Testing the Links…

Linking to BPPA….

Linking to Ren’s blog… 

How Hillary Lost Iraq?!?!?! Nice Going, Dubya!!! (And..More KO Kick-Ass)

Gee…..how so typical of our imperial President.

Your war isn’t going as good?? Just blast your political opponents as traitors and enablers of “the enemy” (from Time magazine).

The Pentagon has issued a stinging rebuke to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, arguing that she is boosting enemy propaganda by asking how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq.Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman wrote a biting reply to questions Clinton raised in May, urging the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.A copy of Edelman’s response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,” Edelman wrote.He added that “such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”

Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has privately and publicly pushed Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment. “If we’re not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way,” she said then.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called the response “at once outrageous and dangerous.”

“Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better,” said Reines, who said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than “a political plan to attack those who question them.”

As she runs for President, the New York Senator has ratcheted up her criticism of the Bush Administration’s war effort, answering critics of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion by saying she would end the war if elected President.

Edelman’s letter does offer a passing indication the Pentagon might, in fact, be planning how to withdraw, saying: “We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department.”

Ahhhh…so that essentially means that Hillary Clinton (who, in case you haven’t heard, has been one of the biggest boosters of the war in Iraq, not to mention expanding the war into Iran, and who has done next to nothing as a Senator to stand by her newly found antiwar views)…is suddenly the moral equivalent of Cindy Sheehan as a dangerous al-Queda agent???

And what does that say for the overwhelming majority of the American people who consistently support a withdrawal from Iraq, Mr. Edelman??  I guess that they are traitors, too??

Hillary’s reaction so far: draft a nasty letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Edleman’s boss) challenging him to either openly endorse or repudiate this “attack on my patriotism”.

[excerpt follows; taken from Talking Points Memo Cafe]

I am in receipt of a letter from Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy who wrote that he was responding on your behalf. Under Secretary Edelman’s response did not address the issues raised in my letter and instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.As I noted in my original letter, “the seeds of many problems that continue to plague our troops and mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform. Congress must be sure that we are prepared to withdraw our forces without any unnecessary danger.”Rather than offer to brief the congressional oversight committees on this critical issue, Under Secretary Edelman – writing on your behalf – instead claims that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. Under Secretary Edelman has his priorities backward. Open and honest debate and congressional oversight strengthens our nation and supports our military. His suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and dangerous.[...]

I renew my request for a briefing, classified if necessary, on current plans for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq or an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning. I also renew my concern that our troops will be placed in unnecessary danger if the Bush Administration fails to plan for the withdrawal of U.S. Forces. Finally, I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Edelman’s letter accurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense.

OK….so it wasn’t so nasty, but you get the gist of it.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Keith Olbermann, being a journalist and a commentator, isn’t bound by the politician’s rules of comity and legalspeak.  Fortunate, indeed…..because he unleashed the mutha of all smackdowns onto Wannabe King Dubya last night on his Countdown show….as his latest Special Comment. As a lead off. (KO usually concludes his shows with his Special Comments, so you know he must have been pretty pissed off….and you could see the smoke and fire spewing from every word.

Only problem I have, KO….it’s really not just Bush’s war…..Democrats like Hillary who voted down the line to fund this war and made no real attempt to end it should bear as much responsibility, too.

Either way…turn the sound up and feel the fire.

“Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Special Comment on Defense Dept. Slam on Sen. Hillary Clinton…and Us” (via YouTube; w/ hat tip to the Weasels Yahoo! Group)

Playing Catchup: “Vittergate”, and Dimocrat Cave-In #2,689

Aight (or as my younger, more hip-hop enable nephew would say)…I’ve been swamped this last few weeks by tons of work, and only now have I had the chance to actually exhale and get some rest….so I guess that I have to update this blog of mine before it stagnates.

So, here we go:

Issue #1:  “Vittergate”: Dirty Diapers and Dirtier Sexual Hypocrisy

Ahhhhh, lookee here….my home state’s junior US Senator David Vitter busted with his hands in his Depends undergarments (oooh, diaper fetish!! Gotta love the freakery!) over at Debra Palfrey’s DC ‘ho house, and, allegedly, several other brothels in N’Awlins, too)..  Oh, the hypocrisy!!!  The seaminess!!  The sight of a hard-Right religious conservative (he openly sponsored an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment, and was one of the loudest voices for Bubba Clinton resigning over spilling his seed on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress) having to fess up to his “sin”…while blaming the media and the Democrats for sticking their noses into his personal sex life. Hey, at least his wife didn’t give him the Lorena treatment as she once threatened.

And to think that Vitter actually got his political start as a replacement for Bob Livingston (the former Repub US House Majority Leader), who was also hoisted on his own pecker for his own sexual indiscrections.  And by basically the same source, too…Larry Flynt must have some love for the Great State of Louisiana, must he?? Or maybe we’re just oversaturated with right-wing sex perverts who want ot jail and kill everyone else for doing the things they do surrpendiciously and privately. I can say this for Mr. Vitter….at least he didn’t attempt to mount a horse.

For the moment, though, he does seem safe; the state Repubs have rallied around him for the most part, with some exceptions.  (There is a campaign afoot to get him to resign and get our present guv Kathleen Blanco to appoint former guv Dave Treen to fill out his term until the next scheduled election of 2010. So far, Kitty Blanks has balked, probably because her own party bigwigs would prefer insurance commish John Kennedy to take over rather than switch to the GOP and take on Mary Landrieu for the other Senate seat.) Obviously, I’d think that the national Dems would love to see Vitter fall, mostly to cover their asses if Holy Joe Lieberman decides to follow his voting record and bolt to the GOP; thus swinging the actual control to the Senate back to the Repubs. 

And of course, most of the liberal blogosphere is in total orgasmic overkill over the hypocrisy angle…as if it was only Repubs who visit brothels and engage in sex fetishes; and if this would in any way move the pure believers into exile and stunned silence.  Nice try, y’all, but knowing the Religious Right as I do, they probably won’t let a scandal like this one block their efforts at political takeover.  They already have Fred Thompson (Tennessee US Senator) waiting in the wings to play the role that Dubya played in the 2000 elections, when it was thought that the RR was toasted after the PTL/Jim Bakker scandals that rocked the evangelical communities back then.

I’ll just let Dr. Susan Block to fill in the blanks on Vitter and right-wing pols cloaking their inner sex freaks:

If Senator Vitter were not such a rabid social conservative, I would say leave the poor sorry schmuck alone with his God, his wife and his hookers. But this particular poor sorry schmuck is mightily trying to impose harsh, inhumane restrictions upon the sexual freedoms and rights to privacy of the rest of us, and he’s been doing it for years.

On the back alleys of the French Quarter, Vitter might be a tomcat, but in Congress, he’s a vociferous crusader for “family values.” He was an aggressive Clinton critic during the Lewinsky scandal, calling for the President’s resignation to “preserve the moral fabric of the country.” The New Orleans Times-Picayune quotes Vitter saying that “infidelity, divorce, and deadbeat dads contribute to the breakdown of tradition.” Vitter has also vowed to outlaw abortion in almost all cases, even when the pregnancy results from rape or incest (wonder how he’d feel if he learned he’s knocked up one of his hookers?). Senator Dave is a stern master with the kids too; he’s sponsored legislation to federally finance abstinence-only programs at the expense of real sex education. Of course, “abstinence education” has been proven to be spectacularly ineffective, in part because the kids simply lie about whether they’re having sex, having learned this behavior handily from their elders like Vitter.

The Senator has been particularly colorful in his metaphor for same-sex unions, having called them “the crossroads where Katrina meets Rita,” gaily mocking the agony of his own home state in the wake of the actual hurricanes. Vitter is so vehement in his condemnation of all things homo that he has introduced legislation calling for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, stating that this is “the most important issue” of our time.

Vitter sounds like an Evangelical, but he’s Catholic. He’s also Southern regional campaign manager for the Giuliani campaign and was rumored to frequent French Quarter prostitutes even before his phone number appeared on Palfrey’s published records). Interestingly, Vitter first ran for Congress to fill the seat of Speaker of the House Bob Livingston, who resigned after his extramarital affairs became public during the Clinton Follies. While Vitter was campaigning, his wife Wendy was asked what she would do if her husband cheated on her. Mrs. Vitter responded: “I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”

Ouch. Wonder if castration was one of Wendy’s prerequisites for the “forgiveness” that Vitter said she (and God) gave him when he confessed to his “very serious sin.” Is that a Catholic thing?

Nope, Doc Suzy…probably more of a “differentiat yourself from them librul Democrats” thing than anything else.

Anyways..I’m eager to see what other Repub freakery comes out of the woodworks, since Flynt says he has leads on up to 20 high ranking conservatives.  Should be plenty of fun.

——————————————————————

Issue #2: Iran: The Dimocrats Cave In…Again

Now…not nearly so funny or fun is the prospect of extending war into Iran…..and guess which “opposition” party decided to cast it’s vote for a possible military invasion??

You got it….your great Dimocratic Party caves in one more time (this from Chris Floyd’s “Empire Burlesque” blog)::

As you may know — unless you rely on the corporate media for your news, of course — yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote to give George W. Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran whenever Dick Cheney tells him to.

The bipartisan Senate resolution – the brainchild (or rather the bilechild) of Fightin’ Joe Lieberman – affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq. The Senators appear to have relied heavily on the recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon that stovepiped unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper’s front page. As Firedoglake points out, John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote.

It goes without saying that all of this is a nightmarish replay of the run-up to the war of aggression against Iraq: The NYT funneling false flag stories from Bush insiders. Warmongers citing the NYT stories as “proof” justifying any and all action to “defend the Homeland.” Credulous and craven Democratic politicians swallowing the Bush line hook and sinker.

To be sure, stout-hearted Dem tribunes like Dick Durbin insisted that their support for declaring that Iran is “committing acts of war” against the United States should not be taken as an “authorization of military action.” This is shaky-knees mendacity at its finest. Having officially affirmed that Iran is waging war on American forces, how, pray tell, can you then deny the president when he asks (if he asks) for authorization to “defend our troops?” Answer: you can’t. And you know it.

This vote is the clearest signal yet that there will be no real opposition to a Bush Administration attack on Iran. This is yet another blank check from these slavish, ignorant goons; Bush can cash it anytime. This is, in fact, the post-surge “Plan B” that’s been mooted lately in the Beltway. As you recall, there was much throwing about of brains on the subject of reviving the “Iraq Study Group” plan when the “surge” (or to call it by its right name, the “punitive escalation”) inevitably fails. Bush put the kibosh on that this week (“Him not gonna do nothin’ that Daddy’s friends tell him to do! Him a big boy, him the decider!”), but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a fall-back position – or rather, a spring-forward position: an attack on Iran, to rally the nation behind the “war leader” and reshuffle the deck in Iraq.

Of course, the United States is already at war with Iran. We are directing covert ops and terrorist attacks inside Iran, with the help of groups that our own government has declared terrorist renegades. We are kidnapping Iranian officials in Iraq and holding them hostage. We have a bristling naval armada on Iran’s doorstep, put there for the express purpose of threatening Tehran with military action. The U.S. Congress has overwhelmingly passed measures calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government. And now the U.S. Senate has unanimously declared that Iran is waging war on America, and has given official notice that this will not be tolerated. It is only a very small step to move from this war in all but name to the full monty of an overt military assault.

And just so you noticed, EVERY SINGLE DIMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (including Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Biden) voted for this proposal.  Hell, even Russ Feingold (who was praised among some quarters for being the “guiding light” in the earlier surrender on funding Bush’s war in Iraq, voted for this amendment.

So…tell me again about the difference between the two parties???

More updates later as I have time……

The Death Penalty For Porn Producers:The Final Frontier For Radfems??

OK….I know that it’s been a while, so I have some catching up to do…..I’ll just do as Blackamazon does so well and kinda wing it in a “whatever breezes through my mind at the moment” way.

I’ve been wanting to post on this story, because there are so many angles, both on the political and sexual fronts, that can be raised here.

Iran Approves Death Penalty for Pornogaphers
By: David Sullivan
*
TEHRAN -Iran’s parliament has approved a bill that would sentence persons convicted of producing pornography to death.Lawmakers voted 148-5 with four abstentions that “producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corruptors of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corruptors of the world.”

The “main elements in…production”*referenced in the bill include producers, directors, cameramen and actors. According to CNN, the term “corruptors of the world”*is derived from the Quran and carries a death penalty under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.

Distributors and adult website operators could also face imprisonment and death. The bill encompasses all forms of sexually explicit media, including videos, DVDs and CDs. Pornographic books and magazines are already banned in Iran.

In order to become law, the bill must now be approved by Iran’s Guardian Council.

The bill follows in the wake of a scandal involving a pornographic video of Iranian actress Zahra Amir Ebrahimi that began circulating on the country’s black market last year. While Ebrahami has denied that she is the woman depicted in the video, she faces “fines, whip lashing or worse” for violating Iran’s morality laws. Ebrahimi’s male partner in the sex tape fled to Armenia but was later brought back to Iran, where he currently remains in jail.

The Associated Press notes that “porn material is easily accessible through foreign satellite television channels in Iran. Bootleg video tapes and CDs are also available on the black market on many street corners.”

[H/t to Ernest Greene at Nina Hartley's forum for posting that excerpt.]

This pisses me off for several reasons, and not just the obvious ones.

First off…there is the citing of the Quran’s statement of “corruptors of the world” in supporting the death penalty, which would apply not only to producers, but also distributors, website operators, and even the  actual performers. I mean, it’s known knowledge that Islamic societies are far more conservative and restictive when it comes to sexuality….but to go as far as to seek the freakin’ DEATH PENALTY for acts of private consensual sex??? I would think that that would run the risk of playing into the very scapegoat of “Islamofascism” that those who seek to topple that government would use to justify their actions.

And what would that say for those on the opposite side of the political equation: those on the political Left who have basically laid themselves down in defense of the ruling Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against those who favor toppling his rule?? I especially point to some American leftist women like Yoshie Furuhashi, who has been the most consistent defender of Ahmadinejad as an anti-interventionist and a revolutionary populist…..on occasion conviently glossing over the more reactionary social policies and gross anti-feminism that underlies his fundamentalism. She may be an extreme example of the boosting of fundamentalist Islam as populism and a acceptable alternative to “liberal interventionism”, but she is hardly alone.

Now, I happen to be a staunch anti-interventionist, and I will no more support invading Iran merely because the ruling government happens to be run by a bunch of misogynist thugs using religion to support their power trips, than I would have supported invading Iraq merely because Saddam was a butcher with a secret porn fetish. But….it does bother me more than a bit that so many Leftists are so willing to sacrifice even their own principles to defend “the enemies of our enemies”.

This isn’t to say that the fawning of “Cruise Missile Leftists” who exploit such issues as this to push for mass invasions are any better or worthy of my support, either; it’s just that perhaps we might be willing to acknowledge that merely opposing something without understanding clearly who we are standing with and standing for does make for some dangerous alliances that could easily wreck even the most careful  organized progressive movement.

The other angle in this that gets to me is something pointed out by Ernest Greene in his post at Nina’s forum; it is a standard theme of his regarding the unholy alliance between fundamentalists and radicalfeminists on the subjects of porn and sexuality:

Now while I’m sure they’d deny it loudly, anti-porn feminists undoubtedly take some glee in the notion of pornographers being executed. Anyone who has spent much time at The Den of the Biting Beaver or read Andrea Dworkin’s “novel” Mercy, which extolls the virtues of murdering male derelicts as a form of protest against the patriarchy has some idea of the depth of homicidal loathing these fanatics feel toward pornographers.However, in their delight at the prospect of smut-peddler’s heads being lopped off, they might have overlooked a significant detail from the story above, which is that the first target of the Iranian death-for-porn law just happens to be a woman.

Societies that suppress pornography most brutally are the very societies that suppress the rights of women most brutally as well. This is a lesson that any American feminist traveling in the Third World is all too likely to learn first hand. But then, since most of them prefer the comforts of Wheelock College, with its $36K per year tuition and, its tenured professorships for porn-bashing paranoids and its cozy conferences dedicated to denouncing the evils of sexual liberalism at which no opposing voices are allowed a hearing, they needn’t have their sleep troubled by such contradictions.

That last sentence is directed towards Dr. Gail Dines, one of the main antipornradicalfeminist activist voices.

Again, I recognize that not even all APRF’s will go as far as to support something as extreme as the death penalty for (male) porn producers or consumers; but it does seem for some of the more strident activists (*cough* SamHeart(less)GayleStormCloudBitingBeaverWitchyWoo*cough*) that if they are serious enough about their advocacy that porn consumption amounts to nothing less than the total abuse of women and the gateway to rape and rapicity, then why wouldn’t they carry their arguments to the logical conclusion?? Of course, they would have to sustain some deniability to seperate themselves from the Religious Right…but I wouldn’t think that that wouldn’t stop them from at least looking the other way at such a solution.

All this is a segue into the rumble currently going on at Feministe, where Roy originally posted how news of the Iranian proposed death penalty law (and an associated post by Trinity at The Strangest Alchemy) gave him a totally new perspective on things:

 I sat there at my desk, talking about sex workers and sex work and porn like they were abstractions… but they’re not, and mythago rightly called me on my shit. It took me a while to realize that, but it was a totally fair criticism. My sitting there saying that stats show this and stats show that and look how many sex workers were this or that… none of that helps them now, and talk like that does make me more likely to find myself allied with religious conservatives who have a “moral interest” in condemning sex work… and sex workers. And that’s the thing that mythago knew when posting that “Mackinnon and Dworkin made the silly assumption that their anti-feminist allies on the right would see their point of view, and apply protectionist ideas in a way that would help women instead of as a way to control women” and that trinityva was getting at when posting “often even “enlightened” people here who object to porn for the “right” reasons are willing to form alliances with those who oppose it for reasons of “religious morality”.”And when I allow myself to ally with questionable or even flat-out bad groups, I have to accept that the damage they do in the name of our cause is damage that I’m contributing to. I can’t wash my hands of the harm that my allies do if they’re doing the damage in the name of our mutual cause. If I’m rallying behind the cry of “PORN HARMS ALL WOMEN!” and I allow myself to get backing from a group that’s adding “BECAUSE DIRTY SLUTS ABUSE SEX!” then aren’t I at least somewhat culpable? Because, ultimately, don’t my actions help further that cause, as well? And doesn’t that mean that the damage they’re doing is to some extent, on my hands?

Because those people have made it absolutely clear that they don’t care about the women involved. They’re not working to help end the abuse of sex workers. They’re not condemning poor working conditions. They’re not working to help sex worker’s rights. They’re not even remotely interested in making sure that their voices get heard. They’re interested in keeping the whores out of their neighborhoods.

For the record, here’s what Trin posted:

Now this is Iran and not here. But I do want to post it, as I do think that it’s important to remember that in many parts of the world, including here, a lot of the objection to pornography IS a deep-seated fear of corruption or contamination. And a goodly bit of the opposition is religious. As a few kerfuffles I’ve posted about here have cast into relief, often even “enlightened” people here who object to porn for the “right” reasons are willing to form alliances with those who oppose it for reasons of “religious morality”.While this does have limited relevance to the US or even the UK, I think it helps to notice the strain of thinking that does look at porn this way. (It’s also worrisome to write this off, IMO, because we run the risk of doing that typical White US-ian “oh, we’re so much more EVOLVED than THOSE (brown) people!”)

We often like very much to hide behind veneers of theory. And to many of us: why shouldn’t we? We live in a wealthy country. Many of us are white, middle class, highly educated, comfortable. It’s very easy for us to think that we can dismantle an industry through “radical” means, at which point anyone formerly “enslaved by” it has a better life, presto change-o.

Too often our “radical” dreams can’t be achieved without nasty alliances. And too often we think of our “radical”ness and our “revolutionariness” and ignore what we deem collateral damage.

It didn’t work in the Iraq War. Why should it work in the Vice War either?

The subsequent thread went haywire when the usual suspects (read, Sam and gayle) decided to intervene with a defense of the “Swedish model” of controlling prostitiution, among other distractions…but that is a different story for another time.

But, it does go to show that in our efforts to dive in head first into any given controversy, we sometimes forget to understand exactly who we are diving with. The enemy of your enemy today could well turn out to become your enemy tomorrow…which is why it’s best to stick to principles as much as humanly possible.

As for me, I see no conflicts whatsoever between not supporting the ruling government of Iraq and simultaneously opposing a military invasion of that country by others.  In the end, the same rule of self-determination that defends individual sexual autonomy (whether it be for LGBT’s, feminists, or porn) applies just as much for whole countries resisting war and imperialism.  Ultimately, Iranians must decide what government they want, not the US….and certainly not by bombing them into submission. If you are that opposed to their sexual fascism as I am, then the better solution is to offer those women and men facing such repression a place of sanctuary until the laws are changed to reflect some decency and common sense.

As the old saying goes: An eye for an eye ultimately ends up blinding everyone.

Tweedledum And Tweedledumber: Just Another Democrat Dimocrat Cave-In

Gee…you just gotta love the Democrat Dimocrat Party, do you??

All that bluster about standing up to Dubya and his war games…

All that promise of changing the policy on Iraq…

All that smack about real changes occuring….

And in the end, they do as they always will do….they run crying into the night and surrender.

 

– From MSNBC Countdown with Keith Olbermann (via YouTube/Susie Madrak @ Suburban Guerilla)

Did I or did I not predict this to happen??

Anyone who knows the history of the Democrat Dimocrat party (and yes, I use that term deliberately) in talking up a good game and then punting at the last minute; knew that they would give Dubya his war funding with little or no restrictions (at least, not restrictions that could actually be binding or effective).

\”But..but…but, SmackDog,\” you say, \”we did get a badly needed increase in the minimum wage for our efforts!! So what if the war continues, at least we got something out of it!!\”

Yeah, right.  Odds are that the Repubs are already planning on gutting that in the final conference..or Dubya can just do one of his famous signing statements relieving his business friends from enforcing the increased pay.

In the meantime, the war will continue, the killing of Americans (let alone Iraqis) will continue unabetted, and worse yet, thanks to the Democrats from AIPAC (and Boeing and the rest of the Scoop Jackson/Zell Miller wing), there will be no resistance whatsoever to any invasion of Iran, either.

Congratulations, Rahn Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman: you’ve managed to basically trash a mandate straight to hell, and crack your party clean to pieces.  And more than likely, Karl Rove will still play you like a violin come next year’s election, anyway.

And a special \”Fuck you\” goes to all those \”lesser evil\” liberal luminaries like MoveOn.org, Kos, and all the rest of the cheerleaders for the Democrats Dimocrats who kept on telling us that throwing money at conservative Dimss would make a real difference.  Turns out it did….it made the sellout that much more painful to watch.

And you really think that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards will really make a difference?? Really??

(And no, Kucinich and Gravel don’t count, even if they are more progressive….they have simply no chance in the rigged money machine that passes for our democratic primary system; and they still are held back by the fantasy that the Democrat party can ever be anything more than the smiling face wing of the ruling class.)

Well, at least I gave them half a chance this time.  No more. It’s either a legitimate Left Independent or NOTA for me in ‘08.

When and if the Dimocrats ever grow a spine, a brain, and a heart, and move beyond being a party of scarecrows,  tin men (and tin women), and  cowardly lions, I may reconsider.  Probably not.

[UPDATE: Leave it to Keith Olbermann to drop the proverbial hammer on the Democrats:

[...]

• The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;
• The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
• The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
• The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the “beginning of the end” of Mr. Bush’s “carte blanche” in Iraq, about how this is a “first step.”

Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning… is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.

Because this “first step”… is a step right off a cliff.

And in typical Olbermann fashion, he spares Dubya no quarter either:

And this President!

How shameful it would be to watch an adult… hold his breath, and threaten to continue to do so, until he turned blue.

But how horrifying it is… to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so, until innocent and patriotic Americans in harm’s way, are bled white.

You lead this country, sir?

You claim to defend it?

And yet when faced with the prospect of someone calling you on your stubbornness—your stubbornness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbs—you, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats don’t give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands.

How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic.

Any other president from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personally—first, last and always—that the troops would not suffer.

A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he has already, not to manipulate an overlap of arriving and departing Brigades into a ‘second surge,’ but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated, if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safe—even if the only safety to be found, is in getting them the hell out of there.

Well, any true President would have done that, Sir.

You instead, used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.

You can either read the rest of Olbermann’s well-aimed nuke here…or view the \”Special Comment\” in its full rage and glory (and download it, too) here. (via Crooks and Liars)

 [UPDATE #2: Found the YouTube vid of KO's Special Comment:]

 

 

 – from Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Special Comment (5-23-07: \”Entire Government Has Failed You\” via YouTube

Test for Technocrati Profile

Technorati Profile

The Ransom Note As Art (Or…”Give Me Back My Blog!!”)

You can blame, in the following order:

joshuarey.com for designing the perfect fun toy for lazy bloggers;

and Violet Blue for extending it to such heights.

First off, Violet’s ransom call for better blogger etiquette:

 

 

 And now, my own ransom, channeling the original Prince of Smack, Jim Rome;

 

                            

            

                                             

                                             

                                            

                                          

                                      

MRAs, fascists, and troublemakers….you have been warned.

 

 

….And Here They Come

Did I or did I not say that the dropping of charges in the Duke rape case would bring out the "poor White men, assaulted by evil racist Blacks and ‘feminazi’ sluts" lobby in earnest??

Case in point: this comment that showed up here in response to my own thread, from a "UncleWeirdNoise":

I’d imagine due to the obvious being very clear that the alleged “victim” simply figured she could get paid for fabricating this supposed rape. Just think of how much money the girl who accused Kobe Bryant of raping her was paid out of court. She’s most likely a very rich girl right now. People make up bullcrap lies just to “settle out of court” and retire early and live the life of a king or queen. It was interesting watching little boy malik zulu shabazz rip to pieces anything relative to white people and raise to the high heavens in praise anything to do with blacks. It’s further interesting that he went to and graduate? from a black school. Most likely he’d have been kicked out at any other school. He’s completely disrespected and spit in the faces of his parents who named him when he changed his name. He called the duke situation “altered and manipulated” by whitey. Racism will never go away with people like him in this world. A federal prosecutor , who is black and female, even referred to the “victim” in the duke rape case. That slip of the tongue told the true story because a person’s innermost feelings are the first to pop out of their mouths in words. Michelle Milkan caught her on that and it was absolutely comical watching this black female prosector dance around like she was on a hot tin roof trying to back step out of clearly showing her racist attitude.

Bark like a dog.

Gee…like your own racist feelings, Unc??

First off…how in the hell do you know what the accuser in the Kobe Bryant case got out of her settlement? And since there was no trial, do we really know if Bryant really did rape her or whether it was simply a case of a wanted sexual encounter gone badly wrong?

Secondly, settlements require the approval of both sides…..and I’m guessing that if one side felt that their case was strong enough, they wouldn’t agree to settle.

Now, onto this "little boy" smack:  I don’t know Malik Zulu Shabazz, and I don’t remember quoting him either….but he only speaks for himself and his organization, not for all Black people. He no more represents the mass opinion of  all Black folk than David Duke represents all Whites…and last time I noticed, he was an adult entitled to his opinions, just as you are.

But what fascinates me sooooo much, Unc, is that you make such a big deal of Shabazz attending a Black college, as if they all are so inferior and incubators for "anti-White racism".  Uhhhh…you do realize that you are posting to a blog hosted by a Black man who attended a HBCU (Southern University), do you?? If HBCUs are so inferior to your chosen school (Louisiana Tech, perhaps?? Since that’s in your email addy), then why are they accredited by the same authorities as the PWCs (predominantly White colleges)??

And oh, please spare me the waterworks about the "racist attitude" of the prosecutor: real women do get raped more than on occasion, and they get raped a second time in the judicial system by shysters who use the victim’s/accuser’s private sex affairs to demonize her and allow her perpetrator to get off. Maybe not this case or the Kobe Bryant case, but it does happen far too often.

Oh, and one last thing before I show you the door, Unc: When Black folks retain the power to forcibly immigrate whle countries of White folks from their home country to exploit them as slaves; when Black folks form private bands of hooded and robed militias to intimidate and beat (and even kill) White folks; when Blacks retain 80-95% of all the political and economic power in this country and use it to extend their privileges; and most of all; when White folk are strung up en masse on trees, stung with cattle prods, dragged on roads, and otherwise assaulted in the same way that Black folks have been and are still being assaulted……maybe then, you’ll come across as anything other than a White racist asshat.

Yes, I do bark, Unc…..and now, I show my bite.  Your stay here is done. 

This will be my new policy towards trollers with an agenda: you get one chance to show yourself.  If you are up for genuine humane conversation, then we can talk further.  If you are only here for drive-by agitprop or gratituous insults, then I break out the buzzer. To use the former Bitch|Lab’s saying: This is not a free carrier.

   

Time For A Little Catch-Up: COPA Struck Again; Dems Flash Cut-n-Run Asses…Again

First some good news on the sex war front:

Judge strikes down ‘98 law aimed at online porn

Associated Press
San Jose Mercury News
Article Launched:03/22/2007 06:35:49 AM PDT

PHILADELPHIA – A 1998 law designed to keep pornography away from children on the Internet infringes on free-speech rights and is easily sidestepped, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The judge blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act, Congress’ second attempt to protect children from online porn.

The law, which has never been enforced, is unconstitutionally vague and fails to address current concerns about online predators, social networking sites and chat rooms, Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. wrote.

"Even defendant’s own study shows that all but the worst performing (software) filters are far more effective than COPA would be at protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web," said Reed, who presided over a monthlong trial in the fall.

The law would criminalize Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would be expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties include a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Sexual health sites, Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law on grounds it would have a chilling effect on speech. Reed agreed it would.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.

Daniel Weiss of Focus on the Family Action, a lobbying arm of the conservative Christian group, said it would continue to press Congress for a workable law.

"The judge seems to indicate there’s really no way for Congress to pass a good law to protect kids online. I just think that’s not a good response," Weiss said.

To defend the nine-year-old law, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries.

The plaintiffs expect the Justice Department to appeal. Justice spokesman Charles Miller did not immediately return a phone message Thursday.

"I would hope that Attorney General Gonzalez would save the U.S. public’s money and not try to further defend what is an unconstitutional statute," said lawyer John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which wrote a brief in the case.

"That money could better be used to help educate kids about Internet safety issues," he said.

The plaintiffs argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and a child’s age.

Reed concluded that filters have become highly effective and that the government – if it wants to protect children – could do more to promote or subsidize them.

The law addresses material accessed by children under 17, but only applies to content hosted in the United States.

The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. They also said the Justice Department could do more to enforce obscenity laws already on the books.

Judge Reed noted in his 83-page ruling that, since 2000, the Justice Department has initiated fewer than 20 prosecutions for obscenity that did not also involve other charges such as child pornography or attempts to have sex with minors.

While the government argued for the use of credit cards as a screening device, Reed concluded from the evidence that there is currently no accurate way to verify the age of Internet users. And he agreed that sites that require a credit-card to view certain pages would see a sharp drop-off in users.

The 1998 law followed the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress’ first attempt to regulate online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults’ rights.

COPA narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically.

"This is the second time Congress has tried this, and both times the courts have struck it down. I don’t see how Congress could write a constitutional statute," the ACLU’s Chris Hansen, a lead attorney on the case, said.

In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries to use software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003.

Joan Walsh, Salon.com’s editor-in-chief, said she was deposed at about the same time the magazine was deciding to publish photos of naked prisoners at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

"This law would have let any one of 93 U.S. attorneys … (say) our Abu Ghraib photos were harmful to minors, and the burden would have been on us to prove that they weren’t," Walsh said.

Somewhere, on this earth tonight, Barbara Nitke is celebrating….but I’ll hold my breath until Abu Gonzales loses the expected appeals to the higher courts.

Not so good news, though, is the final resolution of the Great Democratic Party Cave-In on funding the war in Iraq and any future adventures in Iran..and as before, Richard of American Leftist has the story:

The supplemental funding bill has cleared the House with exactly the number of votes required for passage:

The House of Representatives voted today, by the narrowest possible margin and after an unusually emotional debate, to set a timetable for bringing American troops home from Iraq.

The bill received 218 votes in favor, the minimum needed for passage in the 435-seat chamber. There were 212 votes opposed. The Democratic leadership held the voting open for two additional minutes past the originally scheduled 15 to lock up the majority. Vote-counters had predicted beforehand that the outcome would be very close.

 

Of course, the timetables are not binding upon the President, as he now has the funds to continue to do as he wishes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, even, when the mood strikes, Iran, assuming, of course, that they survive the Senate, which is doubtful.

Who made this victory for the proponents of perpetual war in the Middle East possible? It’s shocking, and should never be forgotten:

With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats were able to afford only 15 "no" votes. Accordingly, Pelosi, and her leadership team spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress’ best chance of forcing Bush to change course—an argument that was aided when they added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.

They got a breakthrough Thursday when four of the bill’s most consistent critics said they would not stand in its way. California Democrats Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it because it would not end the war immediately. "Despite my steadfast opposition, I have told the speaker that I will work with her to obtain the needed votes to pass the supplemental, but that in the end I must vote my conscience," said Rep. Diane Watson, D- Calif.

 

Is there any need to comment upon such self-serving personal and political expendiency? No doubt all four forcefully went about the task of persuading others to vote for the bill, because, if they failed, they would have then faced the prospect of drawing straws to determine who would be required to vote against their conscience for Pelosi. Rarely has there been such a compelling example of the much maligned situational ethics associated with some Californians.

Woolsey, Watson, Lee and Waters, the Gang of Four that rescued funding for the President’s wars in the Middle East, while keeping their own voting records scrupulously clean. The Iraqis and the Afghans will have to liberate themselves, as there is no prospect that the American political system will relinquish its grip upon their countries. A revolt within the US military is possible, probably more so as a consequence of this vote, but remote.

War with Iran is now a near certainty, as it provides an escape route for those who voted for this measure as well as those who only worked for its passage. Defeat of the bill was not only essential for the ongoing vitality of the antiwar movement in this country, as discussed here yesterday, but to also impair the ability of the President to expand the war. The Iranians, like the Iraqis and the Afghans, have been left to their own devices. We will have nothing to say about the decisions they make as to how to best defend themselves. No doubt the Gang of Four will express appropriate sentiments of sadness as violence in the Middle East intensifies as a consequence of their actions.

Naturally, much of the A-list liberal blogosphere has a slightly different view of the supplemental bill’s passage. Raw Story headlined their article of the bill’s passage "House Passes Iraq Pullout Bill" (conveniently ignoring that the "timetables" set were entirely voluntary and negotiable based on the word of Dubya…who has renewed his threat to veto the bill anyway as another "liberal cut-and-run" measure); and Chris Bowers of MyDD was waxing enthusiastic about the great victory of "progressives" (despite the shameful political ball-squeezing and heavy-handed tactics used by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to jerk those progressives wanting a more solid bill for pullout into line).

Problem is, this bill probably won’t even get to Dubya’s desk in its current form anyway for the veto, because the Senate (49 Republicans and Joe Lieberman) will more than likely gut even those weak "timetables" and force the Dems to accept a "clean" bill fully supporting and enabling Dubya’s war games….and I won’t even get into the atrocious surrender to the right-wing Israeli lobbyists in not including wordage seeking Congressional approval for any invasion of Iran..basically giving a green light to any such action. 

So much for progressive principles within the Democratic Party.  I guess that not even Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee can avoid the ultimate folly of attempting to reform a centrist (and rapidly rightward-tacking) party from within. The money and the power of the corporate warmongers are simply too great.

The only way for true "progressives" and legitimate Leftists to really change the Democratic Party is to get the fuck out and form a REAL Left independent party…or better yet, a real movement.  Cold-War liberalism just won’t cut it anymore.

 

Some Quick Hit Link Bytes For “Phat Sunday” (Before Fat Tuesday)

1) Oh, Nezua, Nezua, you magnificant SOB….how do you throw such potent bombs?? First, you lay out and whack the pretentousness of "WHITEPROGRESSIVES"; and then you dig from the archives a powerful interview with an old-school radical expatriarch on the current state of this country.  As if your Photoshopping game wasn’t prime enough…

2) Witness Chris Clarke of Creek Running North using the pages of Pandagon to thoroughly wax Americablog’s John Halitosis…errrrrrr…Aravosis…for his Custer-like crawfish act against the University of Illinois retiring their mascot due to NCAA and Native American pressure against offensive Indian-mocking mascots. Considering his act in joining the lynch mob against Cynthia McKinney last year, he’s fully earned it.

3) And speaking of the Panda(gon), the old "Bloggergate scandal" is finally beginning to wind down somewhat: Amanda decided to write a nice long piece for Salon.com moaning about the right-wing assault on her and Shakespeare’s Sister lead Melissa Ewen (P.S.: Spartacus Rocks!!) for joining John Edwards’s campaign staff. Not everyone was so convinced, though; both Dennis Perrin of Red State Son and Joe at American Leftist posted interesting rebuttals about how Amanda’s resignation affects the difference between liberals and Leftists amongst the blogosphere and beyond.

4) A special two gunned, middle finger salute to the fine folks who make up the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, who recently ruled to uphold Alabama’s ban on the sale of sex foys and other self-pleasure devices; quoting the lack of any "right to privacy" inherent in the US Constitution allowing such defiling of God’s law that sex should only be to procreate His babies.  (OK, they didn’t say that last part explicitly, but you do get the drift of their ruling.) Of course, weapons designed to kill and maim are still protected under the commerce clause. (For the moment, though, possessing dildos and vibrators are still legal….but for how long?)

5) Ahhhh, Violet Blue (the Tiny Nibbles sex blogatrix, NOT the porn starlet)….<sigh of lust>….how I love how you represent sex positive women…as in, this smackdown over at your regular San Francisco Chronicle/SFGate.com "Open Source Sex" column whacking your fellow journalists for their antiporn pretensions and biases on the Kink.com buyout of the SF Armory.  (And you openly ogling nekkid sex dolls [Warning: NSFW] doesn’t hurt my blood flow southward, either..if you catch me drift.)

6) Finally…..Hey, Britney: Pardon my French, but WTF has happened to you???  The cooch flashing and fake lesbian partying with Paris Hilton was kinda cute while it lasted….but shaving your head and getting a tat????  What’s that all about….you trying to hook up with Michael in the insane asylum???

OK, so it’s not like Fleshbot’s Wet Spots or Morning Wood columns…but I’m new at this.  Give me time to focus…;-)

ADDENDA: Elizabeth Wood over at Sex in the Public Square has an excellent riff on why recent attempts to "protect children from exposure to sex and/or sexual material" (read that to mean, exploit children to prosecute adults for having sex or viewing sexual material) is a very, very BAD idea.