Never Dicksize a Lesbian!

This is the first time I've ever created a t-shirt to illustrate someone else's blog!

Amanda writes at Pandagon:

I celebrated the new-found legality of female masturbation in the state of Texas. One should never underestimate the lengths to which wingnuts will go to control female sexuality. The Texas AG Greg Abbott, who apparently has nothing better to do than to separate women from their dildos, has asked the 5th Circuit Court to rehear the sex toy case.

I’m trying to imagine the mindset of a man who doesn’t realize that when you try to take dildos away from women, basically everyone with a brain and/or a sense of humor is going to assume it’s because you’re afraid you can’t handle the competition.

It's the commentators who take it over the top and down the other side into the "enemy trenches." So to speak.

The depth of penetrating analysis had me rolling in the aisles, and a phrase that's been kicking around my head for ages had to be used.

I have no idea whether Amanda is a lesbian, by the by. It's simply a truism that those who would not laugh until they pee at this post, and of course Texas by extention, probably assumes so.

And that's where the funny lives. (click for punchline)

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.

A Tribute To Our Patron Saint

Update: Zazzle deleted this product because the image "violated Mae West's Celebrity Rights."
I was shocked.




Mae West: Those who are easily shocked...
by

webcarve

"Transparency"= "Now that we know where you live, maybe you'll shut up about your civil rights, liberal assholes."

Every once in a while I drop Jon Swift a suggestion via Stumbleupon, and sometimes he even takes the hint. Today I noticed that he'd dropped by and so I went to see what, if anything he'd made of my latest study in reasoned incoherence, which is noted for pithy observations such as this:

the only cure for such offensive pornography is, as the saying goes, "more and better pornography." We must not abandon the most reliable handle upon the future behavior of our youth to those who would wank them to destruction.

and this...

Those who seek power over others - sexually, in politics, in commerce, in life - do it because that is a visceral need for them. It's not because they deserve it, or because they can be assumed to be able or willing to do anything useful with that power when they have it. Using power wisely and well is a skill, as well as an under-acknowledged responsibility. Understanding and acceptance that there IS a price to power is, sadly, almost never something that comes with the kink itself. And yes, folks, the need to hold power over others is a psycho-sexual kink, to the point of being a disastrous character flaw if not admitted. (CF. George W. Bush; Hillary Clinton, Wahabism.)

If those who need power like vampires need blood are not trained and guided to seek power wisely and use it well, they will fail - and it will almost by definition be a cascade failure of catastrophic proportions. (CF. George W. Bush; Hillary Clinton, Saudi Arabian Justice)

And while Jon made no reference to any of the points I raised here, he did raise an essential point dear to my heart; anonymity on the net, contrasted by the truly bizarre idea that divulging my name, rank and social security number somehow enhances my credibility. This idea, referred to as "transparency," suggests that if you know someone's real name, real job, real phone number and real address, you should somehow find them more credible than someone like Jon Swift, "Publius," famous psudonym of the authors of the federalist papers, or most humbly, myself.

I find it to be a bizarre, if not wildly delusional viewpoint, considering who lives and works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and their established credibility.

Jon asks, rhetorically:

Did Publius lack "integrity, maturity and courage," Mr. McKeen? Publius was the pseudonym Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay used when they wrote The Federalist Papers. What about Senex, who many people believe was Patrick Henry? Or Phocion, better know as Alexander Hamilton? Without these great Pseudonym-Americans the United States would not exist or, even worse, might be part of Canada today. Indeed, many great men and women in history used pseudonyms at one time or another. I don't think François-Marie Arouet (better known as Voltaire) was a coward. And Marion Morrison, despite his very effeminate sounding name, was more of a man than Scott McKeen will ever be. At least when he called himself John Wayne. Perhaps we Pseudonym-Americans would feel better about ourselves if we knew how many great people in history, and how many accomplished people today, are just like us. Unfortunately, they don't usually teach this in schools.

Publius would argue, I suspect, that a pseudonym can at times be a useful means to assure that an argument be evaluated on it's own merits, and not upon the reader's prejudgment of the motives, morals and political ambitions of the authors. Jon Swift might add that sometimes knowing an irrelevant personal detail can suck all the fun out of a running gag.

I mean, is the Unknown Comic as funny now that we know who's under the bag? More importantly, what does it say about those who are convinced that they somehow have the right to know who or what is behind the mask?

I have a very personal insight in that matter, because for me, as a multiple personality, it's a matter of more than philosophical significance. At least at first blush, and certainly in more direct and practical terms. My birth name has very little reality to me; indeed, it implies associations that I do not actually have and would have to publicly disavow if they were credited to me. It's a very old and Terribly English name. The use of my birth name would in fact tend to suggest political, religious and cultural associations and beliefs that would be anything but factual, whether or not you thought they reflected well upon me personally.

I mention this for a couple of reasons. First, because the whole idea of multiple personality has a long history of making the sort of people who insist on knowing who people "REALLY" are experience massive virtual cranial detonation. And second, to illustrate what a truly slippery concept it is.

I'm Bob King. It's a use-name, one so well-used that it may as well be my "real name." Indeed, the only reason that has not become my legal name is the expense and inconvenience. It's the name I sign my artwork with, and frankly, that makes it a good deal more personally "real" to me than the name on my birth certificate.

I started to use the name a long long time ago, not because I was embarrassed about it's frankly adult subject matter as I would have been deeply offended and embarrassed at family reactions to "airing my dirty laundry." Like many people of WASP ancestry, the assumption of an impervious facade of denial of a childhood filled with shame, guilt and soul-destroying oppression. And that, I add, is without any presumption of literal incest or physical abuse. Anonomous servers such as anon.penet.fi made a lot of people feel safe enough to discuss these issues among themselves and realize that there experiences, far from being a bizarre therapeutically-induced delusion, was a depressingly common circumstance that was only possible because it could be assumed that nobody would ever talk about it for fear that they would lose all credibility in every other area of life - and of course, for fear of more direct and personal reprisals.

The very existance of that venerable anonomous remailer shows how very long this tension between annonymity and "transparancy" has gone on, and the history of the service as recorded by WikiPedia and the attacks upon it by the Church of Scientology that eventually required it be shut down should inform you of what sort of people are most concerned about knowing "who people really are."

As far as I'm concerned, unless you owe ME money or I owe YOU money, that's as real a name as you have any right to expect. Frankly, you will find out a lot more about me that's useful to you in evaluating the worth of my written views by googling that name as opposed to a birth name I don't use even in Meatlife social contexts.

But those who are deeply suspicious of the motives of those who wish to hold powerful people publicly accountable for their alleged misdeeds have actually tried to criminalize the "annoyance" of people without a "real name" attached. It's not going to survive it's first court challenge; it's merely one more example of ingrown Republicanism and it's annoyance with the awkwardness of living within the dire strictures of the US Constitution.

Much of this whole thrust toward "transparancy" seems to me both delusional and gutless; the idea that, by being "brave" enough to reveal your "real" name, you are somehow more "authoratative" than someone such as myself, or Jon, who have to rely on the actual content of our arguments rather than the results of a data mining operation to convince you of the merit of our words. Jen (That's My Real Name, I PROMISE) Flannigan asserts this principle in her post called "peek-a-boo."

An even bigger reason not to hide is that there is so little to be gained that way. Even if no one ever invests the effort in finding your true identity and you remain safely masked, what do you gain that way? Making yourself heard is very powerful. But what good is it really if it then can’t be used to connect you to communities and people and opportunities. What kind of power do you really have if all you ever do is hide in an office or a living room somewhere and fire off nameless missives into the void? Isn’t the real power in connecting and opening doors for yourself and others? Doesn’t that require more of a presence than a fake name? What is the goal and the power of hiding behind your own words?

So, essentially, you assume that there is "something to be gained" in terms of personal power and influence IF people can be reassured they know who you "really are" and what strings you can "really" pull - and what shibboleths you will endeavor to help preserve.

It seems to me, then, that people who make a great big fat hairy deal about this "real name" thing are pointing toward that which is, paradoxically, the least real thing about them - their personal and social facade. And by insisting that everyone they deal with accede to these same standards, it seems to me that they are investing in a personal and public "network" much invested in keeping all kinds of unpalitable facts and insights at bay.

Jen is choosing to use her "real" name in the same way as masons who stick decals on their Caddy's - and for that matter, choose to drive a chrome-encrusted codpiece instead of something a little more... erm.. anonymous.

You see, the reason you advocate "transparency" is the exact reason I do NOT want my "real name" out there. I do not want people seeing exactly who I HOPE to impress, and presume to know exactly what personal and social advantage I'm perusing. I'm not fanatical about this - but I want to read my stuff before my "credentials," rather than the other way around. Jen's reasoning is exactly what I would have said about many who make more complicated arguments, and who approve of the "real name" policies of social networking venues such as Facebook.

I understand that she and many others attach credibility with the ability to do a quick "due diligence" on a potential contact, and if I were involved in network marketing or dealing in negotiable securities, I would agree within that limited context. But I'm not. I'm a blogger and an artist and there's nothing in my financial data that would aid you in evaluating the truth of what I have said. There is a great deal in it that could be used to convince me to stop telling the truth. Read the story of anon.penet.fi again.

The second reported compromise of the Penet remailer occurred in February 1995 at the behest of the Church of Scientology. Claiming that a file had been stolen from one of the Church's internal computer servers and posted to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology by a Penet user, representatives of the Church contacted Interpol, who in turn contacted the Finnish police, who issued a search warrant demanding that Julf hand over data on the users of the Penet remailer. Initially Julf was asked to turn over the identities of all users of his remailer (which numbered over 300,000 at the time), but he managed a compromise and revealed only the single user being sought by the Church of Scientology.

The anonymous user in question used the handle "-AB-" when posting anonymously, and their real e-mail address indicated that they were an alumnus or alumna of the California Institute of Technology. The document that they posted was a police report of an incident that had occurred involving a man named Tom Klemesrud, a BBS operator involved in the Scientology versus the Internet controversy. The confusing story became popular as the "Miss Blood Incident".

Eventually the Church learned the real identity of "-AB-" to be Tom Rummelhart, a computer operator responsible for some of the maintenance of the Church of Scientology's INCOMM computer system. The fate of "-AB-" after the Church of Scientology learned his true identity is unknown. Years later in 2003, a two-part story entitled "What Really Happened in INCOMM - Part 1" and "What Really Happened in INCOMM – Part 2" was posted to alt.religion.scientology by a former Scientologist named Dan Garvin, which described events within the Church leading up to and stemming from the Penet posting by "-AB-".

If I need facts, I establish those facts independently of my own word. That's just plain good journalism. I very much try to avoid situations where the whole point relies on the objective factuality of my own experience, although I'll admit that there are special interests of my own - multiple personality, asperger's/autism and all subjectives filtered through those particular wetware biases that must simply fall into the category of "believe it or don't."

But frankly, I cannot imagine how knowing my "real" name or my home address helps you in deciding what value to place on my purely subjective experience. It's only real value is in it's potential to be used against me, or to discredit me, should you or some powerful entity decides I'm a threat. So, this insistence on "transparency" is, I think, not so much about making those decisions about the credibility of insight into socially awkward issues as a "gentleman's agreement" to never raise such issues in the first place.

Remember that my "real" name is attached to many data points that have little or nothing to do with the facts or reasoning of what I might say, but there are many pointy-headed people out there who think that my socioeconmic status, my ethnicity or my age provide them compelling reasons to not be bothered to consider my arguments in the first place.

But, by insisting that I put those things out there, by insisting that internet communities behave as if they were small towns in Siberia, mid-America or Saudi Arabia where everyone knows everyone else's business. What IS assured in such circumstances is that the very conventional values of conformity and intolerance for significant differences in values will be upheld in public by all, no matter how patently and obviously false those values are.

For myself, I don't see any good reason to make it easy for for stalkers and saboteurs to use virtual or actual force against me. I'm not particularly paranoid about it, but I'm of the opinion that waving your personal details out there for any idiot to use means that some idiot is likely to use it.

Let us remember that there are people like Ted Kaczynski out there, who in their delusion think an explosive device is a reasonable response for opinions and views they find offensive.

Or indeed, those who think that a gang rape is an appropriate consequence for a woman who choses to associate with a man who is not a direct relative.

Goddess forbid she have the choice to engage in premarital; possibly even recreational sex that doesn't actually hurt. And this is aside from the religious and cultural rationalizations and justifications which I dismiss as being just that - justifications and rationalizations.

But for every Ted, or even more odious wankers who think it's their religious duty to rape uppity women, there's a far greater threat; people who think they have a right to interfere in your personal life based on what you have said in public against their treasured causes.

Faux New's John Gibson, who asserts White House deserves medal for outing Plame, in essence arguing that Plaime's "higher duty" was to her Fuhrer Leader President, and NOT to the Constitution. Recall that she took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As an intelligence professional, concerned with the very vital issue of nuclear proliferation, that very explicitly does NOT exclude would-be "Dear Leaders" of any nationality - especially not our own.

Aside from the utter immorality of such Brownshirt Media apologias I can't even begin to summarize the towering stupidity of Gibson's argument, any more than I can imagine what news organization with any remaining pretensions of journalistic integrity and independence would air such nonsense. We tolerated the Iraqi Information Minister because everyone knew perfectly well what would happen to him if he did not dispense his twaddle with all the sincerity he could muster. One could even admire his ability to play the game so well, knowing that everyone knew it was a game.

But one does wonder why Gibson is playing the same game with no greater hope of success. Is it because, in having sold his soul and integrity to Faux News, he has the uncomfortable realization that he could be a victim of "Transparency" himself?

I didn't use the term "Brownshirt Media" as a simple or casual insult - go look up on what happened to the SA just as soon as Hitler consolidated power. It is a cautionary historical allusion that all who presume upon the gratitude of those they help place into unquestioned, totalitarian power.

I've tried for a day or two to find an angle to respond more directly to the Gibson video, but this parenthetical aside is the best that I can come up with, that Gibson and his ilk are the people most concerned with knowing who is responsible for observations of their moral and mental failures. Them, and the Bush Administration - to the extent there is a distinction between the two, of course.

Again, the actual history of the Brownshirts doesn't give one much comfort - knowing what happened to people who's addresses they, the SS and Gestapo knew at various pivotal points in German history. Nor does one have to rely on German history for such incidents - it just happens to be a rather good, accessible record of some very old ideas implemented with - I must say - a great deal more competence and determination than exhibited by George Bush and people who could only be compared unfavorably to Joseph Goebbels.

The friend of my enemy is my... friend?

There's a famous unattributed quotation from WWII, alleged to be uttered by a Peer of the Realm: "This Hitler fellow makes it impossible for a gentleman to be an Anti-Semite."

That quotation leaped to mind as I read the reactions of socially-conservative voters to the news of San Diego's Mayor Jerry Sanders' tearful reversal of his stance on Gay Marriage.

He began by explaining his refusal to veto the council's decision, saying his beliefs had “evolved significantly” since 2005, when he established his stance on civil unions during his first mayoral campaign.

In the time since, he said he realized he could not accept “the concept of a separate-but-equal institution.” Because of that, he continued, he was unwilling to send the message to anyone that “they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.”

The mayor, now crying openly, noted that he has close family members and friends in the gay and lesbian community, including staff members and “my daughter Lisa.”

“In the end, I couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana,” said Sanders, who quickly thanked reporters and dashed from the room.

Now, as an Aspie/autistic, I have the unusual tendancy to take statements such as this at face value. I even take the emotional context at face value. If an issue causes a bluff old conservative police chief to break down in tears over what he plainly states to be a crisis of concience, I'm inclined to take him at his word, and indulge in the delusional procedure of supposed mind-reading about his "real" motivations.

But the comments on this article reveal that that is one of the most common - and possibly least offensive - assumptions made about him and the "gay agenda" he has "betrayed" the people in "condoning."



But the overwhelming majority of the outrage reveals a depth of hatred, bigotry and ignorance about law, constitution, spelling, grammar, logical construction, evidence, rational argument, ethics, reason and most especially the Bible that I suspect that the supporters for his former stance were as persuasive to him as those he'd been arguing against.

Here is one such argument, actually, one of the more articulate ones; penned by one "Faithful on 09/20/2007 at 8:51 a.m.

"I don't know where, in our constitution, it says marriage is a "right".

The fact that you do not know something does not mean that that which you are ignorant of does not therefore exist.

US Constitution, Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Faithful continues:

I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers were thinking about queer relationships when they penned it. That said, the same argument goes for heterosexual marriage. It is a privilege granted by the State.

More precisely, it is a right arrogated by the states; originally to deal with the "Plague" of interracial marriage. That's why "marriage licenses" were first issued by various States.

Then, of course, the advantage of it from revenue and record-keeping standpoints became obvious to cash-strapped states. But Constitutionally speaking, there's no argument that any form of permission for civil marriage is or should be required. Whether or not there is a compelling state interest in regulating marriage, much less giving substantial advantages to married people is a separate argument, but if such advantages do exist than the equal protection clause states that it should be given and withheld without arbitrary distinctions between persons over matters irrelevant to the goals of the state, or for goals that would be unconstitutional if they were admitted aloud.

In fact, the "granting of privilege" was one of the great issues for our founders and one thing they did their best to eradicate from and forbid to government. One expression of said intent was the so called "Equal Protection Clause -" which to paraphrase, states that all laws must apply equally to all, or be judged unconstitutional.

The term "marriage" is derived from the scramental institutution promoted by Judeo/Christian (and others) religion. I suppose one way to resolve the whole thing is for the State to quit calling it "marriage" and calling it "civil union" available to both heteros and homos, with only the individual religions permitting (or not) the sacramental term, marriage.

Putting the hilarity of an argument based on the authoritative nature of English word derivation aside, so what? If anything, that is a persuasive argument, given the Constitutional protection of religious practices, to stay out of the matter entirely. In fact, legal recognition for marriage comes out of English Common Law, which addressed the rights and responsibilities of those who chose to live together "without benefit of clergy."

This is a simple issue of citizenship, inheritances and transmission of rights, privileges and duties, when said matters had not already been defined by church records.

Would this make gays happy? Probably not, because it is the word "marriage" that they want applied to them. They also want to force religion to accept their unions as godly and "normal". They want homosexuality promoted in the schools as "normal" and "healthy" and have succeeded to a great degree in the public school system. They have plans to extend this "education" to the private education system. This is what I object to.

As the Mayor stated, any "separate but equal" solution has a particular stench of inequality to it in our culture.
By contrast, you want their relationships portrayed as "abnormal" and "unhealthy," and have up until now succeeded in that goal to a great degree in the public school system.

Personally, having for no other reason other than my appearance and personality been identified by my peers as "gay" in grade school, I think teaching acceptance of differences to be a good thing, and the rejection of persecution of others for transparently false religious rationalizations to be also a good thing.

So yes, there is a gay lobby. And no, one isn't a bigot because one doesn't accept homosexuality as "normal" and "healthy".

No, one could merely be totally ignorant and willfully misinformed. But the venom in your tone strongly suggests bigotry, as well as a suspicious fixation upon the sexual practices of others that could be reasonably presumed to represent either repression or envy of the "sexual license" and "immoral lifestyle" you clearly presume all homosexual people practice. I presume neither, since I care nothing about why you would choose to act so intolerably toward others. I don't need to hear your excuses for evil thoughts and evil deeds, whatever they are, they will be neither original nor enlightening.

I've known a lot of Gay people - because gay people do accept differences, and so it's always been my practice to hang with the lesbigay crowd even though I prefer sex heterosexual style from an aesthetic perspective and in the "missionary position" for the sake of my dignity and my sadly defective joints.

To quote one strong advocate of what you would call the "gay agenda," "Don't call me a gay activist. I don't get laid that often." This is not a "gay" issue. It's a human rights issue on the most basic level - and you are presuming the "majority right" to decide who gets to be "human."

I assert the first and second amendment rights to contest the idiocies of the majority, with as much force as is needed to penetrate their skulls with a useful degree of enlightenment.

The fact is, the majority of gay people have as good moral character as any heterosexual; actually, they tend to have a better grasp of right and wrong. Being exposed on a regular basis to the evil of stark, evident hatred and persecution will tend to clarify your values big time.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others."

Clearly, you find the "homosexual agenda" hateful... but yet you are perfectly comfortable forcing the "Right Wing Socially-Conservative Cultural Christian" agenda upon everyone. Furthermore, you claim a religious right to express this through force - state violence and even occasionally the justification of individual violence against gays and all sorts of other people you find "freaky" and "abnormal."

Me, for example. There are entire institutions devoted to eradicating the entire autistic spectrum, pre-birth, with no other justification than a parent's "right" to have a "normal" child. But we shall save the rest of this related rant about xenophobia for another day. Today, we are speaking of specific sins, not the more mental, moral and social failures our currently dominant social class are beset with.

In order to say that a certain behavior or attraction is "unnatural," you are absolutely stating that it doesn't occur outside of an artificial context, never occurs in nature, only occurs within the human species and as a result of deliberate, willful choice AFTER exposure to the behavior.

Provably and totally, the above assumptions are false. Homosexual preference occurs in many species, does occur outside of our society, in all cultures everywhere, regardless of social approval or moral stricture. It's recorded in history as far back as history occurs, both with and without exposure to "influence." And as far as we can tell, it was no MORE prevalent in societies that held it to be a virtue than in cultures that held it to be a vice. All it did was change who got to strut publicly.

Frankly, we are born attached to the parts that primarily influence us. All sexual morality and most reasoning is rationalization and regulation after the fact, in order to keep those parts from leading to do foolish, dangerous and evil things. I don't know about you, but in my experience, it is far, far more dangerous to pretend to be what I am not and try to apply moral standards which have no direct application to me or my needs, than to admit what I am and then try to act ethically towards others based in a sound and honest appreciation of what moral and ethical pitfalls exist for me.

I've found it quite dangerous to my safety, my mental health and my good self-opinion to pay much attention to what others think of as the "most important sins." I'm not particularly vulnerable to sexual temptation - I can wade through porn for days on end, with the greatest risk being either nausea or uncontrollable laughter. But I am daily beset by the temptation of arrogance. While self-righteousness is not my particular pitfall, it's a related failing, and clearly, that's your issue. It is also a sin your religious faith directly encourages you to indulge in the face of everything Jesus had to say about that particular vexation.

The bottom line is this: "Sin" is not about what other people do. It's about what YOU do to other people. By the tenants of your OWN faith, you will not be judged on what you prevented others from doing, or what you forced them to do, you will be judged on that which you did to others, and your rationalizations will not matter. For emphasis on the futility of human rationalizations, consult any dour Presbyterian you know.

As your religion clearly has not helped you identify and cope with your particular tendency toward the evil of self-righteousness, may I suggest your efforts might be better employed in finding a religion that emphasizes personal humility a bit more?

I'd also gently suggest that the besetting sin of Self-Righteousness is an even greater threat to Christianity itself, but that, my dear Faithful, is YOUR problem.

I've always felt that the question of what faith I have should come up in the context of "what is it you believe, to lead you to act as you do?"

Now, in your case, Faithful, that answer does not reflect well upon either Christianity - or your discernment of it's essential teachings.

Selah.

tag: constitution, San Diego, Mayor, Mayor Jerry Sanders, Family Values, patriarchy, evolutionary biology, Religious Fundimentalism, Clash of Cultures, Conservatism, Christianists, religious persecution, defamation, liberty, California, critical thinking, ignorance, evil, Bizarre Sex Habits, Sexual Sins, Sublimation, Right-Wing Hypocrites, Individual Rights, Individual Liberty, Freedom of Choice, church-state, moralism, abuse of power, bullying, prejudice, christian fanatics, dominionists, theocracy, sexuality, public policy, Religious Ethics, Social Obligations, Smear Tactics, Right-Wing Propaganda, Religious Intolerance, Hate Speech., fundimendalism, oppression, Freudian References, Paranoid Fantasies, Right Wing Talk, blogmockery, Ridicule, ethics of government, Gay Marriage, gay agenda, gay rights

Put on your clenched acceptance face, we're going to Sorrytown!"

Ah, John Stewart, the master of the throwaway one-liner:

"I'm not a fan of personal vendetta gotcha-style politics," said Jon Stewart on Tuesday's Daily Show. "But there can be exceptions. Take Louisiana Senator David Vitter ... who came to prominence in the 90's demanding President Clinton's impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky affair. Well, it seems the condom is on the other foot."

"Last week, Vitter became the highest profile john implicated in the DC Madam scandal-gate," Stewart explained. "Kind of reminds you of the old saying, 'The only thing I trust less than a Louisiana senator sleeping with a hooker is one that isn't.'"

The video can also be found here.

Now, I of course would never stoop to mere "gotcha" blog entries either. (What, Never? Well, Hardly Ever..).

In this particular case, I think this is a remarkably apt insight into what Republican values actually are. That is to say, you can pretty much assume that whatever public stance they take will be taken purely for personal political advantage and will have little or nothing to do with personal values or conviction. It's kinda like the Catholic Church in that way. How many folks out there still think it's a good idea to leave their child alone with the parish Priest?

Well, folks, that goes for anyone who seeks a position of unquestionable moral authority and access to either your children, your vote or your wallet.

While that observation may well be true of political figures in general, Republicans in particular have been particularly active in trying to demonize, regulate and restrict YOUR libido, YOUR sexual practices, Your definition of family, and indeed, your reproductive choices, while undermining your right to privacy and your right to access information without trace or record. I don't see very many examples of Republicans living by the values they espouse - so to speak. On the contrary.

So perhaps all these protestation of high moral standing are mere pretexts and postures, not just in exceptional cases, but in general.

Any large group of people will have a few bad apples, a few "isolated incidents." But these are NOT "just a few" and they all share something similar; the overwhelming majority of these sexual crimes involve practicing the opposite of what they preached. That is to say, they violated the law purposefully and deliberately, and in the way that was most vile on the basis of their own public standards to demonstrate to themselves and to one another that they were above that law and could get away with violating it. Indeed, there seems to be the perverse drive to enact laws for the purpose of violating them!

Another disturbing theme of near equal weight is a consistent pattern of abuse - sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and the abuse of power in general - toward those who cannot fight back.

Here's a particularly odious example of such an authoritarian circle-jerk.

Don Haidl, Assistant Sheriff of Orange Country, in violation of California's rape shield law, led a smear campaign against the child his son poisoned and then violently gang-raped on videotape, adding up to 24 felony counts. He said that his son "acted accordingly" because the child was a "slut". The full gruesome story, with many newspaper articles.

And here's one that just reeks of depraved irony:

Earl Kimmerling, from Indiana, sentenced to 40 years in prison after he confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her. Anderson, IN, Mayor Mark Lawler and Republican State Reps. Jack Lutz of Anderson, IN, and Woody Burton of Greenwood, IN, supported him. Source

Then there's the largest and highest reaching sex abuse scandal ever, probably in any nation, since roman times - and you have probably never heard of it. Read it and be amazed by The Franklin Credit Union Child-Sex Ring Scandal.

This sort of thing isn't anything new, in other words; it's actually part of long established Republican political culture. The blackmail operations detailed in the link above may well partially explain the spineless behavior of our current Congress's Democratic majority, and I'm SURE it explains the "dead-ender" behavior of a great many Republicans who can't be so politically tone-deaf as to think the President's lame-duck agendas in any way serve the cause of their own re-election to orifice office. Blackmail is about the only thing that could explain such a sudden and inexplicable altruism on the part of those who's focus has been squarely upon th main chance up to now.

What we need to do is to purge all levels of government of corruption, and we also need to send - as a nation of outraged and unforgiving Citizen-activists - a resounding message. Remember that the Republican majority came out of the so called "Republican Revolution" pledged to END corruption and cronyism - and has turned out to be more than willing to wallow in a system as corrupt and lawless as any Byzantine court and indulging in graft on a level that would embarrass Tammany Hall.

So, if you are a Republican - repent! Register as an Independent, or a Constitution party member. Get your name off their sucker list. This is especially true if you have ever been a "values voter." These are the values your votes supported. So either repudiate the party for it's lack of interest in values when it might affect a Republican in power, or consider yourself complicit in all the crimes that have been committed in the name of pure, unchecked and unaccountable power. Because that's the way ethics works - you are accountable for the choices you make and the messes you contribute to.

As for myself, I'm a registered Libertarian. I have no illusions that it's a party composed of inherently better people - but it is a party of strong essential principles that may work against the accumulation of personal power for a time. It's not a party that attracts as many authoritarians and opportunists, and it will take those folks some time to figure out how to subvert it to their own ends.

Likewise, I'm going to make a choice about where my money goes. My money is going, in terms of consumer goods, toward companies that do not support the Republican cause. Likewise, I will not enter any place of business that has a fish by the door - a device almost exclusively used by Religious Conservatives, unless I see something in the window that indicates they are opposed to the moral choices this government and this party have made.

What can you do?

You can spread this around. You can digg it up, stumble it, email it to your fundy family members. You can blog about it, create fliers to stick in your church's brochure box, you can wear a t-shirt or put a poster in your store window. You can talk to strangers at bus-stops. You can call in to talk radio. Hell, you can slip Air America a few bucks. Grab your video camera and vlog it onto YouTube and Google Video.

I'll tart this post up later with links to the most vicious and apt t-shirts, bumper stickers and any particularly useful and usable photos and graphics I can find.

Together, we can change the world. As long as enough good people refuse to stand by as evil is done, we cannot help but do so.

Attenion Ron Paul: I present The No Stupid Rules Amendment

I am a libertarian and a constitutionalist - in that order. Ron Paul seems to reverse that order, but I may be wrong. In order to clarify that matter, I wonder what Ron might have to say about this Constitutional Amendment, which I cleverly title The No Stupid Rules Amendment. It's intended to forestall legislative and executive abuses of power and common infringements of individual liberties.

There's more...

The No Stupid Rules Amendment

1. Congress shall pass no law, nor shall courts uphold any existing law which
   has the overriding effect or intent of financially benefiting one group of
   citizens or corporate entity over another.
   


2. 
   Congress shall pass no law, nor shall courts uphold any existing law which
   has the overriding effect or intent of advantaging or penalizing ethnic
   custom, matters of individual faith and belief, or private behavior.
   
1. 
   This specifically includes taxation and tax exemptions.
2. Nor shall any law or regulation that requires the invasion of privacy or compromise of privilege to be detected be countenanced.
   
3. Evidence derived from such violations of privacy or privileged communication shall be inadmissible in any court or proceeding under color of law.
   




3. 
   The definition of "family" is recognized as being that of those deemed
   involved by mutually agreeable compacts which shall be recognized as being
   governed by ordinary contract law in the state they were entered into.
   




1. 
   States shall not impose unreasonable or unequal costs or requirements upon
   such compacts.
   


2. 
   This shall not be taken to imply that the state has any interest
   whatsoever in religious unions or the intent of voiding limitations or
   requirements placed upon those unions. States shall not require,
   enforce, regulate or forbid any such union.
   


3. 
   States may, at their discretion and as a matter of convenience provide
   standard format contracts which address common circumstances and
   requirements, but it is to be understood that there is to be no
   established preference upon the part of the state, nor may any particular
   form that limits the free choices of the contracted be a requirement.
   
4. 
   This amendment is not intended to override legitimate concerns about
   environmental, social or financial impacts, but all such concerns must be
   addressed by the least restrictive means possible and in no way may such
   concerns override the rights recognized in this Amendment.
   


5. 
   The right to freely self-medicate and to freely refuse to be mediated for
   any reason is recognized.
   
1. 
   Notwithstanding, the responsibility for impairment and other consequences
   is that of the individual.
   
6. 
   Congress shall not pass, nor shall courts uphold existing taxation or tariff
   laws that are designed or have the effect of restricting access to any thing
   to those able to afford the tax, nor in any case or for any reason may such
   taxes or tariffs exceed 100% of the retail cost.
   
   
1. 
   Congress will pass no law, nor shall any regulation be made creating
   product or service standards, regulatory requirements or compliance costs
   that have that same effect, save to the extent that such regulations are
   addressed towards the safety of the user, by the least restrictive means.
   No such extant law may be enforced or upheld.
   

After you read my proposed Constitutional Amendment, (click the "read full article link below" you comments would be very much appreciated. Furthermore, you are invited to participate in refining what is very much a rough draft. And please, forward, digg, stumble and otherwise widely distribute this idea to everyone you know who might be in favor OR passionately opposed.

tag: no stupid rules amendment, ron paul, constitution, constitutional amendment, Domestic Policy, tax inequities, states rights, critical thinking, Constitutional Government, Personal Responsibility, Individual Rights, Individual Liberty

Spoko observes:

Spocko is a stumbleupon buddy o' mine; it's a great way for bloggers to inflict - I mean share stories and links with a bit of explanation. I had to laugh out loud at this - and I'm far from being an athiest! But it does help to be able to think outside of the "big box church!"

StumbleUpon » Spocko's web site reviews and blog:

"Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and 'dehumanized' when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the 'atrocities' attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in 'Exodus' and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in 'Joshua' including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Oh, I have a couple-three nits to pick, here and there. I believe in prayer (theurgy) as well as magic, (thaumaturgy) and I do not think 0.001% is a plausible success rate. Regarding both phenomonae; aboriginal people did not have food to waste on useless individuals - and a shaman can be pretty damn useless in any respect other than shamanism. Same for Priests and Magicians. Now, all sorts are notorious for putting a thumb on the scale of public opinion - but you just can't fool all of the people, all of the time.

But none of the intuitive arts - and in "intuitive arts" I also include such disciplines as "teacher" and "psycologist" - can ever aspire to truly reproducable results, actually falsifiable theories or indeed, immunity from skeptical derision.

I should also note that while this is a fairly accurate assessment of a certain sort of mean-spirited, judgemental, self-rightious idiot, that all the hallmarks of it are actually mocked and derided IN the Bible, by Jesus. Make of that what you will - and I notice there seems to be a similar dissonance between what the Koran says and what certain folk who call themselvs Islamic (or even Imam) would like to tell you it says.

SSDR.

No fucking freedom under Democratic rule, either.

Somehow, I expected a different outcome. But I suppose I failed to be cynical enough. However, rather than having a tantrum about the betrayal of principles - provoking loud horselaughs from across the political spectrum and the population in general, let me point ot that "abstinence only education" is the most stupid sort of public policy imaginable, and far from the only example of this particular sort of stupidity.

It may well be argued that abstinence is something people "ought" to do. However, that is a judgment call and a moralistic opinion - which varies widely from place to place and culture to culture. Government policy should address what people actually DO do, and address the issues arising from that, while providing information relevant to managing "that" in the best way possible.

But from personal debt management to sex education to social policy - we are fraught with "ought" based policy. And this is a very expensive way to avoid dealing with the real issues.

Beyond Shame: Democrats Sell Out Youth | RHRealityCheck.org

Today, the House Democrats will waltz into the mark-up of the Labor HHS Subcommittee and proudly present a bill that puts their stamp of approval on domestic abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—an ideological boondoggle that threatens the health and well-being of America's youth.

The most appalling aspect of this sell-out is that that the Democrats will not only fully fund the worst of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—they'll give them a $27 million increase—the first in three years!

Shame on Congressman David Obey for brokering this "deal;" shame on Congresswoman Nita Lowey for agreeing to it; and shame on those other Democrats on the Appropriations Committee who have already promised not to offer any amendment that would cut funding for abstinence-only programs and thus "upset" the deal.

I'm sorry, but 27 million dollars to convince people of that which is intuitively obvious to the casual observer; that if you don't have sex you will avoid all the risks associated with sex? Is this the price we pay to spare our representatives the embarrassment and inevitable hostility resulting from actually discussing Reproductive Health policy? Are they afraid it will show up on You Tube; that people will be gathered around C-Span with popcorn, doing shots when the word "condom" is mentioned?

I am so embarrassed! WHAT were Harry and Nancy THINKING?

Well, for those of you that do not know where to get decent sexual education - I always refer people to ScarletTeen, a resource put together by adult industry professionals. If you want to avoid risks and practice safer sex, I always say go to the professionals. I mean, who do you trust on the issue of home repairs - Bob Villa, or some guy with a leaky roof and a cracked foundation? You see, here's the sort of conclusion you come to if you actually do some fact-related thinking.

...[T]ied up into all of this is also access to reliable, accurate and unbiased information about birth control, reproduction and sexuality as a whole. That's not just a women's issue, by any means, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that while lack of that information does everyone harm, men and women alike, it ultimately harms women the most. Everyone is harmed by sexual shame, by a lack of understanding of their own bodies and health -- and that of sexual partners -- by purposeful misinformation about sexuality and sexual and reproductive health. NOT everyone will become pregnant because of it, get cervical cancer because of it, wind up in rape or coercion scenarios because they don't know the warning signs or are told to disregard them, or be unable to make a sound reproductive choice when pregnancy occurs that is best for them. (And that's not even touching on issues of intercourse or other sex under obligation, sound counsel, prevention and address of sexual abuse, understanding of how women's sexuality even works, the whole bag.) These things will happen to women, who even just by sheer biology, whether we're talking about pregnancy or cervical cells, bear the greatest burdens when it comes to sex and the opposite sex.

In a culture/community/relationship or under a system which does not support an equality of full reproductive autonomy and agency, it is a given that sexuality and reproductive information will follow suit, and either protest that full autonomy or undermine it, and often quite intentionally.

Tag: reproductive choice, sex education, sexuality, public policy, abstinence-only education, personal responsiblity

Profiles in Indifference

A long-standing policy of neglect and indifference creates a "perfect storm" for the Bush Pentagon.

Washington Post: Sandy Karen was horrified when her 21-year-old son was discharged from the Naval Medical Center in San Diego a few months ago and told to report to the outpatient barracks, only to find the room swarming with fruit flies, trash overflowing and a syringe on the table. "The staff sergeant says, 'Here are your linens' to my son, who can't even stand up," said Karen, of Brookeville, Md. "This kid has an open wound, and I'm going to put him in a room with fruit flies?" She took her son to a hotel instead. "My concern is for the others, who don't have a parent or someone to fight for them," Karen said. "These are just kids. Who would have ever looked in on my son?"

When the first congressional hearing about the care of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center opens this morning in a campus auditorium, many eyes will turn to Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who has served as the Army's top doctor since he gave up command of the hospital in 2004. The hearing will allow Kiley to explain why bureaucratic tangles and horrid conditions made life so difficult for outpatients at the Army's premier hospital, while also likely putting him in a position of defending his job.

Though members of Congress have called for Kiley to step down and take responsibility for the problems at Walter Reed, he has been spared so far.
Other leaders have not been so fortunate: Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, the hospital's commander the past six months, was fired on Thursday, and Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey was forced to resign on Friday, in part because he appointed Kiley to temporarily take over Weightman's job.

The Army Times has extensive coverage as well - and often so tightly written, it's impossible to pull out a key graph without losing critical context. I offer a selection handle them with lead graph and link and the rest in the yellow link box below the cut.

Walter Reed woes bring turmoil at the top

The more than 1 million soldiers of the Army, deeply involved on two war fronts, suddenly find themselves serving under leadership tainted by scandal and in critical transition. Army Secretary Francis Harvey is out, pushed out the door by his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Walter Reed chief fired; critics say more must go

When the Army’s top medical officer, Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, fired Maj. Gen. George Weightman on March 1 in response to problems with housing and medical evaluations of outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it triggered one of Washington’s favorite sports — the blame game.

Walter Reed topic of five hearings next week

The Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal involving the living conditions, medical treatment and retirement process of wounded combat veterans will be the subject of five congressional hearings next week, including one on Monday that is expected to include testimony from the hospital commander who was relieved Thursday.

I point out - again - that these issues are long standing, substantive and need an approach far more substantive than hand-wringing, head-rolling and committee investigations. However, potential solutions have the virtue of being fairly obvious.

But obvious need alone doesn't seem to have ever swayed the Pentagon - one more reason for taking the responsibility for veteran's health care away from them.

The comment of one authoritative veteran:

Read all Military Times coverage about Walter Reed Army Medical Center: Official: Gates fired Army Secretary (March 2) Democrats say Harvey’s ouster isn’t enough (March 2) Walter Reed topic of five hearings next week (March 2) Maj. Gen. Eric Schoomaker named new Walter Reed head (March 2) Committee subpoenas former Walter Reed chief (March 2) Walter Reed chief fired; critics say more must go (March 2) Army denies patients face daily inspections (Feb. 28) Walter Reed patients told to keep quiet (Feb. 27) Walter Reed soldier wins small victory (Feb. 27) Gates’ candor on hospital woes lauded (Feb. 27 Pentagon names members of Walter Reed panel (Feb. 23) Renovations underway at Walter Reed (Feb. 22) Wounded and waiting (Feb. 17)

Retired Brig. Gen. David Grange said it will be up to Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody to provide steady leadership for the service while Harvey’s replacement and incoming Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey settle into their jobs.

“As the vice chief, he is going to be the steadfast leader in this period,” Grange said. “You really have to have Cody kind of holding things together.”

Grange said he was surprised to hear that conditions at Walter Reed had deteriorated so badly and said that in the end, Harvey is responsible.

“If you are in charge, you are accountable,” Grange said. “I’m sure they were not resourced the way they should have been.”

Grange said being wounded twice in the Vietnam War showed him first-hand that medical care for wounded soldiers is always neglected.

“When you are going to go to war, what never is financed is the second- and third-order effects like veterans benefits and patient care,” he said. “That’s always frustrated me. Having been wounded a couple of times and sent to [military] hospitals, ... you see a lot of things.”

It's an ugly fact of war that fatalities are a great deal less trouble and expense than casualties - and not just in terms of money, logistics and manpower. Dead heroes cannot embarrass the commanders responsible for their posthumous heroism. LIVING veterans, however, have a distressing tendency to criticise, to organize and worst of all - work hard to one day find themselves on congressional oversight committees interviewing other veterans who will not decently and loyally cover the asses of their superiors.

I suspect that it was no different in the Punic Wars than it is now; this is not so much a result of a US military problem as it is a problem of humans who are in the Military. Disabled, hideously wounded survivors are far less romantic - and far more depressing than Tombs of Unknown Soldiers. Soldiers cope with death rather well. The idea of spending the rest of your life pissing into a bag from a hole where the Unit Commander used to live is not nearly so easy to deal with.

This means that higher command spends a great deal of time Not Thinking about it, and when it comes down to a choice between something sexy - like Patriot Missiles, Aircraft Carriers or a next-generation gee-whiz asskicker of a fighter jet - routine care for vets and even current active members isn't even on their radar.

Oddly enough - I have a great deal of difficulty blaming them for that, since it seems to be a nigh-unavoidable side-effect of being in military service. As damnable and unforgivable as the outcome is, this is just as much a failure of general citizen accountability as it is of military duty.

Call me crazy, or socialist if you will, but to me, when someone steps up and takes on the duty of defending their country, the last thing they should ever have to be concerned about is having lived through it, only to find themselves living in a cardboard box under a bridge with rotting teeth and cirrhosis from trying to make the nightmares go away. They faced those demons for those of us who "had other priorities," like our Vice President. They deserve, at the very least, to be comfortably housed, well fed and cared for if their duties have left them incapable of anything more.

This is not charity. It is a solemn duty and a true moral obligation.

I believe that Kipling said it better than I a long time ago;

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

We need compressive medical and social services available to everyone in need - and I've made a libertarian case for that before and will again. However, before anyone in civvies benefits, we need to start here, and now. Today. Our military veterans have earned the right to be first in line, because our collective panic and hysteria PUT them on that line. This is absolutely a "no excuses, Sir" situation for all of us above the age of reason.

But, since we ARE pointing fingers at those who should have known, and could have done something but preferred to not annoy their superiors - why not fire the Commander in Chief? It is a matter of both symbolic and practical urgency that transcends politics as usual.

George Bush will undoubtedly veto or ignore anything implies accountability to those who have born the cost and consequence of his ambitions, while continuing to flail about in increasingly belligerent and dangerous ways. George Bush is in fact the single most easily addressed threat to our National Security. We need to impeach him and generally clean house in the Executive Branch so that come 2008 we may possibly be served by someone worthy of national and international respect - and with perhaps some due humility for the honor and understanding of the responsibility of an office that used to be referred to as "leader of the free world."

tag: veterans affairscasualties, vets, rehab, , common decency, accountablity, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Surgeon General, Building 18, Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, Kevin Kiley, universal health care, morality, ethics, impeach the president

It's better tor be obscene than absurd.

Gateway Pundit: "Seven words you can never say on television"... but which are said on the Internet. A lot.

Talk about potty-mouths.

The Net's not always a kid-friendly place; there is plenty of foul language out there. And of course, the blogosphere is no different.

But how different are the Rightosphere and Leftosphere when it comes to "dirty" language? Which side produces the most profanity-laced diatribes? Via Instapundit, I happened upon this interesting challenge from InstaPunk:

I propose an exercise to be performed by those who have the software and expertise to carry it out. The exercise is this: Search six months' worth of content, posts and comments, of the 20 most popular blogs on the right and the left. The search criteria are George Carlin's infamous '7 Dirty Words.' [Click this link for the list of expletives.]

And this is what I found, using what I deemed -- through a mix of TTLB and 2006's Weblog Award lists -- to be the 18 biggest Lefty blogs, and 22 biggest Righty blogs. (Not counting this one. :)) I couldn't account for the 6-month time period, and I even gave the Lefty blogs a 4 blog advantage. But it didn't make much of a difference.

So how much more does the Left use Carlin's "seven words" versus the Right? According to my calculations, try somewhere in the range of 18-to-1.

Yowsers.

Ok, let me get this straight: while THIS was happening, rather than chasing the story down and doing something to really support the troops, you were constructing methodology to count naughty words?

Words fail me. And aside from that, what's your point, fuckwit?

All this very precious pearl-clutching is utterly pointless in a quest for "civil discourse" if you do not also consider the impact on civil discourse of statements such as these: (via Instaputz)

Ohhh-kay. Let's do a trial run.

Putz: What we really should be doing is killing Iranian civilians. Heh.
Malkin: Exactly. And the NY Times publishers should be locked up for treason.
Denny K: Yeah! Let's hunt them down and find out where their kids go to school.
Coulter: My only regret is that Tim McVeigh didn't blow up the NY Times.
Misha: Forget the Times, I want the Supremes. Five robes, five ropes, five trees.
Lefty Blogger: You're all fucking crazy.

InstaPunk: See? The lefty bloggers are more hateful.

…[W]hy not run a few chapters of Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries through your little Shrill Detector, and then compare those results with a Richard Pryor set from the '70s.

Idiots.

Now, I'm not a leftie - I'm just an uppity libertarian with not much respect for foolishness and a decent regard for semantics.

Therefore, I have something in common with Shakespeare's Sister The Rude Pundit and indeed The Ace of Spades.

A man-portable un-powered entrenching tool is a fucking spade.



More Vicious Left-Wing Mockery

tag: potty mouths, Hate Speech, pearlclutching, unintentional irony, , culture, morality, ethics