"THE First Amendment Issue Of Our Time"

Senator Al Frankin speaking at Netroots.

Your Unfriendly Neighbourhood Conservative Movement

This should give you an insight into why the protection of free speech is so broad and sweeping in the US and Canada.

If speech like this were illegal, you wouldn't know what sort of ideas people like this supported - and you might not realize that such people were being courted and pandered to by less indiscreet conservatives. Hell, you might just think such people who say they are Christians and Conservatives actually knew what those words mean.

Oh, yes, let the people speak!

I have been feeling overwhelmed by the flaming pools of stupid around me. and the amazingly poor job, it seems, of the media and the blogosphere in keeping the whackadoodle nutters out of polite company.

Yeah, there's something of the "back when I was a boy" to all of this.

When I took Journalism 101, there was a hard limit on the amount of nonsense that could go into a publication. 

Speech was free, but printing that speech was expensive. Someone (not the writer, for the best one could hope for then was a basic comprehension of grammar and construction) had to proofread, edit and typeset the speech, and then someone had to decide which was more important, the fifth paragraph, or the paid ad from a neighbourhood sandwich shoppe. That paid ad is what made it all possible, so one did not run the risk of offending an advertiser - at least, not the important ones, and certainly not without cause.

I've done all of those. On a small community paper, I often did all of those on the same story - and all the time knowing that my work and my words were most likely to be consigned to line the bottom of a birdcage before reading.  

My job was to somehow fill the spaces between the ads in a way that seemed as if it were being informative, without in any way disturbing the fond prejudices and presumptions of the readership, in the sure and certain knowledge that if they thought they were being informed by my newspaper, there was no hope for them in any case. I tried to not simply retype press-releases too often, but if it was good, and it was free... Hell, anything that didn't make the typesetter weep was likely to make the final cut. And I mean this in general, across the board. It's amazing what school-board presidents and community association leaders will put on paper, thinking that it is English. 

It's rather touching to see how sincerely such people believe that anyone cares, when in fact, most people, most of the time, wish such people to do their damn job as silently as possible, as competently as can be managed, in a way that bears no expectation of them thinking difficult thoughts about complicated issues. But if anyone actually believed that such a bleak appreciation of human nature applied to them, personally - we'd all book a flight to Gyana and party like it was 1978.

So let me reprise - under ideal circumstances, when everything functions as it should, when commerce flows, leaders lead, followers follow and comedians have to make shit up rather than just opening a newspaper - well, that makes for uninteresting times. Trust me when I tell you - the best sort of news is a bold headline that says, "Life as Usual." Remember that "May you live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse, and that an "Adventure" is someone else, far away, surviving circumstances you'd not wish on most enemies.  

So when a community newspaper has anything of genuine interest - that's not really a good thing. But interesting times tend to sweep away the complacent assumption that things are working well due to good faith and good design, when in fact, inertia has far more to do with it. 

This is when the role of the community newspaper (back in the day) and the Local Blogger (now) becomes important.

When I was wielding wax and knife, it was a given that when a story mattered enough for anyone to comment you would get a few sane responses and a raft of letters that ranged from the sincerely uninformed to outright lunacy. It was standard practice for the editor to pick the responses in this order:

1: The most articulate and informative response(s) to the story, pro and con.

2: The responses from whatever official or buisiness found themselves to be suddenly and unfortunately newsworthy. 

3: The comic relief.

 By "comic relief," I mean the capering, giggling morons that would type in all caps - and yes, they did it then, too. Single spaced. With quarter-inch margins.

They were terribly sure that they were expressing "common sense" and of course, we were more than happy to let them do so. Which ass-clown got the privileged of being a public example of stupidity was a function of editorial bias. There was, after all, little else to base a decision on, and there's only SO much room for the stupid.

Anyway, it struck me as I was wading through the conspicuous idiocy, trying to find a hook to hang a post upon, that nothing had really changed. What has changed was the price of public speech and the barriers to access.

These days, we make them type it themselves, and there's no serious costs associated with publication. 

And it occurred to me that I was speaking from a set of assumptions that don't apply at all, and indeed, didn't even then. Elites were the gatekeepers because, well, what other option was there? Gaining, sorting, indexing and maintaining information was breathtakingly expensive. Every trade, every profession, every course of study required some form of standard reference, and each of those was instantly obsolete when published - and the fair price for a good reference was in the hundreds of dollars.

Not any more. There is no practical barrier at the moment to anyone with Internet access learning anything they wish about anything that is on the net - and you'd have to be an idiot to bear the cost of publishing and distributing your information any other way.

Strangely, we are entering a time rather like the Enlightenment, when suddenly access to information explodes, with consequences that are unforeseen and indeed, unforeseeable. This fact alone is more than enough to make a certain portion of the population lose their water and cling to traditional approaches even when those approaches are clearly not working at all well. 

No doubt there were those such as myself at the time, bitching and whining aloud at the insults to enlightenment and assaults upon reason that Gutenberg's demonic tool had made possible, clearly making the downfall of all that is good and holy inevitable.

Indeed, that's pretty close to what happened, and looking back, it hasn't been such a bad thing as all of that.

Now, any fool can say whatever they wish and gain wide public exposure. And they do. 

They may even find a wide and willing claque for their species of wishful thinking, but with a rapidity that would amaze people back in my salad days, the idiocy is exposed and the stupidity addressed with a forthright contempt that would make my teachers of criticism blanch. A consensus is emerging that there is little point to treating the wilfully stupid with public respect, at least on the Internet, when the barrier to gaining an informed opinion on anything is so low.

And then there's another factor, not often said aloud, but one that no free-thinker can leave unconsidered; on the Internet, it's difficult to respond to an unwelcome truth with a Molotov Cocktail. And so we see a great difference between what people are willing to say in public, when an honest view, informed or otherwise, may put livelihood or life at risk, and what people really think,

It is at once inspiring and appalling, for it's dreadfully clear that mostly they don't.

But nobody is forced to undergo the indignity of recasting the words of some flaming moron into something that can be printed without getting the paper into legal difficulty - or worse yet, make the typesetter stomp out to explore a career in dental hygiene.

There have always been idiots and creeps among us. Mostly, they didn't find themselves in public office, because they were discreetly cut off at the knees as a matter of policy, a policy that was pervasive, smug, elitist and dismissive of the views of the uneducated, and unwashed. 

How do I know this? I'm an Episcopalian who spent some time in a Jesuit Prep School. I qualified for an Honours society in college. I was, to all appearances, well prepared to become another cultural gatekeeper, not unlike the bouncer at the door of a hot club, picking the pretty people from the mass of schlubs and losers.

The fact, I was told and accepted as uncritically as young people do, was that the "top ten" are destined to lead and the rest will benefit from following. Now, it's not quite such a cynical observation as it sounds, for it was articulated by Jesuits. Therefore it was presented as much as a duty and a fate as a ticket to hot chicks and fast cars. 

It was the classic, Burkian conservative view, that there were patterns in society that may arguably be unfair, but it would be far, far worse to pretend that these very real distinctions do not matter, particularly if one one is inclined to lift the poor from poverty or strive for a wider acceptance of Social Justice. Being Jesuits, they tended to think that a wider application of the principles of Christ might well be something worth contemplating, so long as it did not conflict with the authority of the Church.

These were the seventies, and it was not a time of innocence. There were airline hijackings, there were ecological catastrophes, terrorism was a fact of life for much of Europe and the situation in the Middle East was... much as it is now, save the excuses given for the reasons that it could be no other way still seemed somewhat original. There was widespread unemployment and everyone disagreed as to what should be done about it.

But the presentation of all these unpalatable, and horrifying things was the responsibility of people such as me, or rather, the me I would have become, had I been capable of living up to my promise.

"Fails to live up to potential" could well be my given name. Nor am I particularly embarrassed by that, for my "potential," and yours, is not judged in this culture by what you would be best at doing, and what would best fulfil your personal needs, but rather, what utility you might bring to your various cultural "owners;" your class, your family, the people who's calls you feel obligated to answer, regardless of your true feelings.

Did you know that the single best predictor of popularity (and therefore success) is the ability to conceal your reactions? That is to say, if someone says something horrifyingly racist, appallingly idiotic or simply, tragically, smugly ignorant, you never, ever contradict them in a way that they will notice.

This is still true. I suspect it's something that's wired into us at a very, very deep level. But at the same time, no leader making good, informed decisions can in fact believe the crap he pretends to accept as "common sense" for the sake of getting elected. There are unavoidable complexities that must be dealt with, in private, by people who ideally have both some sort of convictions, and at the same time, a pragmatic sense of what is possible today.

When someone appeals to "common sense" - well, I refer them to my own personal hero, and evidence that nothing happening today is much different than what happened nearly a century ago.

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong." - H.L. Menken

We have seen the price paid when an ideologue is put in a position of leadership. It ain't pretty. An ideologue is a species of idealist, and an idealist is always ready to sacrifice the lives and fortunes of others to preserve the things they hold to be self evident, trusting in a Higher Providence to Ensure that Blessings will Trickle Down upon us all.

With that nitrogen-enhanced watering, how does your garden grow?

Carrie Prejean, the Also-ran Queen

I've been taking a little vacation from internet news the last while, because, well, I was starting to burn out. One response was to experiment with a more graphic approach to graphictruths.

But that meant that all I got was television pop-culture. Well, I'm late to the gate with the Peroxide Christian Conservatism of Carrie Prejean, Also-Ran Queen for Miss Trump USA.

But it seems that while the story ain't fresh, it's a great BIG pile of cultural carrion, and the Usual Vultures are far from reaching the bone.

Palin defends Carrie Prejean Miss California USA

from staunchusa

Carrie Prejean news of the day! Sarah Palin is defending Carrie Prejean.

“The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against (Miss California) Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable,” Palin said in a statement.

Gov. Palin said that her and Prejean spoke right after Miss California expressed her honest opinion regarding same-sex marriages during the Miss USA pageant.

At that point, the circus began thanks to gay-activist and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.

“What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what the President and Ms. Clinton believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” Palin added. “Our Constitution protects us all — not just those who agree with the far left.”

This week, Palin announced that she is woking on her memoir, saying that she wants to be “able to tell (her) story unrestrained and unfiltered.”

What I find remarkable is that Palin's apparent belief that those who react to public stupidities with derision are doing it for political reasons. Sometimes a really stupid remark is just a really stupid remark!


Perez Hilton explains why the bimbo lost and what she could have said that would not have insulted anyone's moral values, something he "meanspiritedly" observes, is appropriate for someone who wishes to be an icon for all Americans - including, of course, truly fabulous drag queens and Christian Reconstructionists alike.



Sometimes, when people say that your remarks are some form of bigoted incoherence, it's not because they are radical liberals out to foist Teh Gay upon all Ghod Fearin' Chromefishtians - it's because they are repulsed by your choice to tie YOUR politics with bigoted incoherence and a set of publically defended ethical positions that Jesus Himself would personally kick your ass for attaching to His name.

Sadly, she either does not understands this, or sees some personal advantage in choosing to not see it. But if she'd been smart enough to note the distinction, I suspect Carrie would be the current Miss USA, not Miss Also-Ran.


I think she needs a little help with her Inner Voice Recognition Software.

Bluntly, correlation does not equal causation. One does NOT have to be a flaming liberal who wishes to tax and spend and impose "moral clarification" classes in public schools just after the morning flag burning and right before The Rainbow Pledge to think that Carrie Prejean is the cartoon example of Cultural Conservative Values. She's a "Whited Sepulchre" made of remarkably cheap materials; a marketable commodity of short term value - a person who by choice has stepped into a glass house and who chose to throw stones of self-rightious judgment regarding the moral values of others from her vitreous front porch.

We are supposed to credit with the intelligence that should distinguish her from a common whore - even as she publicly demonstrates a lack of wit and an incapacity to lie convincingly that would get a stripper laughed off her pole. This leads me to presume that she lacks even the virtues associated with the World's Oldest Profession.

Let me speak even more sharply to the point. Carrie Prejean is simply a peroxide opportunist, but one without the wit to actually sieze the day. I don't actually blame her for positioning herself to fulfill her ambition to be a pneumatically-enhanced status symbol, and even in that role, she has no defect that could not be corrected with a ball-gag.

Once the fact came out that the pagent had paid for her "enhancements," I believe that anyone with two neurons to rub together and the insight to be a real liberal or the cyincal realism to be a real conservative realized what was going on.

To cite a possibly apocraphal exchange between Winston Churchill and a nameless woman of the sort Ms. Prejean aspires to become:

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Which leads us into the starkly surreal landscape of Barbie from the Taiga defending this Vaseline-toothed centerfold tease as a legitimate and important voice for Conservative Values.

I agree, of course. She is the Perfect Republican Female, just as Joe the Plumber is the Perfect Republican Male. Together, they exemplify exactly what is wrong with that version of American Family Values.

Wake up, America! Wake up and smell the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

I think that she is, indeed, the perfect spokesmuffin; an absolutely accurate exemplar for what passes for the culture that Palin would like to conserve. A set of unconnected, mindless reflexes, a literal bimbo who can be trusted to say whatever needs to be said to please whoever needs to be pleased in order to be awarded the Tennis Bracelet of Social Correctness.

But, well, I have nothing against a girl rocking the assets she has to offset deficits of birth. I'm not so charitable as to suggest that setting a high price on flesh makes the flesh trade any less ethically questionable.

I of course absolutely defend her right to say any damn-fool thing she wishes to say in public. But - while the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights carve this precept in stone and inlay it with imperishable metal, that consideration extends equally to the response to such free speech.

She said a damn-fool thing in public. People reacted by saying she IS a damn fool.

I will simply sweep away all the clutter of all the various reflexive moralists and boil it right down to essentials, and then allow you readers to figure out why she, Palin and everyone stupid enough to defend her words as being not merely protected, but informative speech deserve an equal measure of eye-rolling derision.

A moral position cannot be ethical if it mandates harming those who merely disagree.

Compliance is not moral behavior. It's merely compliance - and that is the best possible outcome.

A valid moral position is one that is - by definition - ethical, and we know it to be a moral and ethical truth because practicing it is obviously and inherently beneficial; first to the individual and by extension to all of society.

It feels good to do good things and doing good things produces good results. It takes all manner of bad political theory and rotten theology to produce a system of brainwashing and propaganda that can obscure this truth, to appeal to the basest lusts and fears of the people while attaching those lusts and fears to false virtues.

When you choose to say hateful things and do harmful things to others - like, say, refusing to allow them to be with their loved ones in hospital, because you don't approve of their relationship choices, or tearing up prescriptions for emergency birth control in a fit of self-righteousness - you are choosing to do a harmful thing in the supposed service of good. This is not just true, it's intuitively, obviously true and neither legislation nor sermonizing can argue against such truth. To make the argument in the first place is to illustrate your own moral failure in public.

This sort of moral vision, this sort of willful confusion between good and evil deeds makes it easy to defend the use of torture against strange brown people from the pulpit.

Thank you, Ms. Prejean, Mrs. Palin, and of course, Mr. Cheney. May you reap the rich rewards awaiting you in the next life for your service to the spiritual principle you have chosen in this one.

Now, you may say that it's "Liberal Politics" that makes people object to such expressions of personal views. Me, I think it to be revulsion for a set of affirmative beliefs that people like Palin assert as being essential, core, conservative values, and the result of seeing such acts Republicanism committed in public.

You don't have to be a Liberal to see crap, smell crap and decide not to consume crap; you just have to trust your own senses. But if Palin wishes to associate Republicanism with being deluded enough to confuse crap and chocolate pudding, there are obvious political benefits to parties and movements that do not inspire such revulsion. That, however, is not a "Liberal Plot" or a smear campaign. No, when you are being "smeared" by your own words - that is your problem. Nor is it a political issue.

Or at least, forgive me for saying so, but there is a level of intelligent discorse and a certain basic understanding of reality, of causes, of effects and of human needs and nature that should be expected of anyone who has ambition toward public, political service. Niether Palin nor Prejean qualify - by the standards they have established by their own words.

Some of us may continue to feebly argue that Conservatism does not require one be stupid, that there ARE virtues and traditions that should be upheld - but unfortunately, none of those virtues and traditions are the ones the Palindromes insist upon, either in principle and practice. And, rather than give such creatures any comfort or support, I'd much rather be mistaken for a flaming liberal. It's far less insulting than anyone presuming I stand for what has come to be thought of as "conservative."

These "conservative values" have been applied upon us ruthlessly and relentlessly since the dawn of the Regan era, and with every decade that has passed, the cost in human and social terms has become clearer and clearer.

One hardly needs to assert that "Godless Liberalism" is better to observe that it's time to put an end to this chapter before the current Conservative Value Set has done it's worst. When the authoritarians have become so obviously bereft of the ability to recognize that what they are saying in public is morally and ethically repugnant as well as being offensive and stupid, many will say that we need different and better Authorities in charge.

"Public Service" should actually be just that; as opposed to being "Large and In Charge."

Authorities should be equipped to inform and advise while citizens should make informed decisions in the contexts in which they live - including within the field of elective, appointive and professional public service. I see a general trend away from blind acceptance and trust of such folks - including a healthy skepticism toward the omniscience and omnipotence of the Obama Administration.

Alas, I have little faith that after such long a time under such a head of steam, that the shoals ahead may be entirely avoided.

Dear Bill O'Rielly - Yo Mamma!

End Conservative Whining by webcarve
Make Custom T Shirts At www.zazzle.com
More Satire T-Shirts

I've been told that it is best to rise above petty insults, to refuse to descend to the level of uncultured tallywhackers such as Bill O'Rielly. But experience has told me that if one does not lower oneself just a little, no communication at all will occur. And more practically, while there may be no effect upon the target itself, the resounding "thwack" of correction may prove either instructing or amusing to one's audience. Echidne of the Snakes brings our attention to yet another turd plopping into the intellectual watershed of America. And - as is not unusual - it comes courtesy of Bill O'Rielly and - of course - the Fox Network.

It's Bill O'Reilly having fun imitating Helen Thomas, calling her the wicked witch of the East and so on. But the most fascinating bit is the one where O'Reilly asks us why his mother isn't out there sitting in the front row of Obama's press conference, asking questions. Or Colmes' mother. Or any old lady at all! (He doesn't say that but it's what he means.)

To deny Thomas the respect her experience and professional qualifications deserve is probably a sexist response on O'Reilly's part. Try a reversal by imagining an older male journalist in her place and then O'Reilly arguing that his own dad is equally qualified to ask questions at the press conference.

If you think O'Reilly should apologize for his comments, go here.

I would not bother demanding an apology - it amounts to the solicitation of perjury, without the satisfaction of being under oath.

More to the point, the proper response to offensive speech is more and better speech; that is to say, better targeted and far more amusing at the expense of the the target deserving such public correction.

I firmly believe this is a better and more productive response than the amusingly typical attempt to pressure Bill-O into apologizing to Helen Thomas for being disrespectful of her gender, age, wisdom and status. Hell, consider the source; the fact that he DOES disrespect her tells you exactly where he stands as a gentleman, journalist and carbon-based organism.

It's not so remarkable that he said what he did. It's that it's so apparent he believes that what he said is self-evident; moreover, that he believes that he is, due to his gender, skin color and political viewpoint, of inherently greater worth than Helen Thomas in particular and pretty much anyone else, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that he's a moral and mental midget, unworthy of being in the same room - or time zone - of persons of any color, gender, political philosophy or sexual orientation with an actual informed opinion about anything at all.

It reminds me of the time my father - a life-long grifter, racist and Orangeman - informed me that he was of course a better man than Martin Luther King - after a reprise of the "I Have A Dream" speech.

He, like Bill, was held in contempt by anyone who had the misfortune to come to know him, much less have to do business with him. And like Bill - he was completely impervious to that well-earned contempt. Even by white racists.

If there was a cover illustration for "Unskilled and Unaware," it would properly feature Bill's smirking face.

So, here's my response, Bill.

Yo Momma.

Your Momma is embarrassed enough by your antics without you dragging her into this. And if she could hold her own in the front row in the white house press gallery - how come you turned out the way you did? Dude, your best gig was Hard Copy - it's been downhill ever since. I mean, from a journalistic perspective. The fact that you and your show is not a constant, burning humiliation to the people in charge of Fox News, in all aspects, simply shows how little they care about the people they exploit - which would include both their listeners and their employees.

There's no better illustration of that amoral calculus than the fact that you still have a job, loofa boy. Trust me on this, Bill-O; they don't employ you because they respect you; not one whisker more than they respect the poor saps that produce, direct and light your show while enduring your innuendos. The fact that you are permitted to still work following your serial public sexual embarrassments demonstrates a systemic lack of respect for anything but ratings, by whatever means.

You will be on the air just so long as it is still illegal to show convicts being raped to death by donkeys - as was the amusing practice of the Roman Colosseum shows - shows that pandered to the exact same demographic of unwashed, uneducated pinheads as you do. When Running Man was made - I'm absofuckinglutely sure that you were an inspiration to everyone involved.

You have always appealed to that sort of mindset, and in rude point of fact, that means that you have equal or less value to Fox News than a literal donkey dick. If they could replace you that way - they would. In a heartbeat. Nor would it trouble their consciences in the slightest. Their sociopathy is evident enough in the fact that they employ not just you, but many examples of persons no better and even less skilled.

It's also why you so deeply fear the return of the fairness doctrine - because you would be getting your asshole kicked up around your ears by the "other side" every single day. And I'm not speaking of persons of the stature of Noam Chomsky. You get owned by anyone who has a good opinion of themselves and a mike you haven't switched off yet.

Media Matters - whom you hate with a blind passion - need only archive your own words to prove that this is by no means an isolated lapse on your part. Sad to say, it's not even the most profound lapse, in a journalistic sense. They focus on your deliberate lies, things that are provably false to fact, as opposed to the oozing, palpable, sneering contempt for competence in any form; feeling that in the final analysis, malicious lies are of more significance than mere stupidity.

Your standard response to being busted for falsehoods is also documented. You just repeat it - louder. While whining about being picked on by "liberals." Bill, you are not only an embarrassment to journalists and editorialists of honor and stature - you even manage to be offensive by the standards of professional liars. Ask around. Use the grapevine. See if you can find out what Tony Snow really thinks of you. Even for such a polished prevaricator as the Snowman, it might be difficult for him to come up with a semblance of sincerity while uttering a complement. And I question the likelihood that he'd consider you significant enough to bother lying for.

The standards that permit you to flourish like black mold around the base of a badly installed toilet has caused people to confuse "liberalism" with "People who know what the hell they are talking about" and/or "People who don't lie to me."

Not being a Liberal, I find this somewhat troubling. But it HAS done wonders for Barack Obama in particular, and truth-tellers in general.

So, I say, turning my back on Bill and speaking to the gallery - what have we learned from this?

I have learned, once again, that anyone or anything that Bill O'Rielly thinks is bad is worth having a look at and than anything Bill hates and fears is quite likely worth doing. Twice.

Further, I've learned that anyone that makes Bill O's tiny penis shrink on air to the point where he has to mock and ridicule probably has a book that's well worth reading. And that's the best possible response to this public dissing of Helen Thomas - put her book on the best-seller list. And be sure to tell everyone why.

"I'm Voting Republican Because..."

If chickens made an ad for KFC, it would be like this.

When you embarrass yourself in public, you should just Move On

If they don't laugh, MoveOn (dot org)
by
webcarve

Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

An op-ed in the LA Times notes "it's amazing that MoveOn would try to squelch
political speech." One of the designers withdrew her T-shirt because she didn't want to fight "a large group with the money to run ads in the NY Times demeaning a four star general."

And The LA Times supplies the punchline to this whole sorry mess with the last 'graph:

Perhaps the most delicious irony here is that MoveOn hasn't exactly been scrupulous in its regard to other people's intellectual property. After all, it seems to have borrowed the Petraeus/Betray Us rhyme from a familiar radio host -- without crediting him, of course.

Now THERE'S the humorless, irony impaired Left Wing I remember from my youth! This demands WIDESPREAD bi-partisan blogmockery - and T-shirts! Until we get a rueful admission of stupidity on Colbert's show, I shall taunt you!

read more | digg story

UPDATE: T-Shirt Created, on Zazzle. Why? Well, I kinda think it's their turn for some huge free publicity. C'mon, MoveOn, don't stop NOW!

Note: I have "Blogmockery" as a category. Click it and see how often I get a chance to mock the LEFT wing. I try to be an equal-opportunity offender, but the pickings are slim on the left. For the most part, I think that's because the targets on the right are SO obvious that you don't have to be all that clever or take many risks to launch a devastating counter attack.

So, even as I criticize, I forgive. Goddes knows, my beloved and often silly lefties, it's not surprising your hunting skills are rusty. It's what you might call a "target-rich environment" on the right. It's like trying to shoot a jackrabbit, just for fun, after spending years clubbing them to death with your rifle butt just to keep from nibbling your personal carrot. You ARE gonna miss - especially seeing as you are still up to your ass in carrot-obsessed jackrabbits.

Anyway, admit it, get over it, laugh ruefully and MoveOn. It was wrong, it was stupid, and it's kinda nice to know that you are just as human as the rest of us. Get over yourselves and remember there are more important things going on than ensuring there's a particular ideological outcome, other than a future without a recreational nuclear encounter.

So many amendments, so little concern.

UPDATE: We have video! (Courtesy of OwellianNation)

You know, there should be some political blowback for this.

The 74-year-old retired mathematician who is fighting Kensington officials over his right to sell buttons urging President Bush's impeachment was arrested yesterday at a farmers market and charged with trespassing.

Alan McConnell, who had been selling his "Impeach Him" buttons at the Howard Avenue market for about a half-hour without a permit, lay down on the pavement after Montgomery County police asked him to come with them. After McConnell failed to respond to a request that he "please stand up," four officers each grabbed one of his limbs and carried him to the front seat of a squad car.

Now, many have dismissed this as a non-issue from a common-sense viewpoint. These people were speaking from the perspective of organizers of public events in public spaces that require permitting and juried vendor selection.

Comment at Impeach Bush Blog by Mimi Morris — July 22, 2007 @ 1:47 pm

I'm totally in favor of impeachment, but this is a manufactured grievance. As an organizer of a long-running (and *very* progressive) event that relies on both city permitting and juried vendor selection, I recognize that what this guy is doing is jumping the line.

If he wants a booth from which to reach the patrons brought in by the market's organizers, he can go through the same process all the other vendors did. If the event's organizers choose not to give him a booth (which they won't, since what he's selling is not produce) he has every right to reach the same number of potential buyers by standing on the adjacent sidewalk, offering his buttons to people as they come and go from the farmer's market.

But to insist on his alleged right to do business within the permit area without having gone through the process is simply stealing access to an audience built by someone else for another purpose — and that would be true even if he were not aggressive about it.

It's not about free speech. If he were giving the buttons away free, he *might* have a case…but maybe not. The Sixth Circuit just decided a case two years ago that gave ballot petitioners the right to circulate in crowds gathered by permit holders in public parks, but AFAIK event permit holders still have the right to ask anyone who is even giving away materials to do so outside the permit area.

And that's as it should be. Imagine how you would feel if, having spent months or years building an audience and organizing a political or cultural evvent designed to raise money for good folks who cooperated in your process, some corporation decided to bring in a squad of salesmen to disrupt traffic flow and siphon off the interest of your cutomers.

Permitting of public spaces is one of the few areas where public policy actually works for the common good. Please rethink the knee-jerk reaction that assumes this well-intentioned man was wronged. Considering how many times he was asked to take his business outside the area, it should be clear that he was seeking this confrontation. Noisy self-made martyrs do our common cause no real good.
There are plenty of actual free speech violations going unheeded. This isn't one of them.

But according to one supporter also commenting further down-thread, that's not the case with the Kensington Farmer's Market.

1. As a Kensington resident I supported Alan's efforts and the demonstration on Saturday. Alan did not need a permit. There are no rules for the Kensington Market. I know this becuase I asked the person in charge of the market at the Town of Kensington who admitted they do not have rules written down. So they make them up as they go. Alan has been selling buttons at the market for over a year!

   He is also not in people's faces, he simply asks passers-by if they would like a button. No more aggrssive then those who man booth at the mall.

   Comment by Pam — July 23, 2007 @ 8:58 am

So, if that is the case, the question returns to whether this is selective enforcement of arbitrary rules. Again, IF so, that's definitely an issue that is worth dramatizing in order to resolve in court. Furthermore, it appears that the conflict is between the Mayor of Kensington and McConnell.

Three weeks ago, McConnell was issued a trespassing warning after being asked to leave the market. McConnell has said that he sold the buttons at the market for months without a license. Last week, Fosselman canceled the market because he was concerned that McConnell's "potentially aggressive" supporters might endanger the safety of customers. On Thursday, two Montgomery County police officers issued McConnell an updated trespassing warning, while a Kensington official gave him a citation for selling at the market without a permit. That ticket carries a possible $500 fine.

McConnell got another of those citations yesterday before his arrest, but he continued to sell his buttons for $1 apiece even as Kensington code enforcement officer Louise Hamilton filled out the ticket. Hamilton said the mayor requested that she come to the market to see whether McConnell was selling his buttons without a license.

Meanwhile, those who oppose holding Bush accountable for his constitutional vandalism are weighing in.

1. You and those like you are misguided and un-American. I support your being watched and, if deemed necessary, rounded up and either imprisoned or deported.

   Comment by Mike — July 22, 2007 @ 10:35 am

Ya know, buddy, if this were Stalinist Russia, Communist China or Cuba, you'd be right. That would be the "patriotic" thing to do. Me, I support the vicious mockery of any such would-be Stalinist until they do something unfortunate enough to permit us to round them up and imprison them, with the option of voluntarily renouncing their citizenship in favor of emigration to a country that better supports their authoritarian point of view.

But most folks, commenting on various sites, simply said "get a permit." The question is, though, CAN you get a permit? Is it reasonably priced? Is the process itself designed to discourage First Amendment activity? Remember, commercial speech is still protected speech. Indeed, we must ask, has the permitting process become politicized? Seeing that this conflict seems to have become a personal power-struggle between the Mayor and the elderly McConnel, it seems to me something worth investigating.

In particular, the canecellation of the market because of concerns that McConnel's supporters were "potentialy aggressive" sets off my bullshit alarm. It strikes me more as potentially being ploy to pressure other venders into supporting the mayor's agenda.

Just because a town is left-leaning, it does not follow that it's government is, especially within unelected positions. The intent of infiltrating local government by stealth in order to monkey-wrench liberal agendas is something Ralph Reed has spoken about at length to his Christianist-Conservative supporters. More on that here.

And remember what these buttons say. "Impeach Him." It IS a loaded issue, and it does make some folks hot under the collar. Including, say, Mayors and Permiting enforcement officials.

The fact that McConnel was arrested for trespassing tends to suggest to me the possiblity that they prefer to try him for a technical violation, rather than the one they were really upset about. Indeed, I wonder about the charge itself,

If you can control the permitting and licensing process, you can bankrupt people who disagree with your political views in a nearly invisible way, so this is a question that needs to be asked. Now, thanks to the good professor, is likely to be a matter of fact to be determined in a court of law.

Even if that is not true, it's the height of sloppiness to simply assume that it would have been possible to simply apply for and get a permit to sell buttons. If nothing else, the possibility of pure administrative indifference and/or incompetence should have crossed some minds.

While I'm not a constitutional scholar, it strikes me as extremely dubious that such a venue could exclude the sale of political materials without running afoul of the Constitution in some way, if the venue is administered directly by the town of Kensington. Were it simply the venue organizers, perhaps it would pass the constitutional sniff test, but once any government becomes involved, it's an iffy proposition.

The other thing that disturbs me about this story is the lack of attribution. "Some people said" he was being "too aggressive." Really? Who? And what, by chance, would this person's political viewpoint be? Note that he's been doing this very thing for months and months. Surely, if the matter is as serious as the arrest would seem to imply, it's serious enough for the facts of the "offense" to be clearly communicated to the media - and on to us. But I feel less informed now than when I was completely ignorant of the entire matter, an hour or so ago.

In the final analysis, when there are conflicts between public policy in public spaces and the rights of free speech, free press and freedom of assembly, the letter of the law should not impede the spirit of constitutional intent. Any restrictions on individual liberty need to be narrowly drawn, with unassailable public policy grounds for such restrictions.

And remember also that the McCain-Fiengold campaign finance reform bill was struck down by the Supremes as an unreasonable limitation on PAID political speech - so if it's true for a few hundred thousand dollar television ad, it should also be true for the choice to buy a one dollar button.

tag: Washington Post, MSM, reporting, Constitution, first amendment, Impeach Buttons, Kensington, Alan McConnell, Washington Post, Sloppy Reporting.

Free the iPhone : Support wireless freedom!

If you've ever accessed the web with your phone, you have probably realized two things: it's ungodly expensive and of dubious utility - in part due to carrier choke-points and built-in incompatibilities. It's not the web you get, per se, it's "the mobile web."

Here's a thought; what about some radical entrepreneur - possibly named Branson - coming up with a truly portable device that could surf networks, possibly on a pay as you go basis? Possibly one that would sort through competitive bids for access, taking the ones that match user priorities. And what if it could actually browse the whole web?

Free the iPhone : Support wireless freedom!: "Apple touts the iPhone as the “Internet in your pocket” — but it’s not. You can’t use it without signing on with AT&T, and once you do they cripple services, limit what you can do and restrict where you can go on the wireless Web.

We need Wireless Freedom — and our elected officials are the only ones who can give it to us: the freedom to use all Internet devices on any wireless network in a market that offers true high-speed Internet and real consumer choice.

Take action today. Demand that the FCC and Congress free the iPhone — and future gadgets like it — and put the Internet in the hands of everyone."

At CBS, the Eighth Deadly Word is "gays."

Mass. Lawmakers Block Gay Marriage Vote, Constitutional Amendment Would Have Let Voters Decide Whether To Ban Gay Marriage - CBS News: "Mass. Lawmakers Block Gay Marriage Vote"

Great story and all that, hurrah, triumph for civil liberties... but the REALLY funny part is that CBS is censoring the comments submitted by readers, and one of the words censored is "gays." Now, I was not aware that "gays" was deemed an offensive word. And it does rather make it awkward to write coherently about the right to gay marriage without, you know, THE FUCKING PLURAL FORM!

But I guess that's their objection, that if they DID allow the word "gays," somehow their readers would jump to the conclusion that The Grey Lady was approving of plural gay fucking within the sanctity of marriage.

However, as I pointed out in my own somewhat incoherent comment, designed to determine if self-censorship were at work, or if CBS was being bizarrely prudish.

um. What's this with censoring the words "gay" and "***?" If it's self-censorship, it's silly, if it's CBS, it's freakin' bizarre.

Well, we will see which it is after I punch the send button. Meanwhile, a wry observation that if marrage were to be officially linked to particular sexual practices, I doubt more than ten percent of the population WOULD be legally qualified to marry.

It's both bizarrely prudish and freakin' bizarre, so it's off to Fark and the Rude Pundit to help spread the gleeful mockery.

tag: CBS, prudes, prudery, gay marriage, bluenoses, bluestockings, the grey lady, prunefaces, Ms. Grundy, censorship, the eighth deadly word, blogswarm, blogmock, bizarre, funny, hilarity ensues

From Manifest Destiny to Manifest Stupidity

I've been around the block a few times, advocating for ethical outcomes and reality-based approaches to the world and it's problems for years and years now.

The more I go 'round and round the issues, the more I realize that for whatever form of understanding or tolerance I advocate - be it autistic persons, be it multiple personalities, be it survivors of sexual and/or religious abuse, the same sort of people, probably a lot OF the same people, are the ones screaming and gibbering that it's lies, all lies! And It's an Evil Plot to Seduce our Children and Pollute our Precious Bodily Fluids to boot. Any delusions of being different - multiple personality, homosexuality, persistent, corrosive expressions of individuality and social justice such as feminism, liberalism or ecological consciousness will All Go Away when you take a Magic Jesus Pill and submit to the Correction of Proper Authorities.

Really. Just ask Ted Haggard and Oral Roberts! (Both are more than willing to sell you the Magic Jesus Pills they didn't personally need in their Miraculous Recoveries from Sin.)

Not to put too fine a point on it, the people who are out there on the other side, against all forms of choice, all forms of individual expressions that don't involve praising a plastic glow-in-the-dark god onna stick idol, that don't involve white, heteronormative authoritarian submission to Duly Constituted Authority are some of the most willfully ignorant, morally bankrupt and hypocritical mouth-breathing morons I have ever had the pleasure to cluebyfour.

I have passed many, many pleasant hours fighting in my way for individual liberties, freedom of expression, personal dignity and the mutual respect, tolerance and common decency required of any free and civilized society.

In doing so, I've tried to grit my teeth and be respectful of views and beliefs that cannot thrive in the presence of critical thought or evidence, but I can no longer muster any tolerance for the increasingly obvious fear and hatred this roughly 30% of the electorate represents.

As FDR said, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." He was right - fear is the handmaiden of fascism and theocracy.

The unreasoning xenophobia and the very real possibility of violence from the right toward everyone who's views or indeed, existence contradicts their hateful, thoughtless ideologies and demented dogmas has caused many - including myself - to be over-cautious about calling them on their shit.

No more. The marketers of fear, these panderers of panic must be forced to partake of the poison they have peddled. They are either willfully evil, or so blind to the evil of their cheerleaders and exploiters that there can be no useful distinction. Either way, we must no longer harbor them within the "big tents" of our political and social compacts - we must reclaim our school boards, our state houses and our congress from those stupid enough to think either that "The Bible Says It, I believe it, That Settles It" or "I'm right because I'm Right."

It's not a conflict between respectable and debatable political viewpoints - it's really and genuinely now a matter of informed concience and reason in opposition to willful stupidity and the evil that festers in it's presence.

We have reaped the whirlwind by respecting the mindless idolotry of the unforgiving Strict Father ideal as a legitimate, defensable viewpoint compatable with our Constitution and the unabashedly Liberal values of our forebears. The mainstream churches have been complicit in their unwillingness to condemn it for the evil that it is, whether or not it claims the privilege of faith, though knowing well for themselves of permitting any church any degree of temporal power.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to trigger Armageddon just so they can meet Jesus while enjoying and mocking the suffering of the "unsaved" from a safe vantage-point needs to be gently restrained from any weapons of destruction available to them - and if this is intuitively true of a ranting street preacher waving a bent butter knife, it's even more true of someone with access to nuclear release codes.

If your religion calls for you to destroy the world, or even to rule it in the name of "cleansing it for Christ's Return", I'm unwilling to sacrifice my own selfish survival in the name of tolerating your "diversity."

Neither Civilization nor the Constitution are a suicide pact. As much as I believe in diversity, no ethical system or social compact that permits the extinction of it's supporters in wholesale lots is very useful. (cc: Moderate Islam - you got some shit to deal with too. And yes, I do consider all Radical religious movements to be as literally and figuratively as unclean as a dog deep-fried in pork-fat with a sauce of caramelized camel feces.)

As it happens, I am Christian in essentials of my faith, but I've long since abandoned it as a religion, because in it's myriad manifestations it has long since proven to be more of a disease than a cure. Far from being empowering of individual conscience, it has become the enemy of progress and justice, at times straying from callus indifference and abuse into outright lunacy.

My nature is to be concerned about justice, to look toward the facts, apply critical reasoning skills and then form an opinion, and I hold my faith and beliefs to the same tests. If a person I respect and who I know to have a well-informed opinion suggests a direction, I'm willing enough to explore it - but even so, I ask myself, Quo Bono? (Who Benefits - that I should believe this?) And, while I'm tolerant enough to let a tree grow and manifest it's fruit, if the fruit is bitter - that tree is firewood.

Speaking of faggots and firewood, It was Ann Coulter who brought this into focus for me. (Via Media Matters.)

COULTER: Right, and I suspect everyone listening to your show knows about that. I mean, I know -- well, I guess Pat is out in America now; you're primarily in New York City. I give a lot of speeches out in America, I frequently visit America, and Americans are pretty freaked out about somebody going to rehab for using a word, and that's of course what I was referring to. And I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag. It's a schoolyard taunt. It means -- it means wussy. It means, you know, Hillary giving a speech in a fake Southern drawl -- that's faggy. A trial lawyer who weeps before juries is faggy. Lifetime-type TV, faggy. Everyone understood I was not literally calling -- well, I was not calling -- well, for one thing, I wasn't calling John Edwards anything. That was the whole point. I couldn't talk about him, his life's work, his appeasement policies, his wimpiness on foreign policy, because that word is out of bounds. So, in point of fact, I called John Edwards nothing. I said I couldn't even discuss him because using any variation of that totally excellent word would send me into rehab.

Bullshit. A fucking unbelievable bit of utter twaddle unworthy of a fourth-grader, much less a veteran public speaker. Her "explanation" might possibly serve as barely plausible deniablity; enough to muddy the waters enough to keep her out of the civil dock, but what she meant to say was quite clear.

In point of fact, the only people who "think" (so to speak) that "faggot" is not a viciously offensive word is those who like using it to offend, but dislike suffering the appropriate consequences for offensive speech.

I've heard the very same excuse many times before - in excusing "coon" jokes, in regards to "physical humor" that involved pain and or humiliation for those judged worthy targets of "schoolyard taunts."

It's emblematic of Coulter that, when called on this, her response is, essentially "Can't you take a joke?"

Not if I don't have to, Ann.

Would Ms. Coulter like me to come up to her in public, grab her crotch and laughingly report my findings? After all, many people suggest she's not really female in an equally juvenile attack on her person.

Hey, if I did that in front of the right audience, LOTS of people would bust their asses laughing. Does that make it a joke, or an act of vicious humiliation? Targeting Ms. Coulter as a transsexual or transgendered person in order to discredit her is as elementally unethical as calling someone "gay" in order to ignore what they have to say about something you don't want other folks to consider. No, let's take it a step further; it's evil; it amounts to "bearing false witness" in order to gain an unfair judgment in the court of public opinion.

Anyway, As a person subject to such attacks from lefties who should know better, she has no excuse. We all know what she meant by "Faggot." She meant either actually gay, or "less than manly" in some other, equally derisive sense, and she did this in order to avoid saying anything accurate or actually funny about Edwards.

Why? Because there isn't anything valid she can say about him that her audience would appreciate hearing. In the Republican mindset, you cannot address actual policy or positions of your opponents even to disagree with them.

This is in part due to the utter incapacity of the average brain-dead Bushite to recognize a valid argument if it had teeth clamped on their most personal parts. But it's more due to the fact that the Republican leadership and providers of Cultural Conservative talking points believe the very same thing about their own rank and file.

"You can't HANDLE the truth."

Of course, that leads directly to the present situation.

You can be well-informed in matters of politics, conscience and current affairs, or you can be a Republican.

You can honor the words of Jesus who told us to feed the poor and clothe the widow and the orphan - or you can be a Conservative Christian.

If this is what Conservatism and Christianity has become, then I'll join with anyone willing to banish both to the snake-handling hinterlands. Even "godless liberals."




tag: Hate Speech, Hate Radio, tyrrany, opression, Christianity, antiauthoritarian, Red Letter Christians, Religious Fundimentalism, Clash of Cultures, patriarchy, armageddon, Impeach the President, miserable failure, George W. Bush, Neocons, ann coulter

NewsBusters busted for Complicity

Graphictruth Scoop - Apparently it takes a thief...
Spocko lost his hosting because of accusations of copyright violations. In the course of creating this post, I discovered that every image within the NewsBusters article that I checked was hotlinked, uncredited and that several are probable copyright violations without fair-use exception.

NewsBusters takes exception to the audioclip blogswarm, saying that various clips sent by Spocko to advertisers were "taken out of context."

NewsBusters does have a point. Context DOES affect meaning. But I and many others have wondered aloud what context would make the following excerpt acceptable.

"Now you start with the Sear's [sic] Diehard [sic] the battery cables connected to his testi*les and you entertain him with that for awhile [sic] and then you blow his bleeping head off. " [sic]

I thought I'd go to NewsBusters and see what they thought made it wrong for spocko to send that "out of context" clip of Lee Rodgers. NewsBusters provided the entire context of a clip/quote Spoko sent to an advertisor, exactly as you see below. And just for effect, they inserted some photos to help improve their reader's ability to put the whole thing into the appropriate context.

That’s Vulcan Illogical

Unfortunately, Spocko’s conspicuously brief transcript and audio link conveniently ignored and eluded the context of this discussion. Here is a more complete transcript of this segment:

Rodgers: You couldn’t make this up. This time he was breaking into cars. His name is Kevin Holder, he’s 41 years old. He’s been arrested 236 times. His crime history, his rap sheet is 43 pages long going back to 1980.

Now wouldn’t you think at some point, in what’s supposed to be common sense, middle-America, somebody would ask, “Why is this guy running around loose?” What kind of idiot judges have repeatedly set up situations where this guy could be back out on the street? Actually, in a common sense world every judge who has ever sentenced this guy to any kind of circumstance that would allow him to get out of jail, every one of those judges ought to be in prison for life.

Officer Vic: Sure, this is Montana.

Rodgers: This is what passes for law enforcement in the criminal justice system in the United States of America these days and it’s just, well it’s just disgusting.

Morgan: Clearly we need a three strikes law at a national level.

Rodgers: Yeah, some SOB like this, lock him up, throw away the key.

Morgan: Yeah.

Rodgers: Better yet, put a bullet between his eyes and get it over because he’s never going to be worth a damn, never going to be anything but a criminal anyway.

Morgan: Well, that’s a bit of a harsh judgment, Lee.

Rodgers: No it isn’t, no it isn’t. No, it’s only common sense. What does the guy do? He’s demonstrated two hundred some odd times where he’s been caught. This doesn’t even count all the times he’s gotten away with crimes. So what the hell is the point of letting some creep like this live? What is the point? Now you start with the Sears DieHard, the battery cables connected to his testicles, and you entertain him with that for a while, and then you blow his bleeping head off. Thank you very much.

Morgan: That’s what I like about you. You’re so temperate.

It’s a bit different when you find out that Rodgers and Morgan were discussing a felon that had been arrested 236 times, and were thereby using the Sears DieHard image to mock the justice and penal systems for his continued presence on the streets. Wouldn’t you agree?

Context is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

Oh yeah. Since he's a criminal, it's apparently shameful and remarkable been tortured and then summarily executed = along with the judges who should have "Done Something." And just to make a vivid point of what our justice system should be doing to such persons, a photo of an Iraqi prisoner being "Stressed" at Abu Grab-ass is casually inserted.

This context doesn't help the case; Indeed, it makes it seem even more depraved.

NewsBusters is saying that it's perfectly OK to torture and abuse people, as long as they are BAD people. And how do we KNOW they are "bad people?" Because someone in a position of social authority - that is to say, someone like Lee Rodgers - says so.

Note that we have no idea what the arrests are for, but we know for sure that there's no more than two felonies. I'm not saying we are talking about a good citizen, and I'm not arguing that our system of justice comes up with outcomes that are just, fair or even reasonably predictable from ANY viewpoint of How Things Ought To Work.

But we have the rule of law and a system of justice in order to prevent vigilante action, because the people that tend to be vigilantes tend also to be racist xenophobes who hang strangers and give their buddies free passes for equally bad behavior. Kinda like NewsBusters.

With this one post, "NewsBusters" shows it's true colors as an apologist for the indefensible, rather than the media watchdog it claims to be.

That is a shame, by the way; Media Matters seems mainly to focus on the sins of the Right and there is definitely a need for a balancing viewpoint. But NewsBusters isn't fulfilling that need; it simply dismisses all critique of the Right as "Liberal Media Bias," no matter how accurate that criticism may be. That's not a service, it's an insult to our intelligence, not to mention the law.

Footnotes:
Blogswarm
Hate Has No Place on the Airwaves (Media Matters)

SCOOP!

In preparing this post for publication, I found that NewsBusters was hotlinking images: the Iraqi torturee image is here
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/ea/250px-Iraqis_tortured_wp-f.jpg
and the picture of Lee Rodgers, so stern and all authoritarian was discourtesy of the NYTimes.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/14/business/15radio1.190.jpg
On the rest of the page - cartoon of David Brock, stolen from
http://www.instapunk.com/images/David_Brock.jpg
Air America logo:
http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0014/6292/brand.gif
Bart Simpson:
http://www.cs.miami.edu/~tptp/Seminars/Wos-AoAR/Dunce.GIF

Somehow, I don't think hotlinking without attribution or permission to be a sterling example of journalistic integrity. Actually, it's both a potential copyright violation (though fair comment usages apply, of course) AND theft of bandwidth.

Ironic, considering how that "contextual correction" was to the effect that a pattern of criminality made it OK to hook someone's testicles up to a Sears Die-Hard and having a bit of fun before blowing their heads off.

I wonder aloud at this point if NewsBusters is compliant with the letter and spirit of a .org registrant. As they seem to maintain their own servers, direct complaints are likely to be futile, unless they come upon litigious letterheads, but servers have been blackholed for such things before. Bandwidth theft on such a blatantly large scale is an Internet Spanking Offense.

NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy. Domain ID:D106563722-LROR Domain Name:NEWSBUSTERS.ORG Created On:08-Jun-2005 19:51:08 UTC Last Updated On:08-Aug-2005 03:51:01 UTC Expiration Date:08-Jun-2008 19:51:08 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR) Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:28150426-NSI Registrant Name:Media Research Center Registrant Organization:Media Research Center Registrant Street1:325 S. Patrick Street Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Alexandria Registrant State/Province:VA Registrant Postal Code:22314 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.70338339 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:Mark@SPECIALSYSTEMS.NET Admin ID:28150426-NSI Admin Name:Media Research Center Admin Organization:Media Research Center Admin Street1:325 S. Patrick Street Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City:Alexandria Admin State/Province:VA Admin Postal Code:22314 Admin Country:US Admin Phone:+1.70338339 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email:Mark@SPECIALSYSTEMS.NET Tech ID:28150426-NSI Tech Name:Media Research Center Tech Organization:Media Research Center Tech Street1:325 S. Patrick Street Tech Street2: Tech Street3: Tech City:Alexandria Tech State/Province:VA Tech Postal Code:22314 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.70338339 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email:Mark@SPECIALSYSTEMS.NET Name Server:NS2.SPECIALSYSTEMS.NET Name Server:NS3.SPECIALSYSTEMS.NET Name Server:NS1.SPECIALSYSTEMS.NET Name Server:NS4.SPECIALSYSTEMS.NET Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server:

tag: Newsbusters, first amendment, KSFO, Lee Rodgers, Disney/ABC, viacom, Spocko, blogintegrety, blogswarm, hate talk, talk radio, fair use, Genital Torture, Stress Positions, Electrocution, authoritarianism

Jacking a thread at Calling all Wingnuts

Teh boring… at Calling All Wingnuts:

Sometimes the comments are better than the posts: One Named blogicalthought alleges.

"5. Just weeks before the Media Reform Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, you begin to organize liberal bloggers, mainly “Eschatonians” or rather known as “Atriots” who blog for Duncan Black and David Brock of Media Matters, financed by George Soros, to “blogswarm” the issue."

Hm, it's ok by you if Cheney And Coors and Free Republic collude to get out the talking points, I presume. But I guess you feel guilty about that well-known reality, and how all the major players happen to have the same talking points at the same time.

Notice how often the first sin that evildoers accuse others of is the one they are most guilty of? Earlier allegations of corporate shilldom marked "presumably true, pending disproof."

The readers of most leftward/antiauthoritarian blogs realize that if the Sainted Clinton told us what to say - he'd cease to be sainted and become again tainted.

Not that Clinton, Kerry and others don't try to herd us independ, but it sounds a heck of a lot more like respectful pleading, occasional begging and on particularly important occasions, hints of groveling are not unheard of.

Well, actually, to be fair, it's mostly cheerleading. At least with me, that's the sort of spam I get.. Atrios, on the other hand, may well be entertained with quite intriguing offers.

But on the liberal side, it's all very much, "Those are my people and I am their leader! Excuse me, I must follow them!"

The reason why all the lefty blogs are taking this from the same angle is because there is only one angle. Fair comment, good and legal. Disney/ABC, wrong, bad, possibly illegal, certainly stupid. All else - beside the point.

Nobody's arguing with the right for any damn-fool to say any damn-fool thing they care to. We do object to damn-foolishness being presented as fact, but the best response is more and more accurate free speech. Indeed, from a free speech perspective, KSFO is what you would call a "target-rich environment."

Calling it a "boycott" as if that were a bad thing is dumb. Boycotts are perfectly legitimate tactics, one dear to the Right suggests using all the time to punish media they disapprove of. Can we say "Dixie Chicks?" Ooo, I KNEW that we could!

If it HAD been a boycott, I would not object. It just happens that, factually speaking, Spocko made a very significant point of NOT calling for a boycott. Factually, it was a completely different tactic, and one that is obviously both more fair and probably more effective.

All anyone had to do was to read what Spocko actually said, and compare it with what Lee said to know that Lee is, in fact a lazy lyin' bastard who can't be bothered to do his homework and either too stupid or too far wrong to argue against the coming liberal hordes honestly.

Personally, whatever he called it, I didn't give a rat's ass. If corporate America has become too careless to review what they are associating their brands with, ain't no skin off my nose. I'm an unapologetic Libertarian and capitalist, but I'm not a FatCapitalist. The action (and the fun) of real Free Market Capitalism includes watching for such mis-steps - and capitalizing on them.

Yep, had I stumbled across such clips, they would have gone straight to undervalued competitors in the KSFO market. "What's in YOUR wallet?"

But Spocko is more charitable than I. He informed advertisers of what sort of programs were being associated with their brand. And guess what information comes out in the wash? Disney/ABC was MISREPRESENTING the content as being "family friendly." Maybe if it were the Manson Family.

They were lying to their client base, as a matter of corporate policy at some level, and the SLAPP suit against Spocko argues that it was at a higher, rather than at a lower one. Now, I dunno about what the news division at KSFO thinks (or ABC news for that matter,) but to ME, that's news, at least three bells worth. Because we call that "Theft by false pretenses."

While the winger blogs talk about "all but one" account returning to KSFO, that's based on a naked allegation BY KSFO talkers who are, as we have established, famous liars. I'm sure that statistic does not include those who have simply chosen to NOT renew ads, as opposed to pulling them. I'm sure it doesn't include those who said "sorry, but the results we got didn't meet our expectations."

MasterCard's decision - as well as all the others - probably has less to do with the content of the speech and far more with the demographics represented by the speakers. MasterCard (and other advertisors) want "family freindly" programming because families have good credit and are willing to use it. People who live in their parent's basements and call into Lee and Rush - not so likely to have good jobs and good credit. "How gullible do you have to be..." leads to other questions that eventually wander around to issues of unrecoverable debt. LIBERAL talkers and information providers? MUCH more attractive demographics.

I'd say it's likely that advertisers have shifted or are beginning to shift their buys toward Air America, because if the Democracy Now are indicative of the same general demographic, then educated, White. Urban, upper-middle class professionals are much better credit risks than... well the sort that considers Lee Rodgers persuasive.

Miracle fat-burning pills and "become rich by spending in just 30 days" on the other hand, might just perform BETTER in Lee's demographic. You see, it's not about what's said, it's what sorta people listen.

Oh, and as for your non-sequiteur about Mike's "vulgarity" in holding up that infamous sign...

Vulgar, yes. And funny. Very, very funny; the very essence of a GraphicTruth. I've listened to Hannedy and he does indeed suck - and I'm comparing him to O'Rielly, Glenn Beck and other conservatives. Given how long that camera LINGERED, it's pretty clear that the rank and file working stiffs who have to suffer through his excruciating idiocy in order to cash a paycheck pretty much agree that Hannedy Sucks Ass.

And as the joke goes - not particularly well, either.

tag: blogicalthought, Lee Rodgers, Hate Speech, Hate Radio, famous liars, theft by false pretenses