from doing so, much less enshrine the right of armed thugs to disturb the peace.

Of course, being justified won't keep them from stomping you into jelly.

So, if you KNOW someone will strike you if you appear to resist, if you know that that is indeed their entire job description, to intimidate you into abandoning your willingness to resist, unless you are choosing to make a point by allowing them to strike you, there's little point to being there when the fist strikes home. It's much more satisfying - to create a visceral analogy - to encourage them to punch a brick wall where they thought your head would be.

There are many alternatives to compliance with Washington's will. But the most basic is this: a loaded gun, a full tank of gas, a good pair of boots, at least a week's rations and the willingness to put liberty over security. In other words, be prepared to vote with your feet. You cannot be oppressed and forced to work for the benefits of would-be slave-masters if you cannot be found. And every troop, cop and thug looking for you is too busy to oppress anyone else.

If you have been paying attention the last few years, our Lords and Masters confuse the ability to use force with "winning." Indeed, they think that beating people up, torturing them, tasering them, imprisoning them without cause or due process is proof that they have "won," that they are in control, that they are Large and In Charge.

The reality is that the slightest evidence, the faintest trace of an argument for the necessity for any of these affronts to decent, civilized opinion is overwhelming evidence of the LOSS of effective control.

In fact they have already lost. When a government starts routinely using preemptive force against it's people, in order to forestall them from exercising their natural right to dismiss the existing government and create one more compliant with their desires, they lose the right to presume upon the consent of the governed.

As a practical matter, it's simply impossible for the Government to lock us all down to the degree that would be needed to prevent outbreaks of "domestic terrorism" - which is exactly how the government would view individuals and militias that took to the hills with their computers and stealthy internet access.

It is a complete waste of money and human resources for our government to be building domestic internment camps, if for no other reason than the fact that it shows that they don't have the skill or imagination to be quite sure that such things won't be needed. And yet they have. Rather a lot of them.

Preparing for a probable breakdown of civil authority is pretty much an admission that such authority is not doing it's job, whatever they might have to say about the whys and the wherefores.

In a practical sense and in the sense of truth Madison Avenue uses, it matters not what you say if nobody believes it.

Nixon had a credibility gap. That implies that there were areas of credibility on either side. I mean, if Nixon waxed eloquent about the need for an empowered executive and the right of that executive to ignore the law - that was met with justified hoots of derision and entirely justified outrage. But when he talked about China - we knew he was probably not talking out of his ass.

Unlike George Bush.

But as offensive and annoying as our government is, and as infuriating as it's presumption upon our rights is, as appalling as it's attempt to criminalize critical speech, it's practical ability to enforce it's will is open to question, as is the question as to what percentage of government agents and officials agree with the whims of our spuriously elected representatives.

Indeed, I think the fact that martial law has not yet been declared is compelling evidence that some sanity remains within various government agencies, at least below the level of political appointees.

Government exists only as a collection of individuals, has no reality or existence other than that and needs no greater authority than being a number of citizens who are good at a thing banding together to do that thing professionally for the benefit of their fellow citizens. As professionals, and as legitimate experts in their areas of competence, it must be even more galling for many of them to have to submit to the whims of the appointed delusional incompetents they serve than it is for us to endure the results at some distance, with the luxury of being able to ignore it for the most part.

As for the elected, civilian leadership that acts as a check on our professionals doing unto us what they think best despite our wishes, there is nothing inherent in the job that implies that one is better than one's fellows, certainly nothing that requires greater intelligence or higher moral authority. God KNOWS - and so does Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich and ... yes... Bill Clinton.

When government starts demanding respect and deference that it has not earned by it's actions; when it sees no obligation to be accountable for it's behavior or it's expenditures, when it's institutions and offices ooze disrespect for the citizens that it serves, at some point people will begin to question the utility of paying it much heed or letting it see much money.

This becomes true at a point far short of outright violence and if the government restricts it's posturing to within it's own buildings and ceremonial occasions, most likely it never will. There have been entire empires that existed only within a day's ride of it's capitals. But such empires stagnate at levels of industry far below our legitimate ambitions for ourselves. So, alas, we cannot abandon government to the cities and citizens that find it's wet diapering comfortable. In that direction lies ... Pakistan.

If people cheat to gain power over their fellows - as is provably the case in the 2000 and 2004 elections, or having won more or less honestly (as is the case for the Democrats in Congress) and yet fail to do the job they were elected to do, then there's absolutely no obligation for citizens to participate in an increasingly obvious charade, tolerate the results or sustain the expense.

The the birth and existence of the United States under the Constitution underlines the "or else" clause of good and effective governance. In all human events, beneath the polite veneer of civilization under the rule of law upheld by broad consent, there is always an "or else." Governments, kings, popes and other Authorities who have forgotten this tend to disappear from history. I could elaborate more, but the poet Shelly said it better:

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

OZYMANDIAS

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.^[1]

The reason we suffer government at all; to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, is to secure our liberties for ourselves. When it presumes to take those liberties in order to appease it's own insecurities, it becomes less and less useful to the people, while becoming a greater and greater intrusion.

That may seem to some in authority like increasing control and security (no doubt it did to the fictional tyrant Ozymandias) - when in fact it's rushing toward a tipping point where widespread resistance, avoidance and outright armed hostility become inevitable - unless there is an alternate path. And there just may be one.

But that's another subject.

tag: antiauthoritarian, minarchy, infoarchy, tyrrany, opression, federal government, Individual Responsibility, Citizenship, United States, Patriotism, Libertarian Philosophy

Bad Cop. No Doughnut.

This post started as a response to a comment on a now notorious YouTube video by one akfuzz.

Here's the video again.



Here's what he said:

Obviously you have never been in this type of situation. Perhaps you could go out and do the job since you seem to know what the deal is. When you get stabbed or, or worse, shot, by an irrational handcuffed suspect, write back and let us know what you think, eh? BTW, I was not defending this officer, merely stating that given the limited video, 'tis hard to say what really happened.

Ok, that sounds almost reasonable, until you actually think about it.

There are two minutes and thirteen seconds of sadistic pornography captured on that tape - and as a cop, in a live situation, you are expected to assess threats, probable perps, instigators and victims in under 15 seconds, with any more time being a distinct luxury.

But with good training, that's easily possible, and that's a good thing, because you can get all sorts of dead in 15 seconds. So I KNOW who the perp is. And I really don't care that the victim was "acting out."

Here's what SHE said about it:

In the video, Gill, once inside the police car, kicks the back-seat window and continues to scream. "At this point, I had been Tased for so long and just drug around by my handcuffs. I was terrified of this man. He was no longer a police officer to me."

I suggest to you that that was not compliant mindset the officer was supposedly intending.

And if you ever find yourself in this situation, I assure you that a jury will find that amount of video more than enough time to assess whether sober compliance or panicked flailing is "more reasonable" to expect of a drunken woman already - by her own admission and according to the testimony of others- already in an aroused emotional state.

Earlier, akfuzz had uttered this deadpan confirmation of observations and criticisms I'd made earlier about cops, tasers and contempt of those currently in power for the rights and dignity of the citizenry.

akfuzz (2 days ago) Sh

And, the Taser is used to gain compliance, nothing more. A suspect who continues to resist will be Taser'd again, handcuffed or not, male or female...It is not a gender bias thing, I have seen both men and women do horrible things while handcuffed. Nobody can say what they would have done unless they were in the same situation, not even other police officers such as myself. It would not be fair.

akfuzz (2 days ago) Show Hide Marked as spam

It is very hard to Monday morning QB something like this. I could see where folks would be upset seeing this limited video footage, however, not knowing all the details makes it wrong to judge either the officer or the suspect. I am sure the internal investigation will reveal what really happened, and it's not right to bow to political pressure or the media, such as it appears in this case.

Yes, fuzzynuts, we HAVE seen how tasers are used to "gain compliance, nothing more." Even when it's a compliance that's a flat out violation of constitutional rights or completely unreasonable to expect, due to the obvious mental state of the person being tasered.

And in both cases, there's reasonable evidence to suggest from the raw video that there's a component of sadistic enjoyment in using the taser to inflict pain and enforce compliance.

Now, sir, my standards tell me that a person doing that without a badge has no right to expect restraint on my part to end their offense against the decent expectations of civilized persons. How do you then excuse those who do the exact same thing under color of law? Have you no shame? Have you no professional standards? Aren't you personally embarrassed by the mere existence of such walking trouser stains?

The raw footage from an officer's dash camera - a device intended to prevent the impasse of "he said, she said" situations in court is not "media pressure." It's presenting evidence of a situation that is of concern to the community.

In the real world where knowing truth from fiction is important, outside of the realm of Fox news, facts are facts, and evidence trumps protests of supposed innocence.

Note, when I say "evidence," I mean precisely that, in an exact legal sense. Whatever motivations or training deficits turn up, we don't need to wait to find out what "really happened." The why of it may be of interest, but what we saw IS exactly what happened. What we saw was a repeated assault against a person who was no threat to the officer.

What we do not know is what caused the situation to escalate to that point out of range of the camera - but it would be unwise to assume that testimony from either the cop, the club or the bartender mentioned in the dispute will be without any trace or shade of self-excusing selective interpretation. Besides, we know another thing.

ALL assaults against a person are, in fact, intended to "gain compliance, nothing more."

The blunt truth is, if you have to immediately resort to force to gain compliance, it doesn't show a lot of confidence in your own ability to control a situation, or much respect for the willingness of the average citizen to comply with reasonable, lawful directions in a tense situation.

Perhaps this is because their contempt for your understanding of "lawful order" is well earned? Perhaps it's due to the fact that, having a central nervous system capable of pointing and firing a Taser, you also have some doubts about the solidity of citizen support for your authority that the actual existence of the Taser implies - a means of enforcing compliance that any semi-trained thug can use in situations where a citizen's rightful response would otherwise be amused or enraged contempt at best?

You see, when you pull a weapon to enforce your will, you admit your powerlessness to affect the situation without it. You have abandoned any pretence of moral or lawful authority. You directly state - simply by carrying the damn thing - that you are no longer willing to depend on citizens being willing to comply because they respect you as a symbol of the rule of law and order. You expect them to comply out of fear.

But you pull the trigger, even on a "less lethal" weapon, you have just publicly admitted that your willingness to settle for fear and enforced compliance has bought you a buttload of paperwork - and that's the BEST possible outcome.

I've never been a cop - but I've ten years of martial arts under my belt, an art with a heavy emphasis on avoiding situations and resolving them with an absolute minimum of force. You learn to read body language, you develop a sixth sense for body language, and you make a habit of respectfully treating everyone as if they were Bruce Lee dipped in nitroglycerin. Why?

Because the most dangerous opponent is the one who realizes they don't exist on your threat-o-meter and is just drunk or distraught enough to need to prove you wrong.

Wait, make that a city councilman, a partner in the state's largest personal injury firm, who happens to be Bruce Lee, dipped in nitroglycerin.

And here's another why you should think like that. This jerk figured there was no downside to shocking the hell out of the pretty blond who wouldn't even look at him out of uniform.

What's she gonna do about it? He asks himself, Have a hissy fit?

Yeah. On CNN, no less. With her lawyer. With his very own porn tape playing in the background.

That cartoon cop was confident in the lack of power the suspect had in the situation, and willing to exploit that power imbalance to publicly humiliate her and disrespect her in front of her friends and peers - in order to avoid the heavy lifting (mental and physical) that is the job.

To protect and to serve includes suspects and panicked drunken blond chicks. It does NOT include acts that can be validly compared, metaphorically and in terms of impact on the victim and onlookers, to literal, physical rape.

Your primary tools are your presence, you aura of confident command, your knowledge of law, your reputation, your ability to create peace and security out of thin air, your patience and your integrity. All the rest of the crap hanging off you is available to any five buck an hour security guard - strike that, to anyone with an Internet connection. Including the uniform and the badge.

So the first thing you MUST keep in mind is that the casual use of said crap can erode every one of your main tools. The last thing you want is for peaceful citizens - even peaceful CRIMINAL citizens - to see you as a random, personal threat.

There must be fifty people who saw that incident, and one thing you can rely on - they will hesitate to call the cops in any preventative way, because they are now aware that calling the police will not prevent a situation from turning into an incident, it will absolutely guarantee it.

And people wonder why the violent crime rate is so high in the US.

If you have to rely on your uniform, your badge or your service issue plastic penis to prove you are a cop - like the fat-ass lazy jerk in the video - if you have to enforce compliance with a perfectly reasonable command - in the back of your mind, in the dead of night, and especially as you do the routine CYA in the report, realize that somehow you screwed up and were lucky enough to live through it because the citizen or citizen you abused or oppressed gave you a pass. Don't turn that mistake into a freaking policy, much less get lazy and expect you have a right to a life where it doesn't matter that you stupidity is committed in front of your own dashboard camera.

I mean, were I a lawyer, I would surely point out the fact height of arrogance that reveals and the depths of contempt for the good opinion of the citizenry implied by that particular lapse.

As for the risks involved in policing, do not whine to us about that. You get the uniform, you get the fast car with the sirens, you get to play with things that go bang and the county pays you for the ammo. It's an inherently dangerous job, with the perk of all the free adrenaline rushes you can stand. People actually jump out of perfectly good airplanes to get that rush, at a couple-hundred bucks a pop. You, well, we pay you for that.

Besides, it's a lot like a snowboarder stressing about wipe-outs. The only proper response is to try and keep a straight face and gently suggest golf as an alternate avocation.

A cop unwilling to take risks on behalf of the citizenry is simply an armed thug. And when I look at something like that and realize that as a potentially armed citizen I could handle that situation better - I will. And while I could not do your job on a day to day basis, Sir, there is nothing that would prevent me from handling such an incident far better. I know this as a fact, because I've been in such a situation, with a drunken, possibly suicidal citizen talking about the revolver he had in his waistband.

Not only did I handle the situation, I handled it without violence and without anyone at the bar I happened to be in becoming aware that there was a situation. That is because I relied on my ability to talk him down, rather than on the concealed weapon under MY shirt.

I'll bet you a box of Krispy Kreems that Ohio club has now hired their own security, so they don't have to rely on the risk of the city sending some random jerk to deal with loud drunks. Just because they wanted her gone that day didn't mean they didn't want her to come back - but not only did you traumatize her, but you scared the hell out of everyone else who was there. And it's a fact that whether it's fair or not, people avoid people and situations that remind them of very traumatic events. So the taxpaying owners have a very legitimate beef with that cop, his boss and the city. I imagine they have lawyers calculating the odds of successfully suing the city - and everyone else in range - for the loss of business.

So, really, it would probably have been better for everyone had that cop just slept off his ill-gotten doughnuts because his "resolution" of a breach of the peace was worse than the scuffs, hurt feelings and property damage he was sent to prevent.

Here's a new, related video that's brand new, and I'd like your professional opinion:

Consider this - and remember that tasers actually log their usage, for later use in court.

Now, here we don't know the exact situation, but it's difficult to imagine how a properly trained officer could end up tasering a schizophrenic woman - the person, by the way, who had actually CALLED 911 - and expect this to be taken as a good outcome. Oh, by the way, she passed away as a result of being tazed multiple times with two separate weapons. And yes, she was armed and she was delusional.

Oh well, that just adds to the challenge for a good cop. With good cops, situations like this end with rueful handshakes and mysterious appearances of chocolate chip cookies in the squad room. Anything that ends in a death is considered less than ideal, pretty much by the "duh" standard.

I know, I know, "we can't know what really happened." But, actually, we do know what happened - a homicide occurred as the outcome of a routine call.

We pay police to handle situations exactly like this with the expectation that they will be trained and equipped to as a matter of routine, with as little fuss and conflict as possible. We have the reasonable expectation that they have the training to deal with such situations better than we could. Let's recall that she called and asked for help. Obviously, help is precisely what she did not get.

So, whatever the resolution, whatever the facts, no matter what happened to make it all drop in the pot and to cause TWO able-bodied, fully armed cops to taser a morbidly obese schizophrenic confined to a power chair. She had two paring knives and a hammer. They carried guns fully capable of disabling the power chair, rendering her immobile, or at least very, very slow.

So why is she dead? WHY is the person who called the police for help dead as a direct result of police action, and what affect will that have on the willingness of people to call for help?

Presumably the cops expected a delusional schizophrenic to process an order to drop the weapons as if she were a sane, solid citizen who was NOT being menaced with the threat of force. They were clearly unwilling to accept even the tiniest risk of injury to themselves. But she was too freaking crazy to process that order, and the normal response of police - as you yourself stated - is to apply pain to "encourage" compliance.

Now, here's the bottom line. You are not employed by the "good citizens" in order to keep the "bad guys" in line. You are employed by the taxpayers - that would be all of us - to maintain law and order. So when you commit a breach of the peace as stock reaction to a fuckup in progress, you simply make a far worse fuckup than if you just stayed home.

Who in their right mind would call you for help, and why should you be collecting a paycheck? Hey, there are lots of people willing to beat the crap out of other folks for free, we surely don't need to pay for such a dubious "service."

Seems to me people who react like this are on the wrong side of the bars. When situations like this become commonplace, a widespread disrespect for and distrust of peace officers is inevitable. It makes the job more difficult and dangerous and ensures that when a situation does come to your attention, it's far worse than it would be for a society that is well policed and is generally law-abiding by choice.

Jeez; people like the cops shown in these videos - of which there are far, far too many to choose from - make Reno 911 look like a training film. And yes, we note "the blue wall" reaction, the automatic assumption that a fellow cop can do no wrong.

Well, as understandable and as human as that reaction is, policing is a profession with a skill set and a desired outcome - which is peace, safety, law and order. You are expected to handle confrontation, stress, danger, irrational and unreasonable people BETTER than other people.

When that does not occur, questions must arise, and you - as a person directly affected by the damage bad cops do to the reputation of good cops - should be the one asking them. Quite frankly, incompetent cops cause situations that get good cops maimed and killed. Believe it or not, I consider that an unacceptable outcome even though I stand firmly behind the next statement.

As citizens, we have the second amendment right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from the abuse of power by armed thugs, especially armed thugs employed by governments and powerful people who wish to "enforce compliance."

We delegate that power to the police, but nobody who has actually read and studied our Constitution, our history, and the Founder's intent can delude themselves that any cop has more authority than that, or needs it. Your badge simply signifies that you are a citizen trained to keep the peace and can, presumably be trusted with that duty.

There is no inherent right for a peace officer to use force to impose their will, nor do they have any broader mandate to use force than, say, me. Actually, their mandate to use force is narrower, tied to the reasonable force doctrine with the understanding that they can be reasonably be expected to react faster and be better armed in most ordinary situations, as well as mentally prepared to make actually skillful decisions in dangerous situations. Therefore, a situation where I might be excused for blowing someone away would not excuse a police officer in the same circumstances, because a cop has more options than I do.

There is no authority they may appeal to that is superior to that of any other citizen. Indeed, their authority is identical, coming from the same constitutional authority. The citizen - and that includes the one you may be arresting at the time - has exactly the same responsibility and obligation to uphold and ensure the peace.

There is no "cop exception." A cop is simply a member of a "well regulated militia" who's especially trained to do that better than an armed mob.

And if it becomes clear that they cannot regulate themselves, and ARE no better than an armed mob, if they become arrogant and abusive it's not merely the right, but the actual, literal constitutional duty of a citizen to suck it up, and deal with the threat that band of thugs presents to the community.

Because, if I see a large armed man torturing a woman who is clearly no credible threat, I know what the immediate problem is. I also know what reasonable force doctrine tells me is a reasonable response for citizen without training and experience presented with such a situation - exactly enough force to resolve the situation without danger to bystanders or unacceptable risk to the citizen.

So for the average armed citizen with a concealed-carry permit, that would be three to the center of mass if you failed to comply with a reasonable order to "STAND DOWN, SIR!"

Understand clearly; under our Constitution, Law is not imposed by force, it exists by consent. When the use of force against citizens becomes routine, it becomes exactly the situati