Department of Justice Policy "No Fags or Democrats Allowed"

At points like this, it's kinda apt to remember that phrase - attribution forgotten, paraphrase probable - "A black man to vote for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders."

That applies to the sweet corn and baked beans, too.

Crooks and Liars » At DoJ, being gay is ‘even worse than being a Democrat’: "Justice Department e-mails obtained by NPR show that Gonzales’s senior counsel Monica Goodling had a particular interest in Hagen’s duties. A few months before Hagen was let go, according to one e-mail, Goodling removed part of Hagen’s job portfolio — the part dealing with child exploitation and abuse. […]

[B]y all accounts, Hagen was a GOP loyalist. So, what was Goodling’s problem with Hagen?

The Justice Department’s inspector general is looking into whether Hagen was dismissed after a rumor reached Goodling that Hagen is a lesbian. As one Republican source put it, “To some people, that’s even worse than being a Democrat.”"

Of course, the stunning irony of Goodling's overt civil rights violations is unapparent to most Repugnances. (I use the term now to distinguish between Goodling's sort of psudostalinist toady and actual decent, upright ethical citizens of rightward bent.)

Even now, it seems to escape the peroxide brained Goodlingoids that if loyalty is valued over competant performance, all you will get is incompetant loyalists, and worse yet, those who's only competance is pretending to be loyal.

The extremely competent (purportedly) Democratic (rumored to be) uber-dyke will be on the other side of the argument, and she will be wearing MUCH better shoes.

As C&L observed, squabbles 'twixt two superbly qualified candidates are a lot easier to tolerate in the light of routine fuckuppetry from the Other Side.

If you were thinking of voting for McCain, anyhow - remember how little he would be able to do about getting rid of all the carpetbagging douche-bags, con-men and frauds appointed to critical positions for reasons completely unrelated to their qualifications. (Unless you count baksheesh and sucking up to be qualifications.)

Someone is going to have to put the whole government infrastructure back into running order, and the only people who will have the political capital to do that would be a Democrat.

Me, the thought of Hillary being given the post of Attorney General and a cast-iron broom handle just amuses the hell outta me. I can hear the quiet rustle of terrified testicles retracting all over DC just thinking of that happy day.

Not that she'd have to abuse her position to target political enemies. Nope. It pretty much looks like just doing her job would eliminate the vast bulk of them.

So there's another reason to vote for Obama. I want Hillary to be the Red Lensman in this storyline.

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.

Say that again, Bob? Fox TV has a Standards and Practices department?

I've been a GoDaddy.com customer since I first registered GraphicTruth.com.

That's quite some time, now that I think on it, and I have never had one single complaint. Indeed, they have managed to consistently exceed my expectations.

By that, I mean I almost never have to go to godaddy.com. My renewals are automated, my hosting is automated and nothing ever seems to break. I have paid a hell of a lot more for far, far less.

They are the perfect service in this regard; completely invisible unless you have some reason to need them. They don't overpromise and everything they offer works, right out of the box. Honestly, I can't imagine why they even need advertising, I mean, if youda ast me, I'da tolja.

And no, I'm not getting dime one for this.

Anyway, until today I was only vaguely aware that Bob Parsons (Owner of GoDaddy.com) had a blog. Like I said, I hardly ever go there. But I had some domain twiddling to do and a host account to establish for a project of mine and there it was:

BobParsons.com
The 2008 Super Bowl is a go!
2 hilarious ads get rejected.
You'll never guess why.

Now, even I am not ignorant of the first, massively successful GoDaddy Superbowl Commercial. So when there was a tease indicating that they were having difficulty getting a GoDaddy Superbowl commercial approved, because this year it's FOX broadcasting it, I had to click.

Let's face it; Fox put the broad in broadcasting.

That chica in the spandex band-aid could well be a FOX News Spokes-bimbette. All that's required is the ability to read and a sufficient insufficiency of either intelligence, curiosity or integrity so that one does not actually laugh at what one is asked to read.

Bob, speaking of the gratuitous insertion of very large breasts into contexts where search engines might find them - I bow in your direction and acknowledge your genius.

You have made being surrounded by lap-dancers, midgets and the dudes from Sturgis tax deductible - and also ensured that on every "see what you other CEO's could have if you weren't so uptight" page, there's a link to Go-Daddy.

Meanwhile, the Other Guys are paying two hundred bucks a plate to hear Ashcroft sing "Let the Eagle Soar."

The fact that you got a 9 percent hit on market share from that first ad must feel like being tipped by a lap-dancer.

I cannot think of how much this all pisses off those suits at Network Solutions (not even half the service at more than twice the price). I found GoDaddy looking for a registrar that was NOT Network Solutions. Until today, I'd never realized just how damn appropriate it is for GraphicTruth to be associated with GoDaddy.

But since I was "sold" on the service long before you stopped pretending to be respectable, I never paid much attention to your wacky publicity.

But not having thought of it much does not mean "Deaf or Blind," so I assure you that I did see the first Go-Daddy commercial and thought it a work of absolute genius with malice aforethought, guarenteed to point out that ordinary joes could and should be thinking about domain registration.

1.99 dot com domains are a powerful marketing tool - speaking as someone for whom price point beats boobage every single time. Still, with apologies to Willie Sutton, "Boobs and $1.99 domain names will get you a lot more than just $1.99 domain names."

Anyway, in a howl of irony,it turns out that Bob is having some problems with "Standards And Practices" over at Fox, getting them to approve his 2008 Superbowl ad.

One rejected concept featured two of our celebrity Go Daddy Girls, in seemingly adjacent stalls in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport restroom. Both are wearing tennis shoes with pink socks. There's a bit of toe tapping and other signals. Eventually both girls rise up over the top to acknowledge each other, only to find that in the stall between them is a rather surprised and delighted Booth Coleman, who just happens to be wearing the same tennis shoes with pink socks. I'll let you imagine the dialog from there. Booth is the older gentleman who appeared in our 2005 (the actor with oxygen mask), 2006 (the network censor) and 2007 (just a fun loving guy) commercials. To see the 2007 commercial, please click here.

The other rejected creative was a parody of a famous scene involving Marilyn Monroe in "The Seven Year Itch." The Go Daddy Girl dressed in a white sleeveless skirt has her dress blow up in the air when she stands over what appears to be a street air grate. A closer inspection by the camera reveals a snickering Booth Coleman hidden under the grate, holding a huge fan.

FOX? In charge of good taste?
In rejecting both our "restroom" and "fan" creatives, FOX S&P gave us a reason we've not heard before. They said both concepts were in "poor taste." After reading the FOX rejection, I thought "hmmmm, in poor taste?" "Of course. What are they expecting? We're talking about a GoDaddy.com ad intended for the Super Bowl."

Bob, Bob, Bob. You do the domain registrations, let the professionals do the punch lines.

FAUX hosts Bill (hide my loofa) O'Rielly, Sean Hannedy and the largest stable of boufed and betoothed, gloriously artificial spokesmuffins on the planet. To work there, Greta Van Susteren required cosmetic surgery, despite being one of the most articulate legal analysts out there. Let's not go into what surveys show Faux News viewers believe to be the truth about "the war on terror."

Oh, and then there's "24" - a show clearly crafted to be an vehicle intended to contrive excuses for torture, plumbs depths of Authoritarian propagandistic absurdity never even approached by Hawaii 5-0.

So the funny, Bob, ain't that they rejected a godaddy.com ad being "in poor taste."

I agree, that's like rejecting a glass of water for being "rather wet for my taste." I will tell you, your 2007 Superbowl commercial crossed my line, then turned around and urinated on it. But it didn't bore me or insult my intelligence. Hell, it didn't even try to appeal to it! Kinda refreshing in a way.

But let's face it, you were reaching out to the core Fox News Demographic, grabbing them by the balls as literally as possible with a tv commercial and suggesting to them that they should be out their on the web, where all the hot chicks are.

Which is rather like the FOX News implication that "Real men watch FOX because that's where Real Women give great cleavage, while breathing hard in simulated outrage."

So, the funny for MY money is that they have the gall to actually call whatever it is they do "Standards and Practices."

Or for that matter, have managed to find anyone to work in "Standards and Practices" for them capable of saying "I work For Fox TV in the Standards and Practices devision" with a straight face. Or without shooting themselves.

If they had any standards they practiced, falafel boy would be working as an overnight weather guy in a place like Reno, Tulsa or Walla Walla, Faux news would be accurate and newsworthy (after a hostile takeover by Turner Broadcasting and the BBC), Greta would still look like a comfortable and trustworthy basset hound and there would be no shows on television where the whole plot revolved around contriving yet another reason to torture a human being.

I take it back, Bob. My punch-line wasn't anywhere near as funny as yours.

But I do have an idea for you: why not just buy five 15 second black cards that say "Too Hot for Fox Standards and Practices." and the url.

Then make every one of your ideas - and see how many people you can suck away from not just the other commercials, but the actual television for not just 30 seconds, but for half an hour or 45 minutes. Counterprogram the hell out of it on the web with Go-Daddy girls playing with footballs, fast cars, fast bikes and submachineguns, while being hosed down with champagne by previous SuperBowl ringbearers, interspurted with your own commercials.

Heck, if this works, next year you could be SELLING ads.

When arrogance compounds absurdity to this degree, an hilarious bitch-slapping is in order. And you have some powerfully competent and professional competitors on the payroll...

Now, blog the results, with server stats, in real time. You know, for that nice lady over at Adweek who didn't do her research.

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.

Susie Bright scoops the MSM

Susie Bright's site is definitely NSFW - but she's an hellaciously good writer, and oy, her sources! She's secured an interview with a USAID insider she refers to as "Sore Throat," to help answer some of the questions the Randall Tobias scandal (Crooks and Liars) raised for her; such as:

Sure, I have my own little curiosities about this mess. For one, I thought Madam's prices were awfully low. $275 for ninety minutes? That's an afternoon bar tab for these guys. Plus, if you were able to get a guy off in ten minutes, did you really have to sit there and play Canasta for another seventy?

Finally, what kind of client was Randall Tobias, anyway? —Were his peers surprised?

To which "Sore Throat" Responds:

Some of us have been trying to understand what was going on with those escorts. One thought was that he may have been telling the truth about the "no sex" part.

He was a tyrant in his business life, so we speculated that he needed some young smart ladies to put him in his place in his personal life. We could easily imagine that he was into spanking, being forced into submissive stuff. (Most Prodommes are explicit about their services being "non-sexual," meaning that no penetration of any kind will occur. - GT)
That would be embarrassing enough that he'd rather resign than have the story come out— but he could honestly say he didn't have "sex." Well, it's just our best guess, knowing him from personal contact and observing him as a leader accused by Congress of 'tycoon-itis' just last month.

"Sore Throat" goes on at length to praise two other Bush appointees who are widely respected within USAID, despite being the sort of people, ideologically speaking, that Bush would appoint. In other words, this wasn't about the right-wing agenda so much as about Tobias, an hypocritical asshole, who happened to profit by being a right-wing moralist in public.

A significant part of my checkered past was a long and platonic* friendship with a stripper, occasional working gal and professional Domme by the various names of Mistress Elle and Bubbles. I learned a great deal about "the business" living downstairs from her, and afterwards, in the post-session, beer and pizza phase. Many, if no most of her clients were high-powered businessmen who, well, needed to try and work off some bad karma.

One thing I learned is that in many cases, whatever is offered above and beyond the "booking fee" ain't enough - and this may well be especially true of the absolutely "nonsexual encounters" Mistress Elle booked, ones that were not about sex even in the mind of the client. She was a mercenary lass and on occasion, let greed overcome common sense. On those occasions I would have to talk her down off the ceiling, after a client needed more punishment than she was comfortable giving.

The other thing was a deep appreciation for the rigid code of ethics that govern the professions of call-girls and Pro-Dommes. You never, EVER "burn the client." Well, at least, not until the client's employer tries to burn you and your girls. (C&L, quoting a CNN transcript of "Reliable Sources")

KURTZ: Jeane Palfrey originally talked about selling her list of clients to a tabloid outfit and then obviously, ABC News does not pay for information. Why did she decide to cooperate with you?

ROSS: We told her that we would take it seriously, that it was a potentially important story. Her point is that she runs an operation that she claims offered no sex. And that she sees it as hypocritical that the government is going after her and the women who worked for her and not the men. The phone lists were in her home when the Federal agents raided it. But they were not interested in apparently the names of the men, only the women who worked for her. So she thinks that it is hypocritical. Secondly, she wants to call some of these men to testify on her behalf. She's turned down a deal, a plea bargain deal from the government and wants to go to trial.

KURTZ: I should have mentioned at the top she's under indictment and as you say, she apparently plans to go to trial. If a government official pays for this kind of service personally and has nothing to do with his job, is there at least an argument that it's not news worthy and shouldn't be reported?

ROSS: Well, I think there — I think it is news worthy that there is this indictment. It's part of a Bush administration effort under the Department of Justice to crack down on prostitution and this is part of it. Tobias in particular, given his role as spearheading the Bush administration effort overseas to crack down on prostitution, seemed to us to be news worthy. [Emphasis Mine]

You know, this is the second significant figure involved in the whole "right wing moral agenda," their so-called "Cultural Warriors" who have been busted with their pants around their ankles - by sex-workers who's own moral sensibilities were outraged. Ted Haggard, as you may remember, was busted by his gay boy-toy and meth dealer after said toy saw Haggard on TV being all anti-gay and holier-than thou.

But in the matter of the Ambassador, the consensus is that Tobias may not be actually, technically lying when he says he wasn't seeking sexual services. Susie observes:

If Tobias wanted domination, if he had a fetish, if he wanted to beat off while he got a show; he'd be inside the law. No wait!— Maybe he wanted a woman to dress up like Condi in spike heels and spank him while jeering at his manhood.

So he may well be in closet subbie hell/heaven right now - inasmuch as now even the MSM is jeering his manhood.

I think it's time for America to realize that these are probably not "isolated incidents," but rather the tip of a very impure iceberg. Those who are addicted to power - and particularly those who are addicted to the abuse of power - are particularly fond of the whole "Do as I say, not as I do," paradigm, as getting away with things others cannot get away with is the proof they are powerful. Incidentally, with such folks, the idea of the responsible use of power is pretty damn alien to them; they see power as an end in itself, not as a means toward anything, so there will always be a disconnect between words and actions.

You may presume that the loudest defenders of the Bush Administration understand this dynamic perfectly and are willing participants on some level.

tag: Susie Bright, Sore Throat, USAID, Randall Tobias, Unintended Consequences, Clash of Cultures, morality, ethics, Bush Cronies, Scandal, Accountability, moralism

* She bites. HARD.

Holier than Thou Finals, Southern Division, goes into Sudden Death Overtime!

I haven't said anything about the passing of Cousin Jerry, as "Good Riddance" seemed rude and dismissive, while anything more seemed a waste of precious photons. But as others have said more, it's not too much effort to quote them.

the adventures of a boy and his computer - Home of the Tyranny of the Minority: "Now I don't hate the old bucket o' lard, and I don't care about christianity or any other religion, though for myself, Marx' view on religion is an apt one. It is the opiate of the people. Like any opiate, it requires a pusher, a distribution system; and unfortunately, like any addictive substance, it tends to suck the user dry while benefitting the pusher. and make no mistake, Jerky benefitted quite nicely. He lived a comfortable life.

Like any pusher, Jerky cut his religion with a variety of agents that would ensure maximum potency and continued addiction. To keep the faithful coming back for more(or to continue exploiting them, if you will, and I don't care if you won't). Jerky blended in a generous amount of hatred and fear. The 'god' he made in his own image thought it was fine for the Botha government to brutally oppress the blacks and coloureds in South Africa, he encouraged his congregation to buy Krugerrands to finance this activity. We all know of his happy tendency to blame the gays and abortionistes and feministes for the WTC/Pentagon incidents, and the drowning of the poor after Katrina, God approved of that line, too. Curiously, god was mute on the possibility of Jerky sharing his wealth to assist the victims of said disasters. Ryland wondered if Fred Phelps would show up to protest."

And that's where this otherwise unremarkable passing of a smug con-artist becomes potentially amusing. From http://www.godhatesamerica.com /, confirmation that Westbourogh Baptist Church will be there.

"WBC will Preach at Jerry Falwell's Funeral!!


WBC will preach at the memorial service of the corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell, who spent his entire life prophesying lies and false doctrines like "God loves everyone".

There is little doubt that Falwell split Hell wide open the instant he died. The evidence is compelling, overwhelming, and irrefragable. To wit:

1. Falwell was a true Calvinistic Baptist when he was a young preacher in Springfield, Missouri, and sold his soul to Free-Willism (Arminianism) for lucre.

2. Falwell bitterly and viciously attacked WBC because of WBC's faithful Bible preaching -- thereby committing the unpardonable sin -- otherwise known as the sin against the Holy Ghost.

3. Falwell warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White, and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, etc. All for lucre -- making him guilty of their sins.


Falwell is in Hell, Praise God!!



America, Cursed of God

Yep, Falwell is going to Hell for his cursed Liberalism! Me, I don't much care where he is, so long as he ain't here.

My money is on the good ol' boys and gals from Thomas Road Baptist. I hope they respond with all the Christian charity and forbearance we have come to expect of Jerry and his followers.

But as a good Libertarian with an entrepreneurial streak, I want to show up with a push-cart filled with commemorative axe handles.

tag: Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, patriarchy, Religious Fundimentalism, sociopaths, Dominionism, Gresham's Law

Illustration credit:Dick Cheney Sez: Jerry Falwell went to Hell by webcarve Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

Attention, Bill O'Rielly and Melanie Morgan

tag: Media matters, Hot Talk, hate speech, KSFO, Fox News, Melanie Morgan, Bill O'Rielly

This will come as no surprise to anyone who ever lived in the Tenderloin...

elephant,
by
Gay_Art

Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

BARBARA'S TCHATZKAHS : Bizarre Sex Habits of The Extreme Right-Wing

It's pretty much a truism that folks project upon others the behaviors and "sins" they are most guilty of.

In 2005, anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley was a guest on The Alan Colmes Show, a FOX News radio program. The topic was an interesting one - whether or not an internet service provider should allow Horsley to post the names of abortion doctors on his website. Horsley does that as a way of targeting them and one doctor has been killed. In the course of the interview, however, Colmes asked Horsley about his background, including a statement that he had admitted to engaging in homosexual and bestiality.

At first, Horsley laughed and said,

"Just because it's printed in the media, people jump to believe it."

"Is it true?" Colmes asked.

"Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I..."

AC: "You had sex with animals?"

NH: "Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."

AC: "I'm not so sure that that is so."

NH: "You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?"

AC: "Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?"

NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality... Welcome to domestic life on the farm..."

Colmes said he thought there were a lot of people in the audience who grew up on farms, are living on farms now, raising kids on farms and "and I don't think they are dating Elsie right now. You know what I'm saying?"

Horsley said, "You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that... If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it."

Um. No, not actually. I speak from experience, having grown up on a farm, though not in Georgia. Fact is, some of us actually think that the being possessing the warm damp parts has some say in the matter. Furthermore, there are actually penis bearing organisms - such as myself - that find anything less than enthusiastic co-operation to be rather revolting and repellent. Even at a "foolish" age.

And come to think of it, I didn't know of or even have reason to suspect such a thing of any of my neighbors, who, if not inherently morally superior, considered masturbation to be far more sensible from a risk-benefit perspective. 1200 pounds of hooves and teeth take a lot of convincing. I suspect he had some help from his Daddy or big brother. I mean, where do you even get such an idea in the first place?

Of course, nothing has actually changed for Horsely. He is still fucking people non-consensually. He's just abstracted and sublimated the essential disrespect for the will and consent of others and made it seem respectable. That way, metaphorically, but obviously significantly, he gets laid more often. Oh, and as he gets paid for it...

For extra credit - two google searches:

Republican Sex Offenders (Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 1,200,000 for Republican Sex Offenders.)

Republican Pedophiles (Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 406,000 for Republican Pedophiles.)

My dear wingers; we have met your enemy and it was you. Furthermore, you look ridiculous in drag.

tag: Neal Horsley, Bizarre Sex Habits, Republicans, Anti-Abortion Activists, Sexual Sins, Christianism, Moralality, Sublimation, Right-Wing Hypocrites

Defamation, Criticism and why they are different words.

I stumbled across this at Markedmanner, was moved to comment, and then realized there was more that needed saying. There seems to be a marked lack of comprehension on the part of certain portions of the Religion of Peace of the distinction between "defamation" and "criticism."

A "defamation" is something that is both offensive and untrue. A valid criticism IS true, and while often uncomfortable, is not a legitimate cause for offense. That is to say that in saying, for instance, that the treatment of women in some Islamic countries is repugnant and unacceptable to great swaths of moral beings is true. That such behaviors brings Islam into disrepute is true as well. It does. Cope, and perhaps consider if the Koran truly requires what culture demands.

Or, for a domestic example, "Swift-Boating" involves saying things about a person, their history and their motives that are factually untrue and intended to discredit them in the eyes of people who do not know any of the parties personally. It's also referred to as "Bearing False Witness" in the Bible; I believe the Koran has similar language, but I cannot quote it.

It's very difficult (not to mention rather silly) to "defame" the Prophet. It's far to easy to check and see if the Prophet really... Oh, wait, yes, I do see the point. See Swift Boating, above. Nonetheless, if you are concerned that the Prophet, or your faith as it's taught are being defamed - or indeed, any person or concept, one goes first to the source to find out the facts of the matter.

Further, for most people on this globe, religion is less about God and more about culture, and therefore it's perfectly legitamate - and indeed, the primary task of every recorded Prophet - to remind folks that there is a real and significant difference, while rudely pointing out the difference between what your neighbors say the book says and what it plainly does say.

Consider also what your culture - and your blind acceptance of it - says about you. And almost all western criticism - even that so ignorant it IS unintentional defamation is actually directed at cultural manifestations. Most people wouldn't recognize a Koranic passage if it bit them. Myself, alas, included.

Spreading ignorance is not bearing false witness. But the consequences are often quite similar.

Especially as you-all quite insightful and accurately criticize the failings of what we touchingly refer to as "western civilization." The radical Islamic and terrorist, Osama Bin Ladin has been most articulate in that regard, as insightful into our failings as he is (or was) blind to the his own failure to practice Safer Sects. Such is the arrogance of mankind.

Of course, one does not have to be Islamic to be confused on this point, or indeed religious. We all have our pet ideas and would love to harbor our fond delusions of mental, moral, religious and cultural superiority. Americans are somewhat cartoonish in this respect, with our flagwaving and parades. But, to the extent that such idealism serves to drive us toward fulfilling our unrealistic expectations of ourselves, it's tolerable, even to be applauded. Mostly, folks prefer the delusions to the heavy lifting involved in making their propaganda come true.

I just found a meeting that took place in Washington DC this week with the Organization of Islamic Conference. Karen Hughes who is the U.S. Under Secretary of State lead this meeting. Here are some of the things she said: Read The Whole Thing Here

“As you pursue important efforts at the U.N. Human Rights Council to promote resolutions against the defamation of Islam,” Hughes said, “I hope you might consider broadening those resolutions to include respect for all faiths and people’s freedom to worship and express themselves as they choose.”

It's important to recall that this directly relates to the Great Cartoon Flap.

Apparently the diplomatic language is opaque to the author - so permit me to translate. "Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander. If you wish people to respect YOUR choice of religion, and indeed your religion per-se, you must not get your panties in a wad about those who choose otherwise. If you wish to be treated as grown ups; grow the hell up! If you wish to be respected, be respectable. Run along now, the grown-ups have important things to discuss."

Please note the gender of the person saying this. The choice of spokesperson for the United States in this matter was not accidental. This was a diplomatic bitch-slapping, and a textbook example of how one communicates an idea that may be offend without giving legitimate cause for offense.

What ever happened to freedom of expression Mrs Hughes? How about instead of outlawing people putting down religious faiths we allow them to do so if they please? If people want to put down Christianity and Jesus thats their choice. If people want to put down Islam and Muhammad that is their choice. There should be no law against the right of people to express how they feel about any religion. This should never be against the law. Just because Muslims cant handle people putting down Muhammad and the Quran doesn't mean other religions have to cow tail to their demands and outlaw defamation of all religions. Christianity is constantly attacked by people who mock Jesus yet I do not know of any large group of Christians that have committed violence because of it. Nor have they called for the outlawing of peoples freedom to express themselves in this negative way towards Jesus. Muslims should understand freedom of expression and freedom of criticism the same way Christians do.

Well, let's have a look at what else Karen Hughes said. Here's the next two paragraphs:

Noting recent violent terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, Hughes praised leaders such as Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu for speaking out against “violent extremists [who] only pervert religion when they bomb hospitals, universities, wedding parties, mosques, employment centers, even groups of children.”

Hughes called on the OIC Washington Group to join U.S. efforts to combat “misperceptions fostered by extremists that there is a ‘clash of the civilizations,’ that the West is somehow in conflict with Islam.” [emphasis mine]

Hear that, Dobson and Roberson? You have just been publicly and officially declared to be "part of the problem." Clearly she did not clear this statement with the White House. That, or as a Bush Appointee, she's incapable of perceiving irony. Nonetheless, I see nothing in here suggesting that violent actions are to be "tolerated" as "Legitimate expressions of outrage," or that criticism of Islam, or any religion should be outlawed.

But the author is not advocating the right to criticize Islam. He's advocating the right to DEFAME Islam. He's correct, so far as it goes, to say that as a US Citizen, the First Amendment guarentees the right to say things that may well offend others, and that Government is espressly prohibited from restricting such speech, even for his own good. The only exception to this is the "Fighting Words Doctrine," which says that the government is justified in acting to restrict speech that is likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace by "reasonable persons." Government has neither the authority nor the responsibility to protect the speaker from personal consequences - the doctrine exists ONLY to prevent "collateral damage."

In practical, individual terms, the way the law treats this is to reduce the consequences of punching a markedly offensive person in the face to a misdemeanor; just enough of a consequence to make people consider whether honor requires such a sacrifice. Honorable persons are responsible for the actions that honor requires of them, regardless of religion or culture. This is an ethical constant.

[She praised] Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu for speaking out against “violent extremists [who] only pervert religion when they bomb hospitals, universities, wedding parties, mosques, employment centers, even groups of children.”

Yeah. Thereby effectively putting words in his mouth that he very much did not wish to say in this context. In praising him, she was "heaping coals of fire upon his head."

General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu whom Mrs Hughes quotes supports outlawing any negative things being said about Islam. Read Here Sure he speaks out against specific attacks but who does he really consider to be terrorist organizations? That is the question we must ask.

Um. Why must we? It's quite probable he does support organizations that many westerners consider to be "terrorist organizations," and it's not at all a stretch to consider it legitimate to support the goals while considering some actions to be abominations.

I considered the African National Congress to have had worthy goals. But it WAS accurately described as a "terrorist organization." I was uncomfortable with that, but one has to consider if any other means were available to blacks in South Africa... or indeed, Catholics in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. In both cases, arguably, other options were limited or non-extant. Or shall we speak of the Irgun? Of the Stern Gang? The Mossad, pre 1948? I'm quite sure that the British considered them terrorists, and I doubt they were such airy-fairy idealists to seriously disagree. These groups were founded by survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto and the extermination camps. There is a definite "whatever it takes" that comes with "never again," and to an extent I cannot argue. Up to the point they start building ghettos for other people. Then I start wondering if anyone ever learns anything from history. I mean, what part of "never again" was unclear? It's an unqualified statement. If YOU can do it, it means - aside from "never again to us" - permisson to others to say "Once again, with FEELING."

Anyway, whether such acts as blowing up the King David Hotel are acts of terrorism, insurgency or those of "freedom fighters" is mostly a matter of perspective, and whether one agrees with the intended goals and the eventual outcome.

Me, I like calling a spade a spade. And if these groups were terrorists - they did not lack for legitimate targets. Nor did they always restrict themselves to legitimate targets. David Ben Gurian, well, I don't think he had reason, on the whole, to have difficulty sleeping at night. His current political successors, though - that may be another matter. Seems to me that one lesson of history should be how and why one should avoid being a legitimate target of - erm - "asymmetrical warfare."

That's the term the Pentagon uses for those folks who are either terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on who you talk to. An accurate description, if intentionally bloodless.

I should like to ask the author if he considered the Nicaraguan Contras to have worthy goals, and to what extent, if any he nonetheless objected to such excesses as the torture-murders of civilians - including nuns - in wholesale lots. They WERE fighting against Communism, or so I have been told. Many would consider that a laudable goal. Some would even say any means justified that end.

But there are means, and there are means. There's a difference between attacking a military occupation force and bombing a shrine filled with children. There's a difference between shooting a known traitor behind the ear and sticking a burning tire around their neck. The distinction is when the viciousness is in excess of any arguably legitimate goal in a moral struggle.

My personal view on all such "struggles" is this; if you are going to "go to the mattresses," it should be about something that is genuinely worth dying for, and ideally directed against objects and possibly persons who are by virtue of their nature and position legitimate targets. If either point is questionable, one's struggle is apt to be perceived as being nothing more than a particularly vicious temper-tantrum. Worse yet, that perception will be accurate.

The distinction between various forms of asymmetrical warriors is debatable, but it's not the debate that we need. We need to distinguish between asymmetrical warfare - as prosecuted on either side - and thuggery.

I think there is a great deal less "asymmetrical warfare" in any supposed cause than there is just plain old vicious thuggery on all the supposed sides, with a few childishly transparent justifications applied as laughably inadequate fig-leaves.

I believe that there is a general world-wide consensus of thinking persons that "temper-tantrum" is an accurate description of those who riot and commit bombings in the name of redressing the offense caused by a cartoon, and that an even better example of such inexcusably childish flailing would be the Iraq war.

Actually, in the latter case, "childish temper-tantrum" would be a charitable interpretation of the actions of this particular excuse for a government. The responses have been thuggish. We are led by thugs, the war is cheered by thugs, and those who balk at being thugs are called traitors.

We can be sure of this, for the most basic of reasons; they refuse to be held to account, they refuse even to give an account of themselves under oath. They are therefore dishonorable men, with not even the moral courage of a child snuffling an outraged "Johnny STARTED it!"

Yeah, I think that world wide, it's time that the real grownups stood up. Islam - go clean up your messes. Don't whine about the perception of Islam when you refuse to deal justly with those who pervert and defame it with their actions. You are demanding "respect." Try earning it. Hark back to when Islam was the heart of civilization and to be Islamic WAS to be civilized. What the hell happened, gentles, and why are you not embarrassed by your dusty decadence? This is surely not a criticism of the Prophet or the Book - but it certainly is of the religion as practiced by people who clearly are not following the Prophet or the Book.

Pot, Kettle, Black, you say?

Indeed!

tag: defamation, criticism, defamation of islam, , free speech, Diplomacy, Political Correctness, cultural warfare, religious persecution, terrorism, Iraq War, Clash of Cultures, Religious Fundimentalism, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes